< November 25	November 27 >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was Redirect→Fatality (Mortal Kombat). The redirect will be tagged with Template:R to list entry based on the consensus that the topic is insufficiently notable to support a stand-alone article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animality[edit]

Wikipedia is not a gameguide, nor does it allow for an in-universe repetition of gameplay information culled from the different Mortal Kombat games. It has no notability, and has no encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete game cruft, no encyclopedic content Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fatality (Mortal Kombat), which already has a section about this. Pinball22 (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per pinball22 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is encyclopedic content concerning an aspect of one of the most notable and popular game series in history and served as a major plot element of a major motion picture (the second film where Kang transforms into the dragon). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be mentioned in the plot of the movie article and in the gameplay section of the Mortal Kombat game articles, but that still doesn't assert its notability to have its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it appears in both the film and game, it has greater notability that if it just appeared in one or the other. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fatality (Mortal Kombat). Pagra shtak 18:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 00:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the list of Mortal Kombat-related deletions. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Keep arguments presented here do not address Wikipedia expectations for articles on fictional topics. Mango juice^talk 03:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mortal Kombat species[edit]

This is a non-notable list of the species of Mortal Kombat, and is thus a repetition of plot and gameplay information from the Mortal Kombat game articles. It is thus entirely duplicative and has no encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is important to the MK universe... --Dekabreak101 (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it needs reliable out of universe sourcing to show that its notable enough to be listed in Wikipedia. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles need to have real world context. This maybe very important to the context of the game universe, but it has no real world context at all. Ridernyc (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the topic completely fails to utilize secondary sources per WP:FICTION. As a result, it's merely a compilation of plot detail with no real-world context, which is a violation of WP:PLOT. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC) *Delete. No secondary sources, no evidence of notability. Does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagra shtak 15:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a discriminate and verifiable list with real-world notability of characters from one of the all-time most influential video game series that has been adapeted into toys, comics, and films. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Post a real world reference to establish that that is true. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The video game series is popular, but it does not permit a compilation of mere in-universe information. WP:NOT#PLOT states, "Summary descriptions of plot, characters, and settings are appropriate when paired with such real-world information, but not when they are the sole content of an article." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 15:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:Plot, WP:OR, WP:WAF, WP:FICT, WP:RS. Ridernyc (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Includes relation between in-game characters and real-world similarities, contains valid and useful information about elements of a highly popular video game franchise. Sources are in the form of the actual video games themselves. Not being a fan of the game or showing interest therein ≠ games utter lack of importance. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 06:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be true, but the video games are primary sources. According to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), "[F]ictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources." This article has no secondary sources, so there is nothing to prove notability in the article. Pagra shtak 13:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the list of Mortal Kombat-related deletions. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify in Mortal Kombat and Delete—Create a short list with one- or two-line descriptors in Mortal Kombat as a new section; sourcing such a list in the context of the larger article from Primary Sources is allowable if the overall article topic has been established as notable via Secondary Sources; this is an aspect of using Primary Sources for verifiability but not for notability. The arguments for retaining the article are WP:ILIKEIT-based (either primary or by proxy for fans) and don't hold up under the requirement to have real-world relevance supported by Secondary Sources. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Davewild 12:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Rebellion[edit]

This article is an in-universe repetition of plot points from the He-Man universe, and has no notability on its own. It is therefore entirely duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Hiding T 11:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overly generic title for non-notable subject. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. -RiverHockey (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Davewild 12:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of collaborative software[edit]

Indiscriminate list with no clear threshold for inclusion. ?Original research and doesn't seem encyclopaedic Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The concept of collaborative software is not original research. Given the descriptions and comparisons on the page, I think this article is highly encyclopedic and useful. I think more references could be added, however. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't see how this is somehow original research, given that the article is encyclopedic. Per Steve above, references could be added, but even the exclusion of that doesn't warrant a total page deletion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep An encyclopedic list and lists are acceptable articles in WP. Certainly not an indiscriminate collection as the inclusion criteria is exactly stated. Does the article need improvement? Of course. So improve it. Hmains (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a lot of lists on Wikipedia. I happen to find this one, along with others, pretty useful. -Christopher Kraus 02:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Davewild 12:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise social software[edit]

Marketing nonsense - seriously - does this make any sense to anyone? Oh, its also unsourced so presumably original research. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Pointless list. Hammer1980·^talk 23:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep seems to make sense to enough people as indicated by the number of edits and editors contributing.... notable article, needs improvement, list easily discriminates what is and is not on it. --Buridan (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: 1) could certainly stand to be re-written, but I'm not sure what the nom thinks it's marketing nonsense for, exactly; no particular product or service is advocated. 2) For those unaware, this article has a bit of a history; a previous AfD on a previous incarnation became the subject of a Harvard Business School case-study. 3) in what way does four references and a heap of outside links count as "unsourced"? -- phoebe/(talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Perfectly understandable, part of ongoing efforts to re-structure business and government organizations to make them more useful and responsive to their stakeholders. Well documented compared to many WP articles. Hmains (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, seems like an article could be written with reference to reliable sources, but the article needs to change from how it is currently.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, but references must be added. Davewild 12:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of social software[edit]

Indicrininate list with no clear threshold for inclusion. Unsourced so presumably original research and appears to lack encyclopaedic value. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Pointless list. Hammer1980·^talk 23:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reminds me of some of Diderot's lists of things, also uncited, but citable, and thus clearly encyclopedic, also this is a notable list of things to have. --Buridan (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A beginning of a useful and encyclopedic list and WP accepts lists as legitimate articles. Hardly indiscriminate: exact inclusion criteria is stated in the article. Can the article be improved. Of course. So improve it. Hmains (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is a great resource. It ought to be reorganised, not deleted. --Veeliam (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Veeliam, this list could be developed into a great resource. It is an impartent field that needs to be tracked on wikipedia. -- M.Breum, Berlin, Germany, 10:57, 2 December 2007 (CET+1)

Delete as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LINKFARM#LINK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opentag (talk • contribs) 19:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Metroid (series). Ryan Postlethwaite 22:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid Prime (creature)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article has no notability of its own, and so it is just an in-universe repetition of plot points from the three Metroid Prime game articles. It is entirely duplicative, and has no encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, as you can see from the last Article for Deletion nomination, the article was deleted, so it shouldn't have been recreated in the first place without the demonstration of lots of references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It went through a small deletion review, so it was brought back. TTN (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect/Delete - This is a non-notable character that needs little to no coverage on this site. Go with whichever one gets the most attention. TTN (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what little information (probably the Dark Samus bit) can fit in Metroid (series) with little issue, then Delete the article. I understand that the article's original deletion was overturned due to the lack of people involved in voting, but that doesn't make this article any less non-notable than before. Arrowned (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:Plot and a ton of other polices/guidelines. Ridernyc (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with much reluctance - only sign of notability a quick Google threw up was http://www.comicbookbin.com/Top_5_Female_Antagonists-003.html - if not deleted, I feel the article should probably be renamed to Dark Samus as any notability comes from that incarnation of the character, rather than the Metroid Prime incarnation, which is merely a final boss in a single video game, remarkable only for its reincarnation as Dark Samus. It's also not implausible that Dark Samus will develop further notability in future - in which case it should be revisited then. Rmsgrey (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've played the games Neither Metroid Prime, nor Dark Samus are very notable. Both of them can have very minor mentions in other articles. Ridernyc (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- MightyWarrior 17:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included on the talk page for WikiProject Nintendo. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The original research issues were not responded to, and the arguments to keep failed to address reason for nomination, which strongly suggests the reasoning for deletion is valid. Neil ☎ 10:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of rich Internet applications[edit]

Indiscriminate information with no threshold for inclusion lacking sources so is presumably original reasearch. Appears to lack encyclopaedic merit Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Pointless list. Hammer1980·^talk 23:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep 'Rich Internet application' is a precise kind of software. The inclusion criteria for this list is clear and the list is not indiscriminate. Lists are acceptable to WP. It would be helpful if the articles and their terms were first understood before trying to delete everything beyond the immediate knowledge of the nominator. Does the list need improvement? Of course. Improve it! Hmains (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Lack of sources? So do you really mean each entry should have a reference to prove that the application is a rich internet application? A bit overkill if you ask me. There are many similar lists like this on wikipedia so I do not see why this should be deleted. --Sleepyhead 18:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—This is not an indiscriminate list, that is certain. However, I skimmed through several of the list entries and the articles themselves do not self-describe the applications as being of this kind of software. That is a clear sign of original research on the part of the persons building the list: the list creators are interpreting the properties of the application and saying 'this belongs in the list' rather than the application self-describing as belonging to a class that is reflected by the list. The same problem crops up on categories as well, but in that case an editor of the article being categorized must push the article into the category; by contrast, articles are pulled into lists, and the burden of demonstrating proper inclusion rests on the person(s) creating the list. As I noted, that burden has not apparently been satisfied in the case of the present list. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Random, unsourced, red-linked list. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of web applications[edit]

Indiscriminate incomplete list without sources so is presumably original research. Appears to lack encyclopaedic merit. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly pointless list. As per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 23:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I had good intentions for this article, but it has gone nowhere after such a long period of time. I almost want to apologize for creating it. :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:LIST. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete - Even ignoring the apparent sock and/or meatpuppetry, the arguments in favor of keeping seemed to mostly boil down to WP:USEFUL. While there are other comparison lists of software, the problem is that hardly any of these seem to be notable.—Random832 20:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of GTD software[edit]

Indiscriminate list. No clear basis for inclusion. Unsourced and presumably original research. onerous to maintain and doesn't appear to serve an encyclopaedic function. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded Shahar Goldin (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep looks encyclopedic and notable to me, just needs citations. improvement is not a reason for deletion unless it can't be improved. here, all they need to do is cite the product descriptions. --Buridan (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please keep it. I'm glad I found it, and will be happy to help improve it. But: I don't see why it's called GTD comparison. It should rather be called "time management software comparison". Implementation of GTD principles could be one parameter in the list, for those who care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.119.127 (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Please! Is very useful. May not *yet* be encyclopedic, but is certainly a good start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.221.14 (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I was looking for "comparison of GTD software" and this article has made a start. It can also refer to this GTDSoftware list on another wiki. --sabre23t (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep There are plenty of comparison lists, software and otherwise on Wikipedia. Useful resource for especially for people just getting started with GTD and looking for tooling to support them. Could do with a tidy up tho... ShaneNZ (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep It's useful. Should be a candidate for improvement - not deletion. --neverflake

keep This article fulfills a function that no other location in the world even comes close to fulfilling. This is bar none the best list of GTD friendly software on the web. I'm certain a significant amount of traffic runs through this page. The content could be improved reasonably easily by adding a half dozen columns which identify critical components of the GTD system, (such as processing and "next steps") and then contacting the owners of each product and requesting that they update their row accordingly to indicate in each column the level of support their product has. Owners that don't update their row will be left with empty values in these columns, and then after a few weeks any product with these columns empty can be deleted. This quickly distributes the burden, adds more value to the article, and abbreviates the list. As for documentation, I think it's self documenting. Each row points to a web site where the product mentioned can be found, thereby documenting the assertions about the product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.125.55 (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Important resource, should be expanded. Many encyclopedic articles contain lists; it's the most effective way to communicate comparative information. Let's expand the article by adding a text discussion of general groups, methodologies, and philosophies employed by GTD-like software, including trends over time. Table should appear first for quick reference and summary. Add a timeline. I think it would be a mistake to add general time management software here. Create or link to a separate, parent article for that, because GTD-like software is a phenomenon in its own right that is receiving focused attention. Lumping everything together would make the article huge and hard to digest. Kcren 16:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOCK (see above). _{But actually because it's an indiscriminate list.} Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me and my 5 puppets say delete as a "bunch of software" list. SkierRMH (talk) 08:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—I did a revision job on column 1 of the table that dominates this article so that I could see which applications had articles and which did not. Of those that do have articles, none of them mention GTD let alone being particularly useful for conducting formalized GTD. This absence of mentions of the classification that holds this list article together is a hallmark of original research. Regardless how utile the content is, being excluded from Wikipedia does not reduce its utility; it just means you need to find another place to host it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chase me ladies. -Carados 17:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of personal information managers[edit]

indiscriminate list of information. What is this list actually for? Unsourced and presumably original reasearch Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't see the whole being greater than the sum of the indiscriminately collected parts (is GPE Palmtop Environment PIM not included because it fails to meet some criterion for inclusion, what is the criterion for inclusion? What is this here for?) Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment—Lists are often incomplete; that is what Template:Expand list and Template:dynamic list are for. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's nothing indiscriminate about it- it lists PIMs and gives information about them. The article should be kept and expanded. Lurker (said · done) 18:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of xy are an important part of the wikipedia experience for me. Consider a situation when I know the name of three distinct PIM-systems and I am looking for their main competitors. With the help of lists like this one I can find them easily. I'd be grateful if the list is kept, expanded and if the community looks after it to maintain it's quality. Oltsw 15:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—This is not an indiscriminate list of information. Unlike some of the other lists that were nominated on 26 November, at least this one has the potential for being populated by articles that self-describe/self-categorize as PIM applications (based on spot-checks of articles and the existence of Category:Personal information managers). The content over-reaches the strict boundaries of PIM self-description and the information in the table needs to appear in the respective articles (sourced) prior to inclusion here, but these are content issues and should not contribute to consideration of whether or not to keep the article per se. Categorization alone is insufficient as the information in the table is not easily reproduced in category form. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep— This is an invaluable list, if you can find a similar, current list on the web then deleting this list *might* be arguable but identifying, telling about, and being able to sort a list of PIMs is supremely useful. -Gaiko --58.147.133.10 (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)--58.147.133.10 (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is useful. User:cooltobekind 18:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect→Fatality (Mortal Kombat)#Variations—The redirect will be tagged with Template:R to list entry, thus indicating the topic is insufficiently notable for inclusion as a stand-alone article. During a due diligence search of the web to look for supporting material for notability, I found a couple of reasonable links for inclusion in support of verifiability, which will also be added to the target article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friendship (Mortal Kombat)[edit]

The article has no notability, and as such is repetition of the gameplay sections of several Mortal Kombat games that already cover this. As such, it is entirely duplicative and unnecessary. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete game cruft, no evidence of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fatality (Mortal Kombat), where this is already mentioned. Pinball22 (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pinball22 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and verifiable aspect of one of the most notable game series of all time. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it notable? There is not one real world assertion of notability, and it would need many to sustain a whole article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Millions of people saw the Johnny Cage friendship in the first movie and millions of people around the world have executed friendships while playing the games. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So basically what you said is that the games are notable, the movies are notable, and that people play games and watch movies, but that still doesn't make friendships, which is simply a gameplay mechanic from the series deserve its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friendship are innovative concept introduced by the series that made fatalities an aspects of game play that other games would similarly use. The concept was significant enough to be used in a major motion picture as well. As we are not a paper encyclopedia and as we don't want to turn away volunteer editors, we should not be stingy on factually accurate and coherently presented material. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how do we know any of that is factually accurate? How do we know that is as influential as you say? Without references, its just your word, and its not self evident, so it has to be considered just your opinion. Either find references or realize it isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Millions of game players and movie watchers can attest to its factual accuracy and notability. Type Friendship and Mortal Kombat on a search engine and you'll be able to see numerous pictures and videos of these things. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That only proves that the fighting technique exists and that people saw the movies, not that its notable and deserves its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large numbers of websites on the topic has to indicate some degree of notability. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only development type information would prove notability, and if they are just fan sites they dont count. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game magazines can also verify friendships as mentionables. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please list them here and when they were mentioned so we can all be enlightened. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look through old copies of Tips & Tricks for example when Mortal Kombat II game out. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And will that explain how this idea originated, or provide a developers perspective on it? Will it actually add anything encyclopedic to the article? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do a search to see if Boon or Tobias mention them in interviews, perhaps. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this article has no redeming features. Firstly, it has no primary sources, so trying to verify its content will be like looking for a pin in a haystack. Secondly, it has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world notability. Lastly it has no encyclopedic content, as it primarily plot summary with a heavy in universe perspective. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fatality (Mortal Kombat) Pagra shtak 18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pinball22 and others. Rray (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Bearian (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next Liberal Party of Australia leadership election[edit]

Non-notable transfer of power - this sort of thing happens to defeated governments every election. Orderinchaos 23:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: article has undergone major changes since nomination; see nominated version for context. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: article moved during AFD; new title is Liberal Party of Australia leadership election, 2007. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually, this is quite notable, as I suspect many Australians will be following the procedures and the candidates, and the ongoing event tag is quite appropriate. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The transfer of power is actually quite notable, but not in a way that merits a separate article. It's a part of the fallout from the campaign. In any case, they'll be choosing a new leader well before Christmas, possibly as early as the first week of December, so the life of the article is extremely short. Get rid of it and incorporate its contents into other relevant articles. (Later comment: There have been probably hundreds of such post-election party elections in Australia; do we want an article about all of them? If yes, who's going to do the work? If not, how can we justify one out of hundreds?) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with an appropriate article. Useful information, but not deserving of a separate article. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 23:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC) After the changes, i've changed my mind, Keep. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 08:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, let's keep the article as is for now, and when the new leader is chosen just rename the article after him and delete the redirect created by the page move. Okay, that's not the best idea I've ever had... --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Every one of the candidates has a comprehensive article - they've all been senior ministers in the outgoing government. Orderinchaos 23:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't really see any harm in the article. It's not spam or original research. Andjam (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- yes, this happens to defeated governments after every election, but why should Canada, Ireland, Japan and the United Kingdom regularily have articles on this (see Leadership election) while Australia should not? —Nightstallion 23:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a news item, not an encyclopaedia article. See WP:NOT#NEWS. Relevant information can be quite easily covered in the relevant biographies and in the Liberal Party of Australia. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Jack of OZ's and OrderInChaos'scomments and because wikipedia is not wikinews! (noting edit conflict with MattInBgn = same opinion --Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle ^talk 00:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The claim that this falls under "Wikipedia is not Wikinews" is quite obviously wrong, IMO -- we've got twenty-something articles on leadership elections in political parties. —Nightstallion 00:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - see WP:WAX - Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Also from Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability: If editors fear that an article is being unfairly nominated for deletion, their arguments will carry more weight if they are couched in the notability guidelines or the relevant deletion precedent. How does this article deal with the issue that inclusion of the subject matter in the articles on the Liberal Party and the candidates will not - I don't see the need for a separate article and am unconvinced by the fact that similar articles exist elsewhere. This topic is unlikely to be article worthy in the future - ie it is a current event from which everybody will move on and only the fallout will be worthy - ie who the leader is and who missed out and that should be dealt with in the articles of those persons.--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle ^talk 00:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Nightstallion, or at the most smerge. This is a little different to many such relections in that the outgoing leader publicly endorsed a successor (Costello) whom everyone already expected would become the next leader, only for Costello to announce he wasn't standing. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and rename to 2007 Liberal Party of Australia leadership election. Important event with plenty of sources and with precedents in other countries. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the rename: It should be Liberal Party of Australia leadership election, 2007, if it takes place this year. —Nightstallion 00:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - if it stays a single paragraph non-event, we can merge later on. If it gets to be a bigger story, no point merging it now then realising we have to split it out again later on. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - BTW, the counter examples of Canada and UK aren't necessarily relevant because they often have delegates from around the country, not closed party meetings. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Actualy the main UK parties now ultimately elect their leaders through postal ballots (albeit with different rules on apportionment, candidate nomination and even prelimnary rounds to cut down the candidates with just MPs voting). However both major parties and the Liberals used to have MP only leadership elections (and the Liberal Democrats currently have an MP only election for the deputy leader) and we have articles on Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1965, Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1975, Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1989, Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1990, Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1995, Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1997, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1922, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1935, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1955, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1960, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1961, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1963, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1976, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1980, Liberal Party (UK) leadership election, 1967, Liberal Democrats deputy leadership election, 2003 and Liberal Democrats deputy leadership election, 2006. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now A leadership election for a major party in the Westminster System is often not just chosing someone to head the party in the House but about selecting a de facto Prime Ministerial candidate - why they were chosen (and how decisively) to head their party is encyclopedic. Leadership elections can often be key moments that determine the direction a party will take as well, whilst also often generating a mixture of deals and resentment that linger in the party. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You do realise the sort of useful information you're talking about will never be made publicly available? Unless there's a leak - and the parties always officially deny such leaked results - we will never know by what majority they became leader, or what reasons were given. May be different in other countries but the above is definitely the case in Australia. Orderinchaos 02:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Timeshift (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emphatic Delete. In default of violent conflict (:-)), only the outcome is of potential notability and surely the only place in which to record this is in the Libs' ongoing list of federal leaders. Motivations, relevant personality and/or policy issues, etc, can be enshrined in articles on noteworthy persons, if any. Bjenks (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and many others. Many examples of "similar" articles have been provided. I would favour deletion of many of those examples also, but this case is even less article-worthy, as Orderinchaos points out. Even if the election were conducted publically, however, the fact is better documented in other articles than depicted as a stand-alone event. JPD (talk) 10:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand to cover the National Party of Australia leadership election as they are pretty permament coalition partners and the Liberal party deputy leadership election which are both also taking place. Leadership elections are studied for the effect they have on parties policies, personalities and electoral fortunes. Contested leadership elections for major political parties can generate plenty of comment and will be analysed by political historians for a substantial period. This leadership election clearly meets any notability criteria that has ever been drawn up and as for the WP:NOT#NEWS argument -this clearly states that 'topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial' and a quick google search already show substantial sources are available. Davewild (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have expanded the article somewhat to demonstrate its potential, with plenty of potential for more expansion and would hope people would take another look at the article. It clearly needs to be moved to Liberal Party of Australia leadership election, 2007 but am reluctant to do it during this AFD. Davewild (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done Davewild. This makes my strong keep even stronger and I hope make some people who have voted delete to change their mind. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even though I've voted to delete the article, I've just made some edits to it in case we decide to keep it. I've made the point that under Lib Party rules (and I think the ALP has a similar rule), after every general election all leadership positions are always declared vacant. Even if Howard had been returned with an increased majority and a 20% swing in his favour, this election would still be happening. In that sense, there's nothing particularly special about this election. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the election would almost certainly have not been contested in that circumstance and would not have received the substantial coverage in reliable sources which is what establishes notability. Davewild (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this competition, and its outcome, will likely determine the political direction of the country substantially in the future. The title definitely needs to be changed though, as per Davewild above me. Lankiveil (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: I've moved the article, hope that's okay. —Nightstallion 13:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Okay by me. We just need to speedy delete the redirect once we've decided the fate of the article itself. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 16:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, no problem -- if noone else does it, I'll do it then. —Nightstallion 16:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is clearly a notable event, and I can't think of anything which it could be merged into. As it stands, the article is actually pretty good and well worth keeping. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect→Australian federal election, 2007#Post-election—In reading the commentary above, it is clear from all parties (no pun intended) that the notability of the events related in the article are inextricably tied to the Australian federal election, 2007 and that the outcome of the Liberal Party internal election is notable but that the process for achieving that outcome is transient, mundane and not particularly notable. Therefore, I would argue that the internal post-election election (poor wording) should be confined to a subsection of the Federal election article rather than having its own article. As it stands, the Federal election article does not cross-reference this article up for deletion; I will rectify that momentarily. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any salient and sourced information into the article on the 2007 election, then Delete. _Jame§^ugrono 06:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Nominator withdrawn (leaning toward keep) with "in-universe" still an issue (& so tagged). SkierRMH (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strogg[edit]

This article asserts no notability, and is thus an in-universe repetition of plot points from the various Quake games plot sections. It is entirely duplicative, and doesn't need its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 22:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep. The Strogg are the chief antagonist of the massively popular Quake game series, particularly Quake II, Quake 4, and the new game just released recently, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, which is doing extremely well. The notability of this subject cannot really be in question (which would be a valid issue for an AfD); it clearly is notable. That the article does not assert its own notability is a valid issue which should be corrected, but is not a reasonable criterion for deletion here -- the obvious solution is simply to include references (what would they be, by the way, just links to the idsoftware.com site indicating that they're the bad guys)? There are commonalities between this ~~site~~ article and the other Quake-related ~~sites~~ articles, but that's not a bad thing; this article isn't purely repetitious if you're familiar with the series. Xihr (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, game related websites would not count; you wouldn need creator commentary, demonstration of fan reaction to the Strogg, the design or creation process, stuff like that, only then could the Strogg be said to be notable in an encyclopedic sense. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course those things exist, and you have to know that, so you're essentially admitting that the AfD is unwarranted. (If you know so little about the Quake universe, you should have stayed away from the AfD.) P.S., Are you going to bicker with every single keep vote that gets made in one of your AfD nominations? Xihr (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article for deletion process is a discussion and an opportunity to assert notability or the lack thereof. And if a good number of reliable out of universe sources exist, please post them here so I can withdraw my deletion and we can make a good article, but if you can't, please acknowledge that it indeed has no notability, which would make sense as it has shown none so far. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources such as this, this, this and this? I alluded to this in the Doom enemies AFD, but how can you possible support Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series whilst nominating other such lists for deletion. It seems to say that "in-universe repetition of plot points" is fine, if its sandwiched between some generalised character creation and reception paragraphs. - hahnch e n 00:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Eurogamer article is pretty strong, but that makes me feel that a "development of doom" or "universe of Doom" article could use this information, but not necessarily its own article. I think we should look for a merge target for this information. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice goalpost shift. Xihr (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am being honest! It shows the topic has some notability instead of none. However, I would love to withdraw the whole thing and keep it as is, with the new references added of course, if we could just establish a bit more notability for it, maybe like reaction of reviewers at IGN and other development stuff. Otherwise, I think I'll just withdraw it and start a merge. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for references in order to withdraw the AfD. After given four, they're still not enough, and you want more. That's a goalpost shift. Further, your hypocrisy on these matters as demonstrated by User:Hahnchen with respect to the Castlevania article -- in which it is impossible to assert more notability than a vastly more popular Quake-related article -- makes it awfully hard to maintain the assumption of good faith here; you appear to have an agenda. Xihr 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, just stop the crying and the name calling, it is unseemly. I will say yet again, some notability has been established, so it should be merged, not deleted. I would ask you instead of making accusations, take a moment and get a few more references, and we can close this happily as a notable article. Judgesurreal777 22:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been given more than enough satisfactory references. They weren't enough. So why bother? Xihr 01:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You have changed my mind, I don't think this article should be deleted any more, that is a lot! As you seem to be very good at finding references for this, I'd just thought it would be good to get a few more so we can keep the article as is, and not merge it. That's all, if that's going to cause trauma, I guess we'll try to pick a merger target. Judgesurreal777 03:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I think you, not being a new user, would know by now that four good references does not make a whole article, we need a bit more. I guess we can take this discussion outside of AFD, but I thought we would like to help build up this article.

Calling an AfD on the basis of notability means that the notability of the article is in question. I've already pointed out why it clearly cannot be, and why an AfD is inappropriate -- and your involvement with Castlevania-related AfDs seems to confirm that you know this. You're even half-granting the point, so you're just looking for excuses not to withdraw your AfD at this point (which, by the looks of it, will very likely fail anyway). So by all means, keep pushing forward and asking for ever more references, even as they're given, but this is all just gamesmanship. Xihr 07:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was very much in question until you provided references, and as you will see below, I have withdrawn the AFD. In the future, I would recommend reading what I have typed, as you continue to repeat the same things over and over that have no relation to what I have already said. Judgesurreal777 08:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judgesurreal777 03:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability and reliable references demonstrated by hahnchen. It is long enough to need its own article. In-universe style could use editing, but not deletion. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with these criteria one should try suggest the deletion of the Klingon page. Duplication only is a criteria when an entire page is duplicated, not when bits of information are collected into a new consistent whole. Wikimam 16:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATOR WITHDRAWING - Notability, in at least a limited fashion, has been established, which was the reason for this AFD. Judgesurreal777 03:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of the withdrawal by the nom, plus any of the content concerns are just ((sofixit)) matters. RFerreira 07:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. If someone really really wants the material for a merge into Strogg, let me know, but with no references whatsoever, I wouldn't advise merging. Neil ☎ 10:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stroyent[edit]

The article has no notability, and is therefore an in-universe repetition of plot elements from various Quake video games. It is entirely duplicative and therefore lacks encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 22:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stroyent is a fundamental concept of the very popular [[Quake (series)|Quake] series, in particular Quake 4 and Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. The notability of the article is self-evident given the massive popularity of the series. Xihr (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, as notability is not inherited. For example, just because Master Chief (Halo) is notable, an article on Master Chief's toe nails would not be just because he's famous. This article needs to prove that it too is notable on its own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument. Xihr (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found this article very useful for further clarification on a key and central topic for the Quake universe. User talk: Skullmush. November 26, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.228.81 (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Useful" isn't a reason to keep an unencyclopedic article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in this article establishes real-world notability, and there is no out-of-universe information. This article does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagra shtak 21:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge→Strogg—The topic is intimately related to the Strogg. As Strogg recently eluded deletion and the nominator considered notability established, this merger would seem a logical by-product of that article's retention. Further, I do agree with the notions presented by those arguing for deletion that the lack of referral by secondary sources in content focused on the topic is a fatal flaw for fictional items such as this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a merger would be in order, but it would be very good for this article to assert its notability. Judgesurreal777 04:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Neil ☎ 10:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quad damage[edit]

The article is simply a lengthy repetition of gameplay elements from the Quake games and asserts no notability outside of the game. It is thus duplicative and lacking in encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 22:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my previous nom. User:Krator (t c) 00:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify there's already a dab section on the article. And it's a dicdef masquerading as a Quake article right now. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split-to-Merge and Dabify—The material related to Quake should go into Quake (series) as the seed for a new section entitled something like "Common elements". Thereafter, the article should be converted to a standard disambiguation page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pagra shtak 15:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to BFG9000. Done. Neil ☎ 10:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BFG10K[edit]

This article asserts no notability, and is thus an in-universe repetition of bits of the plot and gameplay sections of several Quake articles. It is entirely duplicative and has no encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 22:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BFG 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with BFG9000 EvilCouch (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with BFG9000. That weapon is more notable, despite both being MFG by ID Software.--WaltCip 15:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge→Quake (series) into a new section, as suggested in another Quake-related AFD, entitled something like "Common elements". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slipgate[edit]

This article is an in-universe stub that asserts no notability, and is such a brief repetition of gameplay sections of several Quake game articles. It is therefore entirely duplicative and has no encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a signficant part of Quake and is prominent as Enemy Territory: Quake Wars (as it's a major part of a map there), but there's really not much more to say about it than what's already mentioned in the articles on those subjects. It's notable but it's already covered in the other articles and there's not much more to say about it; a redirect will be sufficient. Xihr (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are other fiction that use "slipgates" and they would be better served with this deleted. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Realm[edit]

The article is an in-universe repetition of the plot sections of several Legend of Zelda articles, and has no encyclopedic content to speak of due to its lack of notability. As such, it is unreferenced and entirely duplicative of the information already in the game articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hyrule... or a Universe of The Legend of Zelda series-type article might be more appropriate, but I can't see something such as this ever attaining more than a few sources, it's too obscure. Haipa Doragon (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are many places where Sacred Realm is used, some of them not fiction, and they would be better served with this deleted. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, might as well, it seems every other Zelda article is being deleting. Soon we'll only have one article for LoZ, because everything else will be 'non-notable' :(. Knowitall (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh stop whining, do you know how much effort it people to took to keep Link (Legend of Zelda) at Featured article status Twice? There are several non-game Zelda articles that will be featured over time, and a host of stubby ones that don't have a future, but that's not our fault. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems like everything is being deleted. Bulbasaur was a featured article. The deletionist's deleted so much from it that it's practically a stub now. It can't even get a nomination to be a "good article". I wouldn't be surprised if it lost it's article soon and got merged into a generic "list of pokemon".Knowitall (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbasaur is a weird case; I remember when it was nominated to be featured and what a nasty fight that was, but I supported it. As to whether it is now meets notability guidelines I don't know, but I am staying away from that debate until I have an opinion. This article however, doesn't have notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, most of the info is inappraite for wikipedia, all of this seems just like a plot summary of the games, which the game page is where that goes.→041744 13:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep—The general consensus is that the topic is notable. There remains a dispute over what form the notable information should be in: a stand-alone article, a redirect to another already extant article containing the material (e.g. merge), or creation of a new umbrella article for which this would be a sub-topic. This means that we are now in 'content dispute' territory. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proton pack[edit]

The article already has all its notable information at the Ghostbusters (franchise) article, and does not have enough notability to stand on its own, as there are very few out of universe information sources for it. As such, it is just a duplication of the other article and is unnecessary. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Real-world information is available. The toys based on this prop were tremendously popular [1], and the article already contains some "making-of" information, which could probably be sourced to books like this. Zagalejo^^^ 04:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I agree that it is notable to a limited extent, but this can still be deleted as all the notable information is already in the other article, and there isn't enought referencing to justify a whole article just to this. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much content would you require for an independent article? Zagalejo^^^ 06:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The info about proton packs in Ghostbusters (franchise) is little and mixed with other matter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that's all its going to be, as a full article would need lots of references, enough to fill out a development section and a reaction section, and the few that it has justifies its presence in the mother article not one of its own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're judging the article on the references it currently has. Other references could potentially be added to this article; we need to focus our discussion on those. In addition to what I mentioned above, there are the following (not available for free online):

Rachel Porter. "Toys were us". The (London) Express. 22 September 2005. (lists the Proton Pack as Toys R Us' most popular product of 1988)
"Briefly put..." The Roanoake Times. 31 October 2003. (about a young man who was arrested at a Florida airport for wearing a home made Proton Pack)
Ted Delaney. "Ads often make us feel like babes in toyland". Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph. 24 December 1988. (about the difficulty of finding a Proton Pack in toystores)

There's probably more, if I keep looking Zagalejo^^^ 20:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Ghostbusters (franchise) 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New Article It'd be best to have one large page that goes over all the equipment (Packs, traps, PKE meter, Giga meter, containment unit, etc) Dr. Stantz 29 November 2007
Strong keep. it does have notability, and has some pop culture status. this should be kept. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, it would be great if any of the Keepers would actually read this discussion, because I have not argued that this article has no notability, I have said it doesn't have enough notability to have its own article, and all of this material is already in the Ghostbusters franchise article, so this can be safely deleted, as we don't need the same information in two places. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite; there's a good amount of info in this article that's not in the other, and there's more information about the proton pack that could be added here. You could argue for a merge, I suupose, but that wouldn't require deletion tools. Zagalejo^^^ 01:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedied. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conor regan[edit]

Delete notability asserted. but no evidence whatsoever Mayalld (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

article was speedied during the nomination process Mayalld (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Marley[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable model, unreferenced, reads like an ad. Dougie WII (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I speedy deleted it before you added the template! Deb (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It asserted some importance, I will undelete so the AFD can run. --W.marsh 22:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely must be an ad, website linked to appears to be a paid porn site. -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11 (spam). Although I would support a stub that contains no reference whatsoever to these pay sites. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Spam.Hammer1980·^talk 22:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:SPAM. Tiptoety (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No Consensus. The strength of the delete arguments is stronger that the Keep arguments, but with a !vote of 5-3, there is no way I can close this as delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hendley Associates[edit]

Article fails to show real-world notability. Hammer1980·^talk 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There numerous other articles on fictional intelligence agencies. "Hendley Associates" is a part of the plot of the novel The Teeth of the Tiger, which is a notable book. -- Voldemore (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, we know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in-universe article is mostly plot summary already covered in the book article. Fails WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Disagree with Dhartung. This organization isn't covered as detailed enough in the book article. -- Thefreemarket (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is significant data in this article and relatively none in the Jack Ryan page or Teeth of the Tiger page. If it is to be deleted, ALL information should be incorporated into other pages.Wikistoriographer (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Wikistoriographer's point. -- Reid1967 17:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is an inappropriate article on a plot element of a single book, reflecting absolutely no outside importance per WP:FICT. Admittedly, as the three comments above note, there is not much plot synopsis in Teeth of the Tiger. However, that isn't fixed by going into this extreme level of detail on one element of the story. Merging is not a good idea; hardly any of the info in this article would even be useful in writing an appropriate plot summary. Mango juice^talk 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I completely disagree with User:Mangojuice. Nothing remotely inappropriate about the article. The subject matter is a major aspect of the book's plot. In fact, it IS the book's plot. -- Deaniack 19:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sure hope the book's plot isn't the contents of this article: there's no story described there! Regardless, you may find it notable but that doesn't counterargue against Wikipedia official guidelines lik WP:FICT. Mango juice^talk 06:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been listed with WikiProject Novels --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete—This group might have a significant fan following, but they appear to be part of an amateur musical movement that, as of yet, has not led them to recognition outside of their fan base and that of the dōjin-related music genre. No prejudice for re-creation with reliable sources that reflect broader recognition (whether those sources are in Japanese, English or some other language). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MintJam[edit]

Non-notable Japanese band. Seeing some proliferation of associated articles about individual albums, they should be considered for deletion as well based on the same. Avruch ^Talk 22:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're one of the most prolific doujin bands out there, who have actually released a few actual game soundtracks as well. Why are they not notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.225.67.65 (talk) 15:40, 21 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, Davewild (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Nothing really shows notability in the article.Hammer1980·^talk 23:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete From what I've heard, they're more notable than this article does justice to. Having said that, the article does not particularly seem to assert that notability, if indeed it exists, and I can't really expand the article from Japanese sources, so I have to vote delete on this one. If some of the stuff in the lead/major part of the article were expanded, it might be notable, but I can't tell if that's possible currently, let alone do it with my current knowledge of Japanese (ie. zilch). Would be willing to reconsider if notability is expanded upon. Cheers, CP 05:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just want to point out the Japanese Wiki has less information, yet its not opted for deletion >.> Also I believe it has valuable information for fans of the Doujin Music scene, as it does list all released albums —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.97.245 (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW SkierRMH (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race and sport[edit]

This is clearly original research and has racist undertones. Identical content has previously been PRODed from Sport and Race. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. No need to address the other (numerous) issues that are making a mess of this article. Frankly, I am surprised I can't find an appropriate CSD criterion for it. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 21:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original essay. I tried to find a CSD for this the first time it came up, but it went as a prod. Acroterion _(talk) 21:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not much here, and could turn into a lightningrod. DJ Creamity (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced OR (explicitly: "through research, I have found out that ..."). --Paularblaster (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and the additional catalog of stereotypes just added to the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete OR non notable, well covered in other articles, and not even worthy of a merge. This is probably a joke.YVNP (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete As per nom. Looks like a 'fishing trip' essay to provoke trouble. Hammer1980·^talk 23:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously OR. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 01:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Center Tagumpay ng Katotohanan (Triumph of Truth)[edit]

Not notable, OR, smells of copyvio. "Center Tagumpay ng Katotohanan" -wikipedia Google search gives 10 hits, all Wikipedia mirrors. Makes outrageous claims "More than a million individuals (members and non members) have been directly treated, operated and healed by Archangel Raphael, [1] together with Archangel Michael, for free." Cricketgirl (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. DJ Creamity (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Any chance of tagging it for speedy? --Paularblaster (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 23:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are lots of cults that have that outrageous claim.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit/merge. The spiritist religions in the Philippines is a legitimate topic. The problem is that this article was so poorly organized and written that it is hard to even determine its relevance. Take a look at the new religious movements in Japan as an example of a short article format that could be a model for spiritist movements in the Philippines. The is also another spiritist religion article, Unión Espiritista Cristiana de Filipinas, Inc. that this article could be merged into. Vontrotta (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at the very least merge with Unión Espiritista Cristiana de Filipinas, Inc. It is difficult to tell if this subject is notable or not since the article is so unclear. Under normal circumstances I would vote to keep and improve, but this article appears to be the pet project of one editor who will revert (or at least work against) improvements to the article. I tired editing this article at the end of August and was quickly reverted by user Espiritista. This user seems to only edit these two pages and I suspect does not fully understand Wikipedia's standards. I applaud Vontrotta for having the endurance to consistently work on and clean these two articles, but I suspect that this one is a lost cause. Sbacle (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was a weak keep. The references added by Ceyockey help, but it's still pretty thin.--Kubigula (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colt David[edit]

Does not seem to be notable. thisisace (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep David is pretty well known in the Collegiate Football circle's, better safe than sorry. DJ Creamity (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. When a kicker beats a record for the most field goals in a season, it usually reflects the fact his team gives him a lot of opportunities (i.e. inability to score touchdowns). Still, he does the job, and that makes him notable enough. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without references. If references added them Weak keep.Hammer1980·^talk 23:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep—Apparently an up-and-coming college kicker with at least one primary news article and additional incidental references (I have added one of each to the article). My feeling is that this person barely scrapes past the notability threshold as "one for the record books". If he is drafted to professional sports, I would feel better about the keep. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — He's an up-and-coming player who will no doubt be the subject of several news reports in the future, and is a key part of one of the teams competing for this year's college football national championship. Imagine if this were an article about a character in a popular television show. It'd be notable then, and as college football is one of the consistently most popular things on American television today, and as LSU is one of the more prominent teams in college football, it only makes sense to have articles for their players. Precedence has been established in the past, and all this article needs is a little expansion. JKBrooks85 00:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of College Football articles being considered for deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect per consensus. May at some future date need to be a disambiguation page, but not as yet (closed by non-admin). RMHED 19:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Park School[edit]

This article was prodded as "Non-notable school which wasn't even in existence for very long. Unreferenced" Since I was reminded that schools are always tricky, I put this here to generate a consensus. Tone 21:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hutchesons' Grammar School --TexasDex ★ 21:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to Hutchesons' Grammar School seems to be the best idea. Jacek Kendysz 23:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. —Jacek Kendysz 23:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A redirect does not work here since this is a very common name for schools. A redirect would lead many readers to the wrong article and that needs to be avoided. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect→Hutchesons' Grammar School—Vegaswikian is correct in noting that there are other schools of the same name (confirmed by a quick Google search), but the need for disambiguation is not supported by the "what links here" for this article title nor an internal search for the phrase. Should additional school articles be added that result in a name conflict, the Laurel Park School redirect can be converted to a disambiguation page easily enough. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Davewild 12:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict Glaister[edit]

The whole article is based on paper sources which can not be verified: neither the paper sources titles nor the article subject can be fetched through Google. Cross-references in other articles have been added by the author. The general terminology sounds more like an hoax than like facts. Raistlin (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like a hoax, but even if everything were true, he would still fail WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the hoax .. no hits in Google (except wiki mirrors) and nothing in books. DJ Creamity (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Best hoax I've seen so far. The books don't even turn up on the British Library catalogue; the article, far from asserting notability, asserts "his exploits remain unknown or unpublished"! --Paularblaster (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the latter was exactly my point in proposing a speedy, but let's do it as a full-optionals AfD... --Raistlin (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the books do come up in the british libary cat. i understand that you are trying to protect wiki, but in doing this i think you are losing alot of valued articles. this is not a hoax and i would read more into it. thankyou Lady234 19:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, one of the papers is listed in my university library. It would seem to be cartographical information though, so I don't think it will be much help here. I have my doubts about the veracity of the information. That being said, we cannot delete something because it does not use web sources, quite the opposite. Finding the books used referenced though, is proving troublesome. To be honest, I think deletion is a better course of action at the moment. Woodym555 20:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. BLACKKITE 01:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Association of Couples and Family Therapy[edit]

Non-notable organization. Org's website, aacft.org, gives the impression of having been recently and hurriedly set up. I can find no mention of the organization by full title elsewhere on the internet or by searching on "aacft.org -wikipedia". While Google isn't all, you would expect an organization that is supposed to be all about web communication to have a slightly greater presence if they were in anyway effective. In any case, there do not appear to be any independent sources to verify this is anything other than one person's pet project, or that any significant number of therapists (or any at all even) have anything to do with it. All edits of the creator, appear to be to promote this and other websites registered to the same person, indicating that it was probably written as advertising. Prod was deleted without comment. SiobhanHansa 21:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability, reads like advertising copy, contains no encyclopedic material. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Dhartung. Hammer1980·^talk 23:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Neil ☎ 10:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seekda[edit]

This article got deleted a couple of times in the process of creation, citing A7 and G11. This was largely improved in fact so a deletion review was filled. There were some suggestions to afd the article instead in order to generate a wider consensus. So here we go. --Tone 20:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Tone 20:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: version at time of AFD nomination→permalink --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article that makes subject notable. First source not comprehensive and second source in German. Still reads like an advretisement in places. Hammer1980·^talk 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second source is in two languages (either switch the locale or select language in top bar). Can you also be more specific and point me to these parts, which read as advertisement so I can get them fixed. Mzaremba 09:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now about which particular source you talk. I will do some search for other English sources. Anyway I must say it is quite difficult to come with English sources in a country, which does not speak this language. Mzaremba 09:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unremarkable company. There are millions of websites out there and this ones certainly not notable. Sting_au Talk 10:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I give a try below to justify that this is the remarkable company and the subject is notable, as the proposed innovation aim to enable the web of services (as envisioned by Semantic Web research community, by open SOA and in particular by Semantic SOA; the vision, which has been presented in many scientific publications, but not yet realized, although attempted, by commercial companies). Please let me know if the information below could get included in the article, or it will again qualify it as an advertisement.

Asserted remarkablility is irrelevant, notability and sources are important. WLU (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Existing solutions for Service Discovery include UDDI and ebXML registry, standards that allows programmatically publishing and retrieving a set of structured information belonging to a Web Service. Several companies have operated public UDDI repositories (IBM, SAP, Microsoft, etc), however due to several shortcomings of the approach such as complicated registration, missing monitoring facilities, its success was limited and only few repositories are still publicly available. At the same time a number of Portals (wikipedia is providing articles about several of them e.g. Strike Iron) dedicated to providing a repository of services have appeared. However, all of them rely on a manual registration and review process, which implies limited coverage as well as inherently outdated information. Alternatively one can use the classical search engines; however they do not provide effective means to identify Web Services. For now, there exists no standardized file suffix, such that a query like "filetype:wsdl" does not match all service descriptions (e.g. the wsdl description Microsoft Services will have the ending ".asmx?wsdl"). Moreover a standard search engine does not make any pre-filtering based on availability and other service-related parameters. Their retrieval model is optimized for finding content and not dynamic services.Mzaremba 13:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is original research without sources, and will not help the page. WLU (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can add that into the article if you want. You currently have two votes to delete and only one (yours) to keep. Not a lot of people rushing here to have a say on the matter? (that says a lot about the notability) The whole article reads like its been copied from a brochure. Is it a neutral point of view encyclopedic article? Not yet in my opinion. I suspect you may have some personal involvement with the company? Not that that's a bad thing mind you. If the article stays plenty of other editors can come along and add to it and that's when the "spin" starts to disappear. I'm sorry but my vote to delete still stands. It has improved a bit since I first tagged it with a speedy though. See if you can drum up support to add some "keep" votes? Sting_au Talk 12:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD discussions are not a vote, deletion is based on reference to policy. WLU (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. But I never even tried to hide that I am not involved with the company or that I have been working for the research organizations, which carried out work related to current innovation of this firm. It is enough to check my nickname and list of people on the company website. But please do not tell me that the profiles of hundreds of other companies and organizations, which can be found on wikipedia, have been created in such a collaborative process as you mentioned, and additionally to it, they have been created purely by external contributors, because I will not believe in this. I also do not see "plenty of other editors" editing articles of other smaller companies. Anyway if there is a notable innovation (what I am trying to show in here), wikipedia keeps these articles, and I would like to happen the same in here.

WP:WAX - other pages are completely irrelevant to this discussion. WLU (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, what I am trying to prove now, is that this article is notable and I am asking you for comments and suggestions how it can be improved to meet appropriate standards and to stay on wikipedia.

Greetings Mzaremba 14:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some more arguments which make this article notable:

This company offers basically a new approach to what is described at Web Service Discovery]

It is notably since other approaches like Universal_Description_Discovery_and_Integration, which I have mentioned already above have been discontinued for publicly available Web Services Microsoft UDDI shutdown

As noted on wikipedia entry for Web Service one requirement for Web Services architecture is a broker or search engine. This service is provided by seekda. It is similar to XMethod (also referenced from Web Services wikipedia page, what can be also classified as advertisement) but of a much broader scope (about 30 times as much services). So actually it should be seekda referenced on Web Service as the most comprehensive engine available in the world (already more than 16K services indexed and monitored).

Greetings, Mzaremba 14:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does the "OG" stand for in Seekda OG? I see you have the article title as Seekda but having Seekda OG in the first sentence? There are also three red links further on in the article. These are, SOA4ALL, Service finder and Service detector. I think having them as dead links looks terrible. I'll tell you what. If you can explain those terms on the actual article page (there's no need to create pages for them just yet) I will change my vote to "keep". No need to reply on my talk page as I am watching this page. Sting_au Talk 21:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OG stands for Offene Gesellschaft, which is a legal form of company in Austria (I do not think it is smart to make a translation). That is why I removed it in the first sentence, but still keep it as a type of the company in the box form. I will extend the abreviations for project names as requested. Thanks. Mzaremba 10:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as is, none of the sources assert notability, none appear to be independent of the entity, none appear to be reliable and none are substantial. <2200 hits on google, the majority are the company's website, and the first wikipedia website to pop up is, amusingly, the deletion review. How does this page pass WP:CORP, the only criteria that matters? The only that comes close is the conference presentation, but that is hardly substantial. If the entity becomes notable, no prejudice against re-creation, but should be on a sub page first to avoid re-visiting the deletion debate. If it truly is notable, the page will be created eventually. Right now it's not, and even the sole reference for an assertion of notability (focussed crawling) doesn't appear to justify the statement. WLU (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to give a try and challenge these arguments. First you claim that almost none of the sources is independent from entity. I almost have to agree (with a couple of exceptions) with this particular statement. If you take a look into domain registration of seekda, you will find out that it happen just a couple weeks ago. If you check the blog on the website, than you will learn that the service went online only four weeks ago (although available from June 2006, so more than a year with limited availability). That is why I referenced DERI and STI (and also a couple minutes ago I added two scientific projects) to show that the results and innovation available through this company are actually the compilation of several years of work of many (in case just of DERI, we talk about hundreds) scientists coming from various contributing organizations. Please do not than search for seekda, but search for DERI, search for names of founders of this company (just to mention prof. Fensel, who is the most cited computer science professor in Austria and the major driver behind semantic research in the world), search for WSMO (Web Services Modeling Ontology) and in particular for wsmo mediators or wsmo composition (which are realized in products of the company). I did not list all of them in the body of the article, so not to be accused again of advertising something. If somebody will feel to add it in the future, than he/she will do it.

Today/Tomorrow I will select the list of the most relevant publications (I will try to find even something that mentions focused crawling) and links which explain innovation and then the notability. But please be aware that seekda name will be not on them, as seekda is absolutely a new name given to something that existed for a long time solely in scientific projects. Answering yesterday to Sting_au I have already made a quick search for a related work in context of seekda innovation (or rather research behind it) to other articles in wikipedia and tried to show why seekda in this context is notable (e.g. seekda finally succeed to put an infrastructure for brokerage of services, which Microsoft or IBM admitted to fail).

Greetings Mzaremba 10:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing quickly, I made one typo. I mean not STI, but STI2 or STI International, or Semantic Technology Institute International (or alternatively STI Innsbruck, which is the branch of STI International) Mzaremba 10:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page still does not pass WP:CORP. I see no reason to change my reasoning. New source does not even mention SeekdaWLU (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We must be taking about some different sources. STI Innsbruck website mentions it in at least two places. You have an info on the front page about it, and in the spin-offs section. Additionally to it, you have links to projects and working groups whose results and ideas have been exploited to build this first global web services search engine. Just to only mention selected (seekda name cannot be found there, because the name did not exist at the time when these documents get accomplished, but other keywords/names from the article can be found there): WSMO Web Service Discovery; Focused Crawler for Web Service Discovery; WSMO Discovery Engine; WSMX Discovery. You will find many references to related work through standardization organizations e.g. W3C WSMO Submission; WSML Submission; WSMX Submission or in OASIS OASIS SEE Technical Committee. I can come easily with hundreds of other links, which reference the work done (including cited scientific publications), anyway as I said before the name seekda came just recently to label a commercial entity which is build on the top of the innovation done by DERI, WSMO, WSML, WSMX, OASIS SEE TC and many, many other research projects (several of them listed at active project and archive projects pages of STI Innsbruck, but of course you can find on google hundreds of independent to STI articles referencing these projects and work.

I know that you said already, that other pages are completely irrelevant to this discussion, but anyway I must notice it, that there are so many pages of other companies on wikipedia, which hardly provide only a link to their own website(s), and actually admins are not challenging their notability. This is my first experience with editing an article on wikipedia and I am really starting to get upset about the whole situation. I was really expecting to get a constructive support to get things through, but so far except with a few exceptions, it is the other way around. I want to get a notable article on the wikipedia relating to fact that the work on the first global search engine for web services get accomplished and there is a commercial company taking over the research results. There are a couple of reasons, why this is notable, what I already showed, when making a reference to already existing articles on wikipedia (I can support this arguments with references to scientific publications or various specifications). I provided now several references, which if find relevant, will get included in the article. Is there anything else I could do, or I am simply wasting my (and yours) time.

Greetings Mzaremba 15:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of company articles up for deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it apperas to have enough reliable sources to document notability. Bearian (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas davids
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 criteria G10. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Thomas davids[edit] Thomas davids (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Not really usefull... The Helpful One (Talk) 20:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete and salt as non-notable, attack page, hoax, etc. Article tagged and has already been deleted three times. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:06, 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 Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Zena Jung[edit] Zena Jung (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Has no apparent use for Wikipedia The Helpful One (Talk) 20:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete A7. So tagged. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 20:59, 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. John254 01:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Resurrection Mary[edit] Resurrection Mary (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Article contains no sources and has been tagged as such since January 2007. Doesn't assert notability. Seems to be entirely Original Research. Pdelongchamp (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Sources being under External links is not the same thing as "no sources", even if it does violate the WP:MOS. In any case, there are hundreds of references found on Google Books, everything from Weird Illinois to a Complete Idiot's Guide to Ghosts and Hauntings. So, a notable ghost story. --Dhartung \| Talk 22:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Fairly widespread urban myth in Chicago, plenty of citations. DJ Creamity (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Per Dhartung. A casual search of Google Books [2] or Google News [3]reveals sufficient reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage to satisfy WP:N and WP:V. Edison (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong Keep Article does assert notability (it's the best-known Chicago-area ghost story), and tons of sources are available. Zagalejo^^^ 04:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep per Dhartung. I have updated the tags. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong Keep: This is the just the result of a misunderstanding. The sources were added as External links rather than inline citations. They support the entry and assert notability. I'll recode them when I have time, if nobody else does it first. They are all sufficient to support this entry if converted into the correct format. - perfectblue (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong Keep: This is a very famous ghost story. Surprised you weren't aware of this, Pdelongchamp. Next time please try a Google search before launching into this exercise, MrHarman (talk) 04:46, 30 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. Non-admin closure. NF24^{(radio me!)} 16:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Matt Winston[edit] Matt Winston (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Unsure - the only role that would appear to get him past WP:BIO is his role on John from Cincinnati and as I haven't seen it I don't know how significant his role in the series was. The vast majority of his credits look to be day-player kinds of things. Ghits and Google News hits don't appear to strongly support independent sourcing being available. Otto4711 (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Article could use alot of work, but notable enough for here. DJ Creamity (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Per WP:BIO. --Strothra (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. His role in John from Cincinnati was fairly major, as was his recurring role as Crewman Daniels on Star Trek: Enterprise. Pinball22 (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Delete per NEO, NFT, SNOW, etc... SkierRMH (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Frerard[edit] Frerard (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Prod tag was removed by the author. This appears to be a neologism with limited notability, i.e., lots of ghits, but most look like YouTube, Myspace, blogs, and fansites. Also, it seems to fall into the category of things made up one day. —Travis ^talk 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NFT, nothing but a neologism. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NFT. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. Hammer1980·^talk 23:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 01:55, 27 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. James086^{Talk \| Email} 06:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Danvignes[edit] Danvignes (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Notable? Few articles link to it Rtphokie (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. While orphaned articles aren't necessarily non-notable, this car seems to fail WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete I looked for more references to add but can find nothing about the vehicle. Would like to see it expanded but without refs its has to fail WP:V as mentioned above. Hammer1980·^talk 23:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. There is a reference cited in the article, though none of us apparently has access to the book in question. It's harder to find good online sources for a subject that is less recent. I did see a few mentions in foreign language cites - for example (horrible translation job) - which corroborate the info in the article. I don't think WP:V is so much the issue as WP:N.--Kubigula (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Definitely passes WP:V. It is easily verifiable by going to a library and looking up the reference cited in the article, or by doing a simple Google book search which finds two further references. I think those refs are enough for notability, but if not then the fact that a 70-year old car gets non-wiki Google hits in eight different languages (I spotted French, Polish, German, Dutch, Japanese, Russian, Bulgarian and English) shows that it's pretty widely notable. And btw I did check that those hits are for the car, not Colonel Danvignes. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep—I have added to references one of the Google Books citations mentioned by Phil Bridger, above. This satisfies at least the minimum most verifiability standard. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Car models have generally been considered notable as there are typically sufficient sources available. It's more challenging with older models, but we need to be careful to avoid bias against pre-computer age topics. We now have enough sourcing to comfortably meet WP:V, and I have little doubt there are enough sources to meet WP:N given time. As it is, the stub adds value to Wikipedia.--Kubigula (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild 13:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kappa Gamma Psi[edit] Kappa Gamma Psi (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Small fraternity that has more or less closed up shop, only one surviving chapter, questionable notability in the scope of Wikipedia. Poorly written, seems almost promotional. Probabally fails WP:V and WP:N Rackabello (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I will nominate this for speedy deletion as copyvio of [4]. —Scouter Sig 19:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for catching that! Rackabello (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Coppied as far as I can tell from the entire KGS website Rackabello (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Copyright issues have been corrected, but now there is not much left to the article and notability is not asserted at all. Delete Rackabello (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Original article author continually removes AFD and CSD notices placed on the page Rackabello (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy keep. Notable fraternity which commissioned a work from one of the U.S.'s most prominent composers and included at least one prominent American composer as a member. Blanking this article's content entirely would do a disservice to our readers. Tagger's policy of "tagging and running" without input (though requested four times to do so) at the article's discussion page shows a lack of considered, thoughtful editing and, one must conclude, bad faith. Tags were removed pending the "tagging and running" editor's explaining him/herself at the article's "Discussion" page, which is Wikipedia's standard procedure in such cases, recommended even by the template itself. One encourages the "tagging and running" editor to modify his/her behavior accordingly. Badagnani (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I don't quite understand what all the fuss is about. Keep. Tonywalton \| Talk 22:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep, seems to have been notable enough at one time. Even if it was never a very large fraternity it had a more specialized purpose than most. Notability does not expire. --Dhartung \| Talk 22:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. No reliable sources. One of the external links is the website of Kappa Kappa Gamma, a very large sorority which seems unrelated to the topic of this article. (Probably that external link is just a mistake). This article claims that Halim El-Dabh was a notable member. However his WP article does not mention this society. This society's website indicates that the current membership (in the surviving chapter at Ithaca College) consists of just nine people. Former notability, of course, would remain, but there are no reliable sources to attest to that. No objection to re-creating this article if reliable sources for the past glories could be found. EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Sources added--problem solved. Let's move on to enhancing and creating great Wikipedia content, not impoverishing it, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. The sponsorship of the contest, with sources to support it, demonstrates the notability of the organization. —C.Fred (talk) 15:10, 27 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. BLACKKITE 01:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kevin Anderson (Another World character)[edit] Kevin Anderson (Another World character) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) A couple questions raised by this article - 1) like many TV characters, this article should either be deleted or merged into the main article because this character (by itself) is not notable. 2) Even if the character was notable at the time for some strange reason, since last appeared 14 years ago... Has notability, well, expired? Avruch ^Talk 19:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom, yes, notability has expired Rackabello (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Characters should be merged with main article unless something really exceptional causes notability, (eg the Who shot JR Ewing story in Dallas many years ago). Hammer1980·^talk 23:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete I cannot see how this character is notable. (BTW, I found my way here because the creator removed the afd tag.) I suppose a merge might be in order, but he seems to have no relevance. Dlohcierekim 01:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] "Further comment" I don't think that notability expires. Either one had it or one does not. I don't see substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. He has not a mention in the Another World (TV series) article. I don't think a merge there would help much. His character is too minor. I see nothing that would not violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#PLOT-- no real world significance. Dlohcierekim 14:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was redirected to CSI: Miami (season 1). BLACKKITE 01:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Bunk (CSI episode)[edit] Bunk (CSI episode) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Non-notable episode of CSI Miami. Ridernyc (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete but this really is but a drop in the non-notable episode article ocean. RMHED (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. One drop at a time... JohnCD (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. CSI: Miami is the world's most popular TV show. If any series merits episode stubs, it's this one. I'm concerned that we're creating massive, institutional violations of WP:NPOV through excessive application of WP:N.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] individual episodes have to meet there own criteria for inclusion. For example, pilot episodes, award winning episodes, controversial storylines etc.. Really how many episodes of any tv series merit anything more then a plot summary which violates WP:Plot, Wikipeida is a real world world encyclopedia for things that have real world context. You just can not do that with tv episodes, the series as a whole yes but endless minutia of detail about episodes and charters and plot lines are better served somewhere else. Ridernyc (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia has enough Star Trek and Doctor Who fans to find something 'notable' about every episode of those shows. We do not have very many crime fiction fans; should crime fiction therefore be pulverised in light of this?--Nydas^(Talk) 14:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] so you are saying it's bad that certain groups care enough to follow the rules on wikipedia, while others just create cruft.Ridernyc (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] One group is tiny, another is huge. Would you support annihilating articles about towns in Africa because no-one can be bothered adding sources?--Nydas^(Talk) 19:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] one group has a 30-40 year history, one group is a set of shows that have been on for a few years and have no history. You bring up two shows that are considered cultural landmarks, that's a poor way to make a point, now if you had said something about Law and Order episodes you would have a point. The reason those shows have large groups of editors supporting them is because they made a huge cultural impact, that is why you can insert real world context into them. Ridernyc (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The cultural impact of the CSI franchise has been immense; see the CSI Effect. The reason Doctor Who and Star Trek have large groups of editors is down to Wikipedia's systemic bias, not their cultural impact. Notice the minimal number of episode articles we have for I Love Lucy and Dragnet (series), both incredibly influential shows.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] When there are 100 conventions a year with prople dressing up like David Caruso, then we can talk about CSIs huge cultural impact.Ridernyc (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Most conventions mean virtually nothing in the real world. Still, your view that sci-fi fandoms matter more than legal systems is probably the majority view on Wikipedia.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Not to intrude on this lovely argument you two are having, but the cultural impact of CSI or Dr. Who as a series has just about nothing to do with this debate, which is about an individual episode. What cultural impact does this episode have? Where is the notability for this episode? (And Wikipedia:Television episodes tells us that the same question needs to be asked about any article on any individual episode of any television show. If a Dr. Who or Star Trek episode don't meet the requirements, by all means either fix them or AfD them, just like any other article.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] No Doctor Who or Star Trek episode is ever going to be deleted because (a): they have lots of fans to vote 'keep' (b): they have lots of fans to discover trite little bits of 'real-world' information (c): they have lots of fan-orientated publications devoted to documenting factoids. You could argue that "oh well, fan-orientated TV shows just happen to satisfy our episode notability guidelines, and normal TV shows just happen to fail them." In which case, it's OK to eliminate all the African town stubs.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Oh lord, redirectify. Will ^(talk) 11:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to CSI: Miami (season 1), as per Wikipedia:Television episodes. No claim that this individual episode meets WP:Notability. (why did this even get to AfD?)--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment I always AFD things like this, if I just tried to redirect this without going through AFD it would create a huge nasty edit war. Sad but that's the way things are. Ridernyc (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] If the AfD result is to redirect, than you can revert any un-redirect attempts any time, and, if need be, alert an admin to protect the page in its redirected state. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC) I misread your statement and thought there'd be edit wars despite the AfD. Nevermind. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 17:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] yes I know that. TThat's why I send things here to get the AFD result. Without that, issues like this one will tend to turn into nasty edit wars that will end up here anyway.Ridernyc (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Makes sense. I still do the redirect one time with an edit summary that explains why, in the spirit of not biting the newbies. If it gets reverted without meeting Wikipedia:Television episodes then I AfD away with a clear conscience. :) --Fabrictramp (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as non-notable. If there was more content, I'd have gone for redirecting, but the one line of plot summary can safely be deleted. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to CSI: Miami (season 1) per WP:EPISODE, and please don't bring things to AfD just to avoid edit wars. AfD should be the last resort, not the first. DHowell (talk) 23:05, 29 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. Acalamari 20:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Uses for Vinegar[edit] Uses for Vinegar (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) A completey random list. Fails to show any notability or encylcopedic content. Lack of references. Hammer1980·^talk 19:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Wikipedia is not a howto guide. --TexasDex ★ 19:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. I inserted the PROD just before this nomination. Oh well... --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 19:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. List of stuff. Better to cherry-pick the best ones and merge with vinegar. JFW \| T@lk 19:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete looks like a copyvio to me (see article) Rackabello (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete as copyvio. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:22, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Inflationomics[edit] Inflationomics (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Neologism of unasserted notability. Delete. Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 18:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. and WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 23:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Another cute neologism. Delete. Majoreditor (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per all of the above. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. All bar one of the arguments to keep seem to be centered around it being useful, which is not convincing. A list article entitled List of fiction set in Atlanta would necessitate pruning and researching this wholly unreferenced list of trivial mentions to the stage where it would be simpler and quicker to start a fresh, untarnished, referenced list. Which I recommend doing. Please let me know if you wish this list userfying in order to import the most pertinent appearances into a small section on the Atlanta, Georgia article. Neil ☎ 10:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Atlanta in fiction[edit] Atlanta in fiction (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Wikipedia isn't a directory, and isn't a trivia collection. Some relevant (and important) information should be put in the Atlanta article, and leave it at that. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete and merge anything worth saving into Atlanta. JohnCD (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Lists of times a thing is mentioned in TV, movies, and comic books do not belong in an encyclopedia. Such mentions are not ipso facto notable even if the subject being mentioned is itself notable. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep as it is a discriminate list that demonstrates Atlanta's notability by indicating its influence and use in various works of fiction. I feel strongly that these "in fiction" articles are encyclopedic and I have been working to improve a variety of them. Appearances of city's in fiction influence the tourism of the area and so there is a real research interest in knowing how popular particular city's are and how accurate the fictional depictions of these city's are. Plus, we clearly are shifting in a keep or no consensus mindset over these types of articles lately anyway: [5] and [6]. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. This isn't a matter of all or nothing. Just because some are kept (or have no consensus) doesn't mean all are. That's not how things work on Wikipedia. We aren't going to assume or just guess (or crystal ball) that all "in fiction" articles will be kept, just because some were. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Y'all delete this'un per WP:Trivia. By the way, I was surprised that the list omits The Misadventures of Sheriff Lobo from its list of TV shows. Majoreditor (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment WP:Trivia is a guideline about the organization of the content in articles; it contains no criteria for removal, and should not be misconstrued as such. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 21:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Reply: The opening sentence of WP:TRIVIA says "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts." This article is just that: a trivial list. Majoreditor (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Reply: "Avoid creating" is not the same as "Delete". Read further down the page: "This guideline does not* suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page." "This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose." "This guideline does not suggest omitting unimportant material." "This guideline does not attempt to address the issue of what information is included or not — only how it is organized." DHowell (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep* as this is a very handy type of list to have around. Perhaps the name could be changed to something like List of fiction set in Chicago. --Jolomo (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep and rename to List of fiction set in Atlanta. Someone could no doubt write an encylcopedic article about Atlanta as it is portrayed in various works of fiction (a good reliable source might be The Postsouthern Sense Of Place In Contemporary Fiction), but this is not that article, this is plainly a list. But Atlanta as a fictional setting has been commented on by enough reliable sources that the topic is clearly notable. The list as a whole is not "trivia", though certain references like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory are probably trivial enough to be eliminated from this list, as the film is clearly not set in, nor does it even feature, the city of Atlanta. But Gone With the Wind and ATL are clearly works that are "associated with" and have "significantly contributed" to the list topic, which meets the criteria to not be a loose association of topics. This list also doesn't fit any of the types of articles listed as indiscriminate information, which are the only types of "indiscriminate information" which have consensus for exclusion. DHowell (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Convert to category—This is a simple list of instances, which is suitable content for one or more categories, such as Category:Works of fiction set in Atlanta. Lists allow for expansion upon the line items, but that is not done in the case of the present article; by 'expansion' I mean in this case noting the significance of placement in Atlanta, which would be citable to a review or critique. If an author simply places a work in Atlanta without a reason, that would be an incidental usage; the present list does not distinguish between plot-relevant and incidental use of Atlanta as a setting. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However I will note that no good reason has been given to maintain the list but the article is now more than a list. Mango juice^talk 15:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Tokyo in pop culture[edit] Tokyo in pop culture (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Wikipedia isn't a directory, and isn't a trivia collection. Some relevant (and important) information should be put in the Tokyo article, and leave it at that. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Lists of times a thing is mentioned in TV, movies, and cartoons do not belong in an encyclopedia. Such mentions are not ipso facto notable even if the subject being mentioned is itself notable. This list is dominated by Japanese media mentioning Tokyo — mentions of Tokyo in such are not in any way an interesting phenomenon. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep as it is a discriminate list that demonstrates Tokyo's notability by indicating its influence and use in popular culture. I feel strongly that these "in popular culture" articles are encyclopedic and I have been working to improve a variety of them. Appearances of cities in popular culure influence the tourism of the area and so there is a real research interest in knowing how popular particular cities are and how accurate the fictional depictions of these citites are. Plus, we clearly are shifting in a keep or no consensus mindset over these types of articles lately anyway: [7] and [8]. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment I believe this type of article has potential only if this kind of thing has been observed by a good reference. I am sure that there is an interesting text to be found about how Tokyo is represented in popular culture and that it could be used as a reference. In fact, I would tend to vote keep in hopes that such references are found, but the current article is nothing more than a collection of links, and that does not make it a real article.Youkai no unmei (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per Edgarde. The topic is far, far too broad to be coherent in this Wikipedia article. There could be prose articles like Cultural depictions of Tokyo in literature, Cultural depictions of Tokyo in film, et cetera, but this is just a list of indiscriminate topics that happen to be Tokyo-originated. The existence itself hardly depicts its placement in pop culture. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. This is much better than Atlanta in fiction which was also nominated, which I also argued to keep. If someone wants to improve this article, a good reliable source would be Dawn to the West: Japanese Literature of the Modern Era by Donald Keene. Tokyo as a fictional setting has been commented on by enough reliable sources that the topic is clearly notable (and who doesn't have the image of Godzilla destroying Tokyo somewhere in their brains)?. The list is not "trivia", it avoids trivia by stating "A title with just a brief episode in the city is not listed." The list shows fictional representations of Tokyo which are "associated with" and have "significantly contributed" to the the popular cultural conception of Tokyo (which is the topic of this article), and thus meets the criteria to not be a loose association of topics. This article doesn't fit any of the types of articles listed as indiscriminate information, which are the only types of "indiscriminate information" which have consensus for exclusion. DHowell (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] "Popular culture", by definition, is extremely broad. Anything could be related to Tokyo through popular culture -- locations, people, cuisine, historical events, politics, etc. Without the lack of criteria, editors can add and remove any entry as they please, making this topic far too subjective and indiscriminate. It would be far more beneficial to narrow the scope, as I mentioned in my Keep comment above. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep - but prose-ify(?). The current format invites unencyclopedic additions. The Article needs to explain stuff, more than just list stuff. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Nothing here is relevant; it's just a gigantic trivia section for the Tokyo page. Sorry.--CastAStone\|^(talk) 15:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mountain Dew. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Dewmocracy[edit] Dewmocracy (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) I cannot see how this campaign by way of interactive web-game from PepsiCo is so notable as to merit its own article, so I wanted to discuss if it should be deleted here. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge some basic facts into Mountain Dew#Marketing and promotion, as with other Mountain Dew marketing; no notability for this particular advertising campaign has been established. -- Mithent (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge per Mithent Jonathan^T•@•C 02:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge per nom and Mithent. This is an easy one. Xihr (talk) 08:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sorry but I have to ask, if this campaign is not notable, why should we crowd the Mountain Dew article with this type of junk? Surely you must be aware that there are multiple marketing departments within PepsiCo thinking up this crap day in and day out, that doesn't mean we need to document every example of it. Coccyx Bloccyx 18:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] I wrote "merge some basic facts", not the whole article - Mountain Dew#Marketing and promotion has a couple of lines about other promotions. Something along the lines of "In November 2007, the interactive game Dewmocracy was launched, in which users vote to determine the can graphics, colour and flavour of a new Mountain Dew product to launch in 2008" was what I was thinking. It's of some limited interest in the context of Mountain Dew because this upcoming product is voted for by users, but it's not independently notable and thus not worth an article. However, I don't feel especially strongly about it; I wouldn't mind if the article was just deleted. -- Mithent 18:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] What he said. Xihr 02:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete; non-notable unless something actually comes of it, at which point the information on Dewmocracy can be merged into a section on the new flavor. --Golbez 19:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - nothing of substance to merge. --Orange Mike \| Talk 02:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep—I didn't think I would find myself defending this article's retention ... there are a number of independent media stories on this campaign, which I will add as references shortly. It is not uncommon for marketing campaigns to be significant if they involve a major public figure (as this one does) or significantly influence the trajectory of a product (as this one might ... or might not [thinking of the New Coke debacle]). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Is it a notable ad campaign? did it innovate? is it something different? No, no, no. Delete--CastAStone\|^(talk) 15:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Delete. The otherstuffexits argument notwithstanding. CitiCat^♫ 19:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Metamorphosis Tour[edit] Metamorphosis Tour (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Article about a tour to promote an album. Fails to establish notability. At best merge into artist page but informtaion not encyclopedic. Hammer1980·^talk 17:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, while Hilary Duff is notable, this article doesn't establish anything particularly notable about this tour. -- Mithent (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as above. thisisace (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep and expand. There are over 500 articles on concert tours in Wikipedia, see Category:Concert tours and subcategories. Some good examples of the article type include Blond Ambition Tour, The Adventures of Mimi Tour, Bruce Springsteen with The Seeger Sessions Band Tour, The Rolling Stones American Tour 1972, and so forth. There is plenty to say about this Hilary Duff tour: how long were the shows, was she really singing or was there lip-synching, was the focus on music or on stage performance, how successful was the tour commercially, how successful was the tour in terms of reviews. The current article is a stub and needs expanding and citing, not deletion. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Slightly weak keep. As mentioned above, tours certainly can have meaningful articles written about them... if good sources can be found that talk specifically about the tour, this should be kept and expanded. I'd especially like to know if Hilary Duff turns into a large insect during the show. Pinball22 (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep per Wasted Time R. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete concert tours aren't notable by defult, the keep reasounings is mainly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, no sources to back up notabilty of this tour. This is a Secret ^account 17:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to the article about the artist, leave merging without violating WP:UNDUE to the denizens of that article. Don't leave as is. GRBerry 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Rudrasankar[edit] Rudrasankar (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Fails to establish notability. Hammer1980·^talk 17:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] This article is valuable.(User: Pompy B)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.186.29.13 (talk • contribs) )— 146.186.29.13 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Comment Not to be confused with "Lord Rudrasankar". Couldn't find any non-trivial mentions of this person. Suspect not notable. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 00:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Poet Rudrasankar is well recognized poet, hence this article is highly notable [Surojit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.204.30.2 (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - No reliable sources found in Google. Will change to Keep if reliable sources are added -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 01:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. The article states that "his poems were published in several leading literary journals and collections of poetry in India, Bangladesh and USA". If the author of the article could list these journals and collections it might be possible to establish notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete After looking for sources that can establish notability, I have to go with delete. It looks like some people are interested in keeping the article as they have removed the afd tag a number of times and blanked this page. If these parties were to provide some sources from which we can establish notability, I will change my vote. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:04, 29 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 13:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] IAENG[edit] IAENG (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Looks like a directory. Hammer1980·^talk 17:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. This is nothing but a list of members of a non-notable organization. If anyone on that list is notable, then an article should be written about that person, and maybe the list can become a category, but for the time being this does not seem possible nor useful. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete since the article is not an article. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sunnyao (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. The contents have been enriched with the publication of the organization, as well as the main societies that the organization consists of. The list of the co-chairs of the organization has also been removed as suggested.[reply] Delete Not an encyclopedia article but a collection of trivial information Rackabello (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sunnyao (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Thanks again for the suggestion. For the content, different wiki articles have been visited and their styles and contents has been studied as reference sites. As a result, the content has been enriched in such a way that it is of the same content level as the other encyclopedia articles of organizations in wiki.[reply] Delete unless there is some evidence for real world notability. It publishes journals, but I cannot find them listed in worldCat. It held 2 conferences, but the proceedings, according to WorldCat, [9] are each of them held only in two libraries. this is not yet a notable organisation. Our purpose is not to provide PR to help them get started . DGG (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sunnyao 15:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Thanks for your information about the WorldCat. But, besides WorldCat, there are other more traditional academics databases like IET INSPEC, EBSCO, ISI Thomson Scientific, CSA (Cambridge Scientific Abstracts), etc. They have been indexing the journals and conference proceedings books. As these databases may be only available to the subsripted universities, for convenience, this indexing information can be found at: http://www.iaeng.org/IMECS2008/doc/INSPEC.txt http://www.iaeng.org/IMECS2008/doc/EBSCO.pdf http://www.iaeng.org/IMECS2008/doc/ISI.pdf http://www.iaeng.org/IMECS2008/csa.html[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild 13:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Lorna Bailey[edit] Lorna Bailey (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Nominated purely for it being unsourced and notability of these entries are questionable, plus these are nothing but a vanity page as these consists of nothing but a list of trivial information, plus where is the promised cleanup, it dosen't exist, not to mention that wikipedia is not a buyers/collectors gide. Charley Uchea (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Notability is asserted and shown, however the cleanup tag should remain in place. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: notability is only shown from primary, non-independent sources. --Paularblaster (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep I find over 100,000 references to Lorna Bailey on google. Many seem to be reliable sources to me. Marcus22 (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep and keep the cleanup tag. Only one of the countless references is independent. I think there is notability in there somewhere, among all the catalogue and promotion stuff. Is there any way to give a deadline for cleanup - finding independent sources and slimming it down drastically? JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 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. This is a Secret ^account 17:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Rachel Bishop[edit] Rachel Bishop (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Nominated purely for WP:COI issues within the article as one editor has bought up on the Moorcroft, also these entries unsourced and notability of these entries are questionable, plus these are nothing but a vanity page as these consists of nothing but a list of trivial information, plus where is the promised cleanup, it dosen't exist. Also looking at the User talk:Websitemad page, who created the article, that previous creation of the same person has been CFD'd before On a note, I want to nominate Moorcroft, but this needs vast cleanup. Charley Uchea (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Obvious COI but notable potter: article should be kept and trimmed. --Paularblaster (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] As someone who attemmpted a partial clean-up, I declare an interest. I hope I am being objective when I state that a) this person is a notable ceramic designer b)the article needs trimming. The fact that there aren't many references is in part due to the fact that ceramic design is under-researched and many of the notable figures have been overlooked because they are women. --Alan (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Is she that notable? She doesnt look it to me: many of the GHits are not about her. (She looks like she is perhaps becoming collectable, but she is not a big name yet). I also dont buy the idea that she is not famous because 'ceramic design is under-researched' or that 'she is a woman'. What about Clarice Cliff? What about Suzie Cooper? Marcus22 (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, but I would have no objection to a clean sheet recreation if she is that notable as I have never heard of her, considering I am from the area myself. I do agree with what Marcus22 with his comment about the women and ceramic design. Willirennen (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Userfy and redirect.. I'll put the article in User:Fergananim's userspace for now, and see if it develops. The article title will be redirected to the main page. CitiCat^♫ 18:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Leabhar I (Leabhar na nGenealach)[edit] Leabhar I (Leabhar na nGenealach) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Fails to establish notability. Hammer1980·^talk 17:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Hardly any context, just references.172.142.28.123 (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete The reference to "Leabhar na nGenealach" is Gaelic, and refers to a book written from 1650-1666 by Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh on Irish Geneology. The book was published in 2004. Leabhar I might be a volume of that work, or an individual featured in that work - but there is no context with which to judge - especially since I do not actually speak Gaelic. There is also no evidence of notability, as there is no content. If the author intends to expand the article into a workable stub, now would be the time. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] And I see that there is already an article on the Leabhar na nGenealach, created about 7 hours ago by the same author. Two other articles, Díonbhrollach (Leabhar na nGenealach) and Rémhrádh (Leabhar na nGenealach), have already been redirected to Leabhar na nGenealach. Were there any information here to merge, I would say that it should be merged there. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Looks like a section of Leabhar na nGenealach that somehow broke out and became an article all by itself by mistake. Simply delete asap. --Paularblaster (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Hello everyone. I apologise for this. I had to leave the article unfinished at the time, and have only now returned to Wikipedia. I feel there is a need to add these descriptions of the divisions or 'books' of Leabhar na nGenealach because I do not wish to make the prime article too big. Please allow me to finish the article, then see what you think. I am happy to accord with your final judgements. Is mise, Fergananim (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect the chief page for the time being to Leabhar na nGenealach; its current contents seem almost entirely redundant at this point. Preserve the instant text on the talk page of the article in question, where it can be developped, and when it becomes enough to merit a full article, replace the redirect text and keep the new text. It certainly seems a worthy subject that may well be developped into a full article. Note also that the article in chief seems to contain blank sections about several of its other divisions that inspire mild curiosity. Might be worthwhile to fill those in before expanding the section about Book I at length. - Smerdis of Tlön 00:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect, leave merging without violating WP:UNDUE to the editors of the main article. GRBerry 18:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. BLACKKITE 01:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Foxfang[edit] Foxfang (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Fails to establish notability. Hammer1980·^talk 16:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] There appears to ahve been no character by that name in Digimon. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, appears to be made up. No incoming links, websearch brings up nothing. shoeofdeath 19:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Speedy Delete by LaraLove. closed by non-admin. RMHED (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Slam Dunk The Funk[edit] Slam Dunk The Funk (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) no real information about minor song Rapido (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete no context, notability not established Rackabello (talk) 19:53, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Warren Alexander MacKenzie[edit] Warren Alexander MacKenzie (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Delete - Puff piece on non-notable person Mayalld (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Only a few trivial Ghits here and there. His book, The Unbiased Advisor is also up for afd a few entries further up. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 23:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as promotional material (i.e., spam) for non-notable subject. Pastordavid (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete he offers unbiased second opinions - Well, my unbiased opinion, like Pastordavid, is non-notable spam. Tim Ross·^talk 01:00, 30 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 13:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Jeff "ActionJeff" Garza[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Jeff "ActionJeff" Garza Jeff "ActionJeff" Garza (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Delete non-notable poker player (borderline speedy). Only references are to blogs and the like Mayalld (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per above. non-notable. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, non-notable via BIO or Wiki Poker project guidelines. Would Support Speedy Delete. 2005 (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. I moved the article to Jeff Garza before I noticed an anon had removed the AFD notice. I put the AFD notice back on, but now this would apply to the two different article locations. 2005 (talk) 23:39, 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 Speedy Deleted G7 after being blanked by author and only contributor . ELIMINATORJR 16:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Most Wanted Tour[edit] Most Wanted Tour (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Article about a tour to promote an album. Not notable. Hammer1980·^talk 16:31, 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 all subarticles, keep parent (which is moved to Bakushou!! Jinsei Gekijou) in order to give time for notability to be asserted. No prejudice to re-nomination of that article in the future. BLACKKITE 02:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Bakushou!! Jinsei Gekijou[edit] Bakushou!! Jinsei Gekijou (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Unnotable game, lacking in any sources beyond a Moby Games link. Seems to be completely based on the editors own views, research, etc. Since it is only available in Japanese and in Japan, it seems unlikely that either sources or notability could be established for the English Wikipedia. (Failed CSD) AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I am also nominating the following related pages because they are related articles of the same series and also unnotable and unsourced. Bakushou!! Jinsei Gekijou 2 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Bakushou!! Jinsei Gekijou 3 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Bakushou!! Jinsei Gekijou (series) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Daibakushou Jinsei Gekijou (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Daibakushou Jinsei Gekijou - Dokidoki Seishun (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Daibakushou Jinsei Gekijou - Ooedo Nikki (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Daibakushou Jinsei Gekijou - Zukkoke Salary Man Hen (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Delete all per nom. JohnCD (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak delete. Mainichi Shimbun has a (very short) blurb which at least verifies that such a game exists and that it's a life simulator. [10] Presumably more sources exist in the form of early 1990s Japanese video game magazines; someone who's interested in this sort of thing (i.e. not me) and has lots of back issues may come along during the AfD period and point us to some articles, in which case I'd be convinced to vote "keep". There is no such thing as "notability for the English wikipedia"; if something has enough non-trivial, reliable sources with enough information to write a full article, then it's notable, period, regardless of the language of those sources. cab (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge I think that I'd vote to have all articles merged into Bakushou!! Jinsei Gekijou (series). To be honest, never heard of the game. I'm sure it is notable to some place in the world, so I don't want to be too quick to judge. Sources may exist, but only in the Japanese language. I think that putting them all in one article might be the best course of action. Just a thought anyways. DMighton (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep. While the game was never released in North America or Europe, it probably was notable among Jinsei Game fans in Japan. Wikipedia is supposed to educate and inform people about things around the world, even about stuff that are unfamiliar to the English-speaking world. GVnayR (talk) 04:53, 28 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 UNDER WP:SNOW. Manning (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Spanish Property Dictionary[edit] Spanish Property Dictionary (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Fails WP:DICTIONARY by its own definition. Hammer1980·^talk 16:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. I prodded it for precisely this reason simultaneously with your AfD. ~Matticus ^U_C 16:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 16:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Does the Prod come off during AfD, or do they run together? ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I've removed the prod tag, as I was the one who put it there using Twinkle (mere seconds after Hammer1980 completed tagging it for AfD - we both clearly had the same objection to the article). It's not necessary to have both. ~Matticus ^U_C 17:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] SPEEDY DELETE invoking WP:SNOW. Does anyone strongly disagree with that idea? Manning (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Let it snow. Hammer1980·^talk 19:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Cannot be speedied per WP:CSD, but can be snowballed: that's not the same thing. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom! Oh, the weather outside is frightful, But the fire is so delightful, And since we've no place to go [with this], Let it snow! Let it snow! Let it snow! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy snow delete: Fails WP:NOT#DICT. Tiptoety (talk) 23:39, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Manning (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Peanut nation[edit] Peanut nation (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) non-encyclopedic essay (IMO, should have been speedied, but was told it was not eligible) Mhking (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom, nonsense. I agree it should have been speedied. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete It's actually a work of fiction... is there not a speedy category for this? Let me go check. If I can justify it I will speedy the article and close this AFD.Manning (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, per nom. This isn't patent nonsense by a strict interpretation, but considering WP:SNOW perhaps this could be speedied in any case. Tonywalton \| Talk 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong Delete as per nom. Should easily be speedied, but looking at article history not entirely suprised it hasn't been. Hammer1980·^talk 16:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment from admin closing AFD The article was a lengthy short story and clearly was a work of narrative fiction. I invoked WP:SNOW and took the position that this constituted "nonsense" within an encyclopedia framework and so deleted accordingly. Manning (talk) 16:33, 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—I have added a copy-to-wiktionary tag and will wait for that automated process to complete before deleting this article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Napoo[edit] Napoo (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Fails WP:DICTIONARY. Hammer1980·^talk 15:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article has no content. --S.dedalus 00:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, third tier league inherently notable Woodym555 (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Maltese Third Division[edit] Maltese Third Division (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Third football division of a small country. Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 15:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Fourth tier, even. I'm leaning towards delete, we don't cover such amateur leagues. Punkmorten (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Whilst I accept that Malta is a small country with a comparatively poor standard of football, a recent AfD !voted to keep an article on a level 16 league in England, which is essentially simply a city league. The Maltese D3 at least has in its favour that it's a nationwide league...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep No problem with an article on the league itself, though I am concerned about articles on the clubs at this level. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep per above. – Pee Jay 10:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep - We need to come to some general criteria for the notability of football competitions, but in the meantime I think that being a football competition organised by the national football association is sufficient notability for Wikipedia. A ecis^Brievenbus 10:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. National level of competition, this league article should not be deleted. King of the North East 13:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong Keep for obvious reasons BanRay 19:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep I agree with 57 on this, the League is notable enough to have an article. Woodym555 (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep per all of above especially ChrisTheDude's reasoning. This is a national league at a pretty high (3rd / 4th) tier in albeit a small country. Peanut4 (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong Keep per all above. Jonesy702 (talk) 20:28, 28 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 redirected.—Random832 20:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Tohko Aozaki[edit] Tohko Aozaki (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Fails to establish real world notability. Hammer1980·^talk 15:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete per author request. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect; since this appears to have been turned into a redirect, this debate can close. I'll non-admin in a little bit, unless someone who didn't discuss the deletion does so first. Thanks! ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:23, 28 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 01:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Bentley High School[edit] Bentley High School (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Notability Rtphokie (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. See discussion at WP:SCHOOL. Wouldn't it be more productive to discuss the general priniples of school notability rather than go over the same ground every time a high school AfD comes up? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep as passing WP:N and WP:SCHOOL. Over 900 Ghits [11], notable alumni at [12], large enrollment, etc. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep based on reasoning by Bearin, the rationale for not keeping needs some improvement as no real argument was made. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep - perfectly notable high school. Article tagged for expansion for which there are plenty of sources. We improve such articles not delete them. TerriersFan (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak Keep notable school with an article that needs expansion, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 00:02, 29 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 - Highland Games are as much about music as they are athletics. I'm quite satisfied that Notability has been established. Nick (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ryan McFarland[edit] Ryan McFarland (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Biography of an accounting student/part-time musician who does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC or any other notability guideline. The individual has competed in a number of national music competitions associated with Highland games, but it is unclear if any of these qualifies as "a major music competition" (criteria 9) instead of athletic events with added musical and dance components. Cited sources are lists of competition winners with no information beyond the names of individual winners instead of the non-trivial coverage normally expected for verifiability purposes. Allen3 ^talk 15:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Article may have copyright/plagiarism issues as it appears to have been a straight copy from User:Ryan McFarland. Issue is not completely clear as account creation time for Fing Yon (talk · contribs) combined with a rapid recreation of a speedy deleted article suggests that he may be the same person as Ryan McFarland (talk · contribs). --Allen3 ^talk 19:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Appalling vanity. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Thank you User:Allen3 for notifying me of this discussion. Winning the B March at the Cowal Highland Gathering [13] alone places McFarland amongst the top competitive pipers in the world today and satisfies WP:MUSIC guidelines and other numerous notability guidelines. Barring a few exceptions, the greatest professional pipers in the world are all part/time musicians and have full time jobs as well. Entry to the Argyllshire Gathering see [14] is one of the premier piping competitions in the world with rigorous entry testing based on track record of past results and there is no question it meets (criteria 9). To gain entry to this competition places you in the worlds top 100 pipers and to finish in the prize-list at this competition is notable indeed. Please also notice link 8 ([15]) which talks of McFarland as being a 'well known piper' and further evidence of notability. Please also notice a direct quote here form McFarland published on PipesDrums Magazine ([16]) regarding Bleary & District Pipe Band. Please also notice in Category:Bagpipe_players only 5 of the 25 names listed have achieved more competitive success than McFarland. Please also note that there will be a steady increase in this list over the coming weeks as more of the top competitve pipers in the world from Priemier, A Grade and B Grade will be uploaded such as prize winners form the Argyllshire Gathering and the Northern Meeting[[17], Cowal Highland Gathering [18] to wikipedia. Successful Solo Pipers are cleary defined as the most competent Highland Bagpipers in the world. Fing Yon —Preceding comment was added at 19:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Please notice latest updates to the page providing albums McFarland has appeared on and radio broadcasts he has appeared on. Thanks Fing Yon —Preceding comment was added at 20:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep - Just a further note about the reliability of the links. Allen3 stated “Cited sources are lists of competition winners with no information beyond the names of individual winners instead of the non-trivial coverage normally expected for verifiability purposes” Pipes Drums Magazine is the world’s largest Piping Publication and is totally independent! ^[1] If Allen3 had taken the time to look through the links thoroughly he would have found this. To be an individual who gets published on PipeDrums Magazine clearly defines that individual as notable and newsworthy. Just to add to Allen3, quote above, these “names of individual winners” as he calls it are indeed news articles of the biggest solo piping contests in the world. Allen3 also stated “The individual has competed in a number of national music competitions associated with Highland games, but it is unclear if any of these qualifies as "a major music competition" (criteria 9) instead of athletic events with added musical and dance components.” Please see links to [19] and [20] and make up your own mind these qualify as “a major music competition” (criteria 9). Allen3 also stated that “the individual has competed in a number of national music competitions” If he had have taken the time to look trough the links thoroughly he would have found that McFarland competes at International Level against the greatest pipers in the world at the top solo competitions in the world. In conclusion I think Allen3's argument is weak and not thoroughly researched. I have proved every one of his points wrong here in this discussion! Don’t take my word for it, just look at the cited sources and you will see for yourself. A strong Keep.Fing Yon Keep Whilst the competitive bagpiping world may be geographically contained, achievements within it are no less notable for that. The article could do with some work but I do believe the subject to be worthy of inclusion; in amongst the laundry list of achievements are wins at Highland and Island Young Piper of the Year, an event which the BBC describes as 'prestigious' in a note about another previous winner - Griogair Lawrie [21] and at the All-Ireland Championships a competition which BBC Northern Ireland considers important enough to televise [22]. I think this qualifies them as "major music competitions" and is enough to satisfy criteria 9. *nancy* ^(talk) 17:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Random832 15:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] InVANET[edit] InVANET (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) - (View AfD) A duplicate article exists - Intelligent Vehicular AdHoc Network E_dog95'^{Hi '} 07:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge - clear case. Both articles were started by the same user Netresearchlabs (talk · contribs) within a minute, but not as duplicates. Lars T. 01:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Yes. The articles share the same author. It's clear to me these articles are related; they use the same terms. It could be said that they're saying the same type of things which, as it turns out, is not much. Both pages have a lack of notability. So ...these get merged. Then what do we have? An article that still doesn't qualify as encyclopedia material with no notability or references. Look it up - ( wp g b ) E_dog95'^{Hi '} 05:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 05:35, 18 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, ~Eliz81 ^(C) 10:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete or merge if it has anything not already in the other article. Collectonian (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge and delete. Add any useful information or sources to Intelligent Vehicular AdHoc Network --S.dedalus 00:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Delete all. Tikiwont (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ballin' Underground[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Ballin' Underground Ballin' Underground (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Public Enemy No. 1 (Cam'ron album) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) The Gunslinger Volume I (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Harlem's American Gangster (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Fort Minor: Sampler Mixtape (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Fails WP:Music#Albums. It's pretty well established that most mixtapes aren't notable. No in-depth sources asserting notability. Unlike typical albums, these have no reviews or anything to expand from a track list. At most, they should be mentioned in the discographies. Spellcast 16:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Public Enemy No. 1 - This is not your typical mixtape, as it's more of what's known as a street album. While not "official", it's more polished than a standard mixtape. It's arguably one of Cam's better albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.232.17 (talk • contribs) If it's not even an official work, that's all the more reason to delete. Spellcast 02:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep One of them - Keep the B-Real mixtape and remove the rest. B-Real has not got any albums yet so this should be kept, I was thinking to create article for his other mixtape too. But remove all other one's. Woop-Woop That's the sound of da Police 11:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'd support recreation if in-depth sources are provided. At most, it deserves a mention in the discography. Spellcast 02:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:16, 26 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, Kurykh 05:40, 18 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, ~Eliz81 ^(C) 10:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. The only citations, which might at first seem to establish notability, are to promotional downloads. ENeville (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete for same reasons given above. Seal Clubber 01:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of Donkey Kong characters[edit] List of Donkey Kong characters (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This article is a huge in-universe list of all the Kong characters from the Donkey Kong games. As such, it has no notability, no referencing, and is just duplicative of information from the characters sections of various Donkey Kong game articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong Keep I'm not crazy about the multitude of Donkey Kong game articles either. However, in the interests of consolidation, I think the better practice would be to delete individual articles (Dinky Kong, Dixie Kong, Cranky Kong, etc.) as well as many of the other, and to keep the "scorecard". Loath as I am to write these words, Donkey Kong is eminently notable. He and his progeny have been players for nearly 30 years in a multi-billion dollar industry. Mandsford (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] But the thing is, this isn't a list of all the Donkey Kong characters, this is a list of the Kong characters from Donkey Kong. I agree, an article about the Characters of Donkey Kong, meaning all of the notable ones, might be worth having, but a list of Kongs just isn't. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] You two do realize that this actually is a list of all Donkey Kong characters, not just the Kongs, right? Lord Crayak (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] No it isn't, there are no enemies or boss characters listed here. It is at best Donkey Kong and his allies article, which would still be unencyclopedic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Its just the way the discussion was going, it seemed like you were saying the article was a list of the Kongs and nothing else. Anyways, couldn't the Kremling/Animal Buddy/DK Enemy articles be deleted and anything noteworthy from them integrated here? Those were made before this article was changed from a list of nothing more than redirects to an actual character list, explaining why its composed of essentially nothing more than "good guys". And this article does have some potential for improvement, considering Rare often has commentary on the creation history and such on their characters (for example, the DK Jr./Diddy thing). Lord Crayak (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] It may be best to just to create on from scratch, as there is way to much cruft and other junk in this one. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I suppose that's the best option available, so delete per Judgesurreal777. Lord Crayak (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] keep please donkey kong is important so why would we not want a list of the characters yuckfoo (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] But I do favor having a Characters of the Donkey Kong series article, but this isn't that. This is just the "Kongs" and friendly characters, which has no how of being a good encyclopedic article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The articles just Kongs now; now that I think about, they, along with K. Rool, are pretty much the only noteworthy characters, considering the rest of them have only ever appeared in two games at max. Lord Crayak (talk) 02:42, 23 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, ~Eliz81 ^(C) 09:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep this is a reasonable list to carry is it not Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Donkey Kong is classic, and its charcters are too. DJ Creamity (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Not to closer; please take into account those who use actual wikipedia policy in their arguements. The last two comments show no understanding or regard for wikipedia policies, like notability not being inherited, and "I like it", neither of which are valid arguments. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Maybe you can start showing under what policy this should be deleted under rather than cherry picking comments YOU like Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Donkey Kong is a major series of video games, and spinning out the characters into an annotated list into a separate article, a well-annotated list, is appropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Notability is not inherited, and just because Donkey Kong is notable, doesn't mean every Kong friend of his deserves his own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep I don't know where else to put all that good infomation of characters to the respective character's game. Really, its too much info to merge or delete. 1yodsyo1 16:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1yodsyo1 (talk • contribs) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete as unsourced for 8 weeks, no evidence of notability, which is not inherited by its stars. Bearian (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Let's Fish[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Let's Fish Let's Fish (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) notability. Only a single episode aired. Merge to Adult Swim? Rtphokie (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom, merge if you think fit. It's poorly written and isn't explained in terms an unfamiliar audience would understand. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Merege if there is anything to actually merge. Hammer1980·^talk 23:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep - The pilot aired on a national cable channel and had one very notable star. That alone is sufficient for WP:N. The series has not been officially canceled (or approved). At the very least, it's premature to delete this. Torc2 (talk) 09:46, 27 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. Will put a suggestion to merge on the article. CitiCat^♫ 18:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of Six Feet Under deaths[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/List of Six Feet Under deaths Articles for deletion/List of Six Feet Under deaths (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/List of Six Feet Under deaths (3rd nomination) List of Six Feet Under deaths (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This article is completely unsourced and primarily fancruft that tacks on original research and editor statistical analysis of the show. Yes, death is the major focus of this particular show, however if these deaths are of great importance, they should (and mostly are) be covered in the plot summaries in List of Six Feet Under episodes. Having a second article just to list off the deaths for each episode is unnecessary and redundant. (relisting of earlier withdrawn multiple article nomination) Collectonian (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Fancruft at its worst.--Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 15:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete or redirect I added the merge tag 2 weeks ago when someone protested that the article had been redirected as "trivial list. These should be covered within the episode list anyways." About a week ago, I pointed out that those wishing to keep the information should start the merge soon, or the list could be AfDed any day. Well, nothing happened, so the (non-notable) list should no longer have its own article. I could/would recommend a merge, but I don't want to be the admin who closes this nom. Merging can be done as an editorial process later, either by keeping a redirect, userfying, or someone asking later for a copy (if deleted). – sgeureka ^t•c 16:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep as some of the cercumstances of the deaths that begin each episode are not covered in the episode synopsis, are central to the episode theme over many episodes, that are difficult to explain except as an 'arc' of the show. Examples: the death of 8 Chloe Anne Bryant Yorkin played into the tackovers of Kroners taking over the skills of Diaz. The death of 13 Lilian Grace Montrose was also by Kroners in not having care of its actions. Death of 32 Callie Renee Mortimer related to the thoughtless actions by her friends vis a vis Diaz wanting to see how care was delivered to the dead's family, as shown in difference culturally with death 68 Pilar Sandoval (cacasuan v. hispanic funeral patterns) Anyway that is what the list says to me and why it should be kept. rkmlai (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Question Excuse me for not understanding what you just said (really), but it seems like you're arguing from a position of plot relevance. However Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) (which also applies to lists) requires real-world notability and/or significant coverage from the secondary sources, which I doubt exist. Now, I don't object to the wish to keep the in-universe information (and actor names), but why is a separate article needed for the deaths? (Especially since the episode list is a fine merge target if someone wants to do the actual merge.) – sgeureka ^t•c 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I would be fine with Merge or Improvement of article. I object to outright deletion as was originally done here and here. I am working on a way to merge the articles but writing takes time. I dont want to change the page (on wikipedia) while the debate is in progress especially as I find out these messages, such as yours, days after they have ben posted. rkmlai (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Non-admins cannot delete articles. The article was just redirected. You can merge articles while they are redirected, but as long as progress is made, a temporary keep is alright. As I said, the lack of secondary sources makes article improvement very hard to imagine, but merging into the episode list is IMO the perfect way. If you volunteer, great. I would change my recommendation to keep/merge depending on how soon you'd begin. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep As explained in the previous AFD just two days ago. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] keep this is one of the main elements of the show 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete because it is not notable, it is not verifiable, and it is indiscriminate in terms of plot detail and statistics. First of all, WP:N requires for a topic to establish notability through significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. The article simultaneously does not meet WP:V with the lack of secondary sources, which leads to WP:IINFO. In-universe information is supposed to be supplied to complement real-world context of the topic (and the topic cannot exist here due to lack of notability). Instead, there exist statistics without verifiable explanatory text at List of Six Feet Under deaths#Statistics. I recognize that death is a common theme in Six Feet Under, but this non-notable list of indiscriminate in-universe information gives no encyclopedic insight about this theme. A better approach would be to use academic studies of how the TV series has depicted the deaths, which would qualify as real-world context. This existing list does not warrant encyclopedic inclusion for this multitude of reasons. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment These are all reasons to improve the article, not to delete it. See WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Like I said, there is no notability for such a list. WP:NOEFFORT does not apply if the list is not warranted to exist on Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep for the same reason I gave last time and also because it is a discriminate list. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] It's not discriminate at all. Under WP:NOT#PLOT, this fictional topic fails to contain any "sourced information on the works' real-world context"; also, "Summary descriptions of plot, characters, and settings are appropriate when paired with such real-world information, but not when they are the sole content of an article." Additionally, it contains statistics, and under WP:NOT#STATS, "In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." There is no verifiable explanatory text for the statistics, only original unsubstantiated calculations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 100% discriminate in that it only lists deaths from one show whose centered on death. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] There is no verifiable indication that such a list is discriminate. You say that the show is centered on death, I say the show is centered on homosexuality, someone says that the show is centered on character development. Even if an aspect of the show is verifiably relevant, it does not immediately warrant a list. Death in the show, if it is thematically relevant, can be explored in prose passages using secondary sources talking about its real-world context. Here, there's no verifiable distinction that death is anything more than a plot point. It does not warrant listing any more than any other plot point that may be subjectively deemed by you or me as discriminate. Ultimately, the list fails to address any sort of real-world context; it is still a compilation of plot points, which I've indicated is clearly not appropriate per WP:NOT#PLOT. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] "Six Feet Under" refers to people being six feet below the ground when buried. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. No evidence of secondary coverage to show notability, as required by Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Also, without secondary references discussing "deaths in Six Feet Under", the article's whole approach is original research (not just the statistics), because treating the deaths in isolation from the rest of the plot is an original method for studying the series. EALacey 19:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge as considered in the nom. Bearian (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 improvements during discussion. Davewild 13:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Beatty Secondary School[edit] Beatty Secondary School (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Secondary school that makes no claims of notability. Ridernyc (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 \| Chris (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. See discussion at WP:SCHOOL. Wouldn't it be more productive to discuss the general priniples of school notability rather than go over the same ground every time a high school AfD comes up? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - agree Victuallers (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge and redirect to parent district (or equivalent administrative body in Singapore) article if it exists, else delete. Solely a directory entry, which Wikipedia is not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:DIR. CRGreathouse (t \| c) 19:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep for now, until the proposed guideline becomes a real one. --Yury Petrachenko (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge what little there is and redirect. I suspect that the result here after a new guideline would be exactly the same as this suggestion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep verifiable and NPOV. It is now properly sourced. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep - plenty of awards to establish notability and the key facts are now sourced to meet WP:V. TerriersFan 03:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - more material now added. TerriersFan 03:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep per expansion and addition of references/new info. LordHarris 08:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep per expansion.--Aldux 13:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Manning (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] CRap[edit] CRap (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) this is a non sense article Kameejl ^(Talk) 14:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] ((db-empty)) - This article has no content, so I tagged it for speedy d. It was created as a redirect to Hip Hop Music. ((db-vand)). --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedied by Manning (talk) 15:30, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] National Basketball Association games televised by ABC in the 2007-08 season[edit] National Basketball Association games televised by ABC in the 2007-08 season (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Pointless list. Not an encyclopedic article. Hammer1980·^talk 14:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] If this is deleted then many of the other NBA on ABC articles should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fathugo (talk • contribs) 14:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: That's not really a strong argument to keep this article, as it's possible that the other articles in question should be deleted. This debate is concerned with whether this article is or is not encyclopedic. A list for list's sake is probably not, while a list that discusses the notability of the topic is. Is there information that discusses ABC's coverage of the NBA? Specifically, why is their coverage notable, beyond the fact that the games are being played? Are there unusual or notable commentators broadcasting the games, or is there some novel marketing angle that increases notability? I don't know - but, for the article to remain, it should show why this season's broadcast coverage is notable. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak Delete unless improved per my comment above. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 15:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. This is Wikipedia, not TV Guide. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Couchpotatocruft. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Unless some argument can be made as to why there is some unique association here, there is no place for this. Next will come every other network's sports listings. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete pointless listcruft. Wikipedia is not TV Guide or TV IV Doc Strange (talk) 14:29, 27 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 Speedied as was determined to be SPAM. Manning (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ilandi.co.uk[edit] Ilandi.co.uk (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Article been speedied once. I can't see if its a recreation but still seems spammy to me. Hammer1980·^talk 14:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete: A7 as tagged, possible G11 as well. It is a recreation, but that doesn't really matter as G4 doesn't apply to speedily deleted articles anyway. --Pak21 (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 14:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Does not establish notability, and has spam/COI issues. --DAJF (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete if no improvement in next day or so I removed it from speedy as the creator appears to be sincerely trying to conform to guidelines, so he gets the time benefit of an AFD over a speedy. However I remain unconvinced for the moment. Manning (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Update to above: Pak21 has confirmed to my satisfaction that there is a blatant COI going on here, and the article is thus clearly spam. Hence I have Speedied and closed this AFD.Manning (talk) 15:43, 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: Speedily deleted - promotional, partially copied from the website of the winery ([23]). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Excelsior Estate Robertson[edit] Excelsior Estate Robertson (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Fails to esbalish notability. Probable hoax. Hammer1980·^talk 14:12, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Oreste Baldini[edit] Oreste Baldini (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) minor role in major film not sufficiently notable. Rtphokie (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, not notable. GregorB (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, IMDb lists only five minor roles in almost twenty years. Jeodesic (talk) 23:11, 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 Redirect to IUPAC nomenclature of organic chemistry(non admin closer) . Tiptoety (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Parent chain[edit] Parent chain (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) 3 year old article contains only dictionary definition, per WP:NOT#DICT Rtphokie (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] ~~Delete~~ changed to Neutral, as the Hydrocarbon article mentions chains only once. There isn't anywhere to merge this short reference. Also, no sources. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] ~~Keep~~, albeit weakly. Google Scholar lists 694 results, most of which appear to be relevant. This may have grounds for expansion, and a simple redirect to hydrocarbon may not be what is wanted here; the links appear to discuss proteins as often as they do hydrocarbons, and I suspect the concepts may be similar, but not identical. I would cheerfully defer to the opinions of adepts in organic chemistry. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment You're probably right. My expertise in chemistry is limited to making mixed drinks, so I'm no help. I mentioned the article at Wikiproject:Chemistry, so maybe we can get some expert insight on how to expand the article. I agree, though, that it's probably worth expanding - thus, count me as neutral for now. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect, changed opinion, to IUPAC nomenclature of organic chemistry, which seems to be the article on chief on the subject, with thanks to Itub, who brought the adeptitude needed to figure out what to do with this. That article speaks of "parent hydrocarbons" which is apparently a reference to the same subject. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy redirect to IUPAC nomenclature as parent chain is quite a major concept there. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep as its own article until merged elsewhere, or leave as is if no single article should be a redirect target. --- RockMFR 15:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect. It's an important term in IUPAC nomenclature, but I don't think there's much to say about it on its own other than in the context of IUPAC nomenclature. DMacks (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to IUPAC nomenclature per the other wikichemists. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect/Transwiki. Redirect it to IUPAC nomenclature, and maybe see if we can add this to Wiktionary. ViperSnake151 16:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to IUPAC nomenclature of organic chemistry, not to IUPAC nomenclature, as only the organic nomenclature article discusses parent chains. FWIW, I checked the IUPAC books, and they don't call this the parent chain, but the principal chain. Some textbooks do use parent chain, and yet others use main chain or longest chain. But in any case I see no point in having an article about this concept. --Itub (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect per Itub. shoy (^words _words) 20:43, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Virgin Megastores store locations[edit] Virgin Megastores store locations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Straightforward breach of Wp:not#Wikipedia is not a directory. PROD of 19th Nov removed without comment. The previously deleted Zavvi store locations appear to have been added to this as well (Virgin own Zavvi) Given this lack of respect for Afd, perhaps dissallow recreation of both ? -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 13:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Wikipedia is not a corporate directory. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom Doc Strange (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 14:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. The Virgin Megastores article should have a link to the corporation's site, and that is where such information should be found. WP:NOT --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 18:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom Toddst1 (talk) 03:17, 27 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 14:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Nicholas Galemore[edit] Nicholas Galemore (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This article was tagged for notability since mid-November but nothing happened to it. The claims for notability are minor at best and the only source cited is the subject himself. I am not certain whether this is an autobiography, but the creation of this article has been the only edit of its creator to date. I propose to delete this article for lack of notability. Crusio (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:37, 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 all three—I will leave the talk page of each intact with the oldafdfull template and a note indicating to contact me for undeletion as a user subpage to allow recovery of data if desired by editors as indicated by several of the comments below. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Denmark national football team season 2006[edit] Denmark national football team season 2006 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Contested prod. Reason for prod was "National teams have no seasons, but campaign; and I doubt EURO 2008 qualification campaign are such notable". – Pee Jay 13:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: Denmark national football team season 2005 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Denmark national football team season 2007 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Pee Jay 13:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete but sort all the entries and put into their individual campaigns whether successful or not. I'm not a big fan of the season's articles but what's good for one, is good for another. Peanut4 (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete this cruft, we don't cover individual matches to this extent. Furthermore it is true that there are no seasons as such in international football. We can have history pages instead (History of x in year-year). Punkmorten (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete remove all match reports, the remaining content (not that much, actually) can be easily featured in a xxxx-yy in Danish football article. Articles in their current form are definitely wrong (as I already explained in the talkpage) as well. --Angelo (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete No need to cover individual matches in such detail. Ricardo-Quaresma 19:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Exercise induced nausea[edit] Exercise induced nausea (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Not quite an established condition. 4 hits on pubmed. Delete please. JFW \| T@lk 12:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Four pubmed hits is enough for me to believe it's sufficiently legitimate to warrant an article. Plus, I got 1600 ghits, indicating significant notability. Tim Ross·^talk 00:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep I was interested in finding out more about this condition and this was one of the few useful pieces of information on the topic that I found.--Gfairbairn (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Several peer-reviewed works from different authors makes this a notable medical concept, regardless of how well established it is. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] revise or remove Tend to agree with JFW that at face value, this is a pretty esoteric thing. Doing a little digging, I'm thinking what's described is actually part of the more described exercised-induced anaphylaxis phenomena [24] Droliver (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. That paper only describes nausea as being a symptom of late stage exercise-induced anaphylaxis, after many other symptoms have developed. It doesn't sound at all like what the paper cited in the article is describing. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep per Someguy1221, Tim Ross, et al. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 28 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 sources merely need to be integrated into the article. Peacock terms need to be cleaned up, too. None are reasons to delete. Bearian (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Silicon & Software Systems (S3)[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Silicon & Software Systems (S3) Silicon & Software Systems (S3) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Fails to establish notability. Reads like and advertisement. Hammer1980·^talk 12:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: move to /dev/null. Could have been ((db-spam)) Andante1980 (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom, looks like an ad. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 14:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep I am the author of this article. This is not an advertisment, it is just some introduction and useful infomation on the S3 group, It is a massive multi-national corporation, I think it deserves a wiki page Fluid-Rock (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep with modifications Fluid-Rock's claim that this is a significant corporation is, I think, quite correct. Unfortunately, the article does read like an advertisement, and clearly lacks a neutral POV. If the advertising tone can be converted into a more neutral tone, this could be a useful article. Tim Ross·^talk 01:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep We have stripped out any commentary that might be considered marketing speak. I hope it is down to bare facts from an editors perspective. Notability has been established mainly through press coverage. Published datasheets for the technology may add to the notabilty of the design completed by the corporation, but I don't want to add these links if another considers it further marketing. Hopefully this meets the criteria of those deciding so far. ThanksFluid-Rock (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment I checked it again, Fluid-Rock. It is clearly improved, but still not really neutral. Ad-speak phrases are still common in the article, such as "world-class technology", "highly skilled organization with a passion for technology", "innovative consumer solutions", "provides expertise across the full breadth of the value chain". These are highly subjective evaluations, not usefully verified information. Tim Ross·^talk 11:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete blatant advertising Mayalld (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Fair comment on "World Class Technologies" stripped back yet again. S3 Group has distinct business units that can stand together or separately. Effort to explain the difference between these divisions by describing what each one does. Not meant to be advertising and benchmarking against sites like Motorola, Fujitsu and Intel, seems that as a smaller less known entity we may be penalised. Explaining what Silicon and Software Systems S3 is beneficial to users of Wikipedia Fluid-Rock (talk) 22:32, 03 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep and clean up. There are potential sources identified at the bottom. There is potential for a good article here after a rewrite. Capitalistroadster 22:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. This is a Secret ^account 06:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of fictional brands in South Park[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/List of fictional brands in South Park Articles for deletion/List of fictional brands in South Park (2nd nomination) List of fictional brands in South Park (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) I have no idea how this survived its first AfD. Pure listcruft/fancruft/SouthParkcruft - whatever it is, it's cruft. Fails WP:FICT miserably IMO and belongs on some obsessive fanwiki far away from here. •97198 talk 11:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep, WP:IHATEIT is not a valid reason which is your motivating reason to delete it. Notability is a guideline and a derivative of WP:V and WP:NOR, which this fails neither. Notability is your excuse to put it here. Cburnett (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep, I agree with Cburnett (talk), Well researched article from a notable show. Shoessss \| Chat 12:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, or move to another suitable wiki if one exists. It's obvious a lot of work has gone into this, but the article provides no evidence that "fictional brands in South Park" is a topic covered by reliable sources independent of the programme (as required by the fiction notability guideline), and the connections the article makes with real brands seem to be original research. EALacey (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete It seems the whole article structure is based on original research (fictional brand <-> real brand; description), and it also lacks real-world notability as outlined in WP:FICT. Editors wishing to keep this list need to give reasons why the WP:FICT guideline does not apply to this article. Transwiki if there's a South Park wikia. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] COMMENT:: A case can be made that :”…The article is kept* if the subject has received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources and this coverage is explicitly referenced in the deletion discussion or is used to add real-world content to the article. Articles about fictional topics that are notable should be given time to develop. As an example the following article from “Marketwatch” a division of Dow Jones can be viewed as a notable secondary source. [25] Shoessss \| Chat 12:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I see one trivial sentence ("Nickelodeon flew in a candy artist whose clients include Paris Hilton and Nicolas Cage to make lollipops in the shape of "South Park" characters.") How does this justify keeping the article? Are there any reliable sources (i.e. not the show itself) that say "SUNTOFU" is based on "Subaru"? If not, then the article is based on Original Research. In the absense of significant reliable sources, the theme of fictional brands can still be summarized in a paragraph in the main South Park article. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete because Wikipedia is about real-world context, and there is no secondary information about these items. I would imagine that a section about "Fictional brands" on the main South Park article talking about its conception and implementation would be completely appropriate (though a full prose article would be possible if there was sufficient real-world context). Here, the list is an inappropriate directory of every fictional brand that's been mentioned on the show -- there's no relevance indicated by this collection of indiscriminate information. I would suggest instead a transwiki to a South Park Wikia and perhaps provide an external link to it under wherever a prose section/article about the show's fictional brands would exist. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep as it is a discriminate and verifiable list with real-world notability and editors willing to improve the article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] No secondary sources are utilized in covering any item in this list. It's merely a compilation of plot information, an explicit violation of WP:PLOT. Wikipedia needs to implement real-world context, not every indiscriminate happening in a fictional topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] - I am sorry —Erik talk • contrib I have to disagree with you. The list is not a indiscriminate list, as noted and linked in your deletion comment. But rather, a very specific reference of fictional “Brand Names” mentioned or shown in a “Notable” TV show. Regarding “Secondary Sources”, I believe that is provide above over my signature. Hope this helps. Shoessss \| Chat 01:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] When I say that the list is indiscriminate, I mean it in the definition of Wikipedia, not the dictionary definition. According to WP:NOT#PLOT, "Summary descriptions of plot, characters, and settings are appropriate when paired with such real-world information, but not when they are the sole content of an article." This article is the epitome of what Wikipedia is not supposed to be. In addition, the reference you provided had only one mention of South Park, not even related to fictional brands: "Nickelodeon flew in a candy artist whose clients include Paris Hilton and Nicolas Cage to make lollipops in the shape of 'South Park' characters." This is marketing information not at all related to this topic. Because a TV show is notable does not mean anything and everything, especially plot detail as indicated above, is appropriate to write at length. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] This is what I love about Wikipedia, disagreements that do not end with someone getting shot. Back to our differences, you looked at one quote from Wikipedia I happened to look at, which is also listed at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; “…Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List.” Which lends itself to my contentions to keep. Your turn :-) Shoessss \| Chat 10:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] That's the issue, though. There is no list topic at hand, and if there was a prose topic, that wouldn't permit such a list. An example like Nixon's Enemies List is a preexisting list. Same goes for a cast list or a list of episodes. Here, this list is done piecemeal -- it's originally put together by editors who have some knowledge of South Park and pop culture. Like someone pointed out above, how does Suntofu → Subaru? In the contemporary understanding of the show, most of these entries would make sense to a certain audience, but to audiences outside it and audiences in the future, such entries, without verifiability, would be seen as an originally compiled list. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - Not a single third-party source identifying any form of notability for "fictional brands in South Park". Guess what, even lists need to be notable. Shoessss, you quoted what Wiki is not about having lists if they are famous. Again, not a single third-party source suggesting that this list is famous in any way,shape,or form. Not to mention that without even so much as a primary source confirming what all these brands are supposedly spoofing, all that "Real brand" information is original research. It doesn't matter how "obvious" it may be, the fact remains that it is unverified information. So, we have unverified information, coupled with no sources addressing the notability of this topic. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Hopefully no one minds, or most likely, I will probably confuse everyone, I am going to try to answer two comments in one response. First to you Erik talk • contrib, you bring up the point; “…Like someone pointed out above, how does Suntofu → Subaru?” I happened to Google the exact phase you quoted; “…Suntofu → Subaru” guess what? There where actually hits on Google as noted here [26]. Yes some were Wikipedia itself, but in addition, there were independent websites!. Now to you BIGNOLE (Contact me), you state that; “….not a single third-party source suggesting that this list is famous in any way, shape, or form.” I do not believe that Wikipedia needs a third party source, but rather just needs a secondary “Independent” verifiable, reliable and trustworthy resource. That I believe has been provided. It is not expected or mandated that we check the sources, source - source. Hopefully, I have answered your concerns. Have a great day all. Shoessss \| Chat 01:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Um, I must be missing it, because I don't see a single source in the whole article. Exactly where is this "independent, reliable, verifiable, trustworthy source" you are claiming is provided? Just to point out, providing a source here means about as much as providing salt water to someone that lives on the beach. It's not in the article. Secondly, this is the only thing about South Park in your source--"Nickelodeon flew in a candy artist whose clients include Paris Hilton and Nicolas Cage to make lollipops in the shape of "South Park" characters"--Not only does that have nothing to do with how brand names are featured in the show, but it doesn't have anything to do with events in the show at all. Most importantly, notability is "significant coverage", that means more than one source, and more than just a single, solitary line of information that does more than simply mention the show by name. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - per EALacey, sgeureka, Erik, and Bignole. Fictional brands have no relevance on Wikipedia under they are independantly notable. Notability is not inherited - being a part of a larger notable topic does not make something notable. By that logic, we would have a separate articles for every member of a famous person's family, because that person is notable and their family are associated with them. Everything must establish notability of it's own accord... think about it; planet Earth is notable, does that mean we need a separate article for everyone who lives on Earth? I mean, they live on a notable planet, so why not? (Please note sarcasm) Listing every fictional brand on a popular TV show is indiscriminate information. If something is notable for being on South Park, what's to stop me from making a List of characters in South Park with brown hair? Notability guidelines exist for a reason. This article fails to establish why it deserves a place on Wikipedia. It's fancruft - perfect for South Park wiki but certainly not here. Paul 730 02:45, 30 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. James086^{Talk \| Email} 07:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Men's Rights Agency[edit] Men's Rights Agency (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) I've had a look through Google News, Google Scholar and Google Google for this group and have found a few references, but generally it is just the group commenting or making a one-liner. The group hasn't achieved anything, just made public statements about men's rights, eg. [27], [28], [29]. There's no secondary websites with any information about the group themselves as a group, so this should warrant them as non-notale Montchav (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep, I also Googled the organization and found the following notable news articles on the organization[30]. However, the article does need to be expanded. Shoessss \| Chat 12:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I think that is quite a misleading search to base a keep arguement on.Ga rr ie 04:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] , Jezz, I am going to have to change my idea of what is misleading. Attaching a link to a Google search is misleading? I would have thought just the opposite. Shoessss \| Chat 12:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete I think that the sources are really weak on this one. I think that the general subject is worthy but this group has not achieved any reasonable level of notability. --Stormbay (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete although I have heard of them, I would not say they are a notable organisation and the rather misleading google result courtesy of Shoessssss tends to confirm my opinion.Ga rr ie 04:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment', Perhaps what Garrie meant was not that a google search is misleading, but that that particular one was a bit too broad. This search [31] is a little tighter, with only two results. Pastordavid (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment':::Thanks for your comments Pastordavid talk. The last thing I want to do is mislead. I always believed, just “state the facts” and I let the individual make up their own mind! Additionally, thank you for refining the search. The question I ask now is how many references does one individual person, product, group, concept, etc, ECT have to have before we include in Wikipedia. I admit, I am an in_clusionist and do sometimes tend to vote for groups on the fringe. However, what I have found in life, is that the group I thought were on the “Fringe”, by my perception, were actually very well know by individuals with a different geographical, cultural or philosophical outlook. Shoessss \| Chat 02:14, 29 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 01:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Tox[edit] Tox (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) No claim of notability. Ignoring all the unreferenced statements about where his "tag" hsa been seen, we're left with a statement by the British police mentioning that Tox is a problem. Doesn't seem relevant for me. Montchav (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom, non-notable, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia regardless. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. RMHED (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. And whilst you are at it, you might take a look at some of the other (many) nn graffiti artists on Wikipedia! Marcus22 (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Good point, I was thinking the same thing. -RiverHockey (talk) 23:03, 27 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 Lack of consensus between KEEP and REDIRECT—I'm going to go out on a limb and close this with the functional outcome of KEEP. There is sufficient evidence to raise reasonable probability that the key claim to notability is true and that time will lead to better sourcing in support of that claim. I also think that retaining the article rather than redirecting is a reasonable step in terms of working against systematic bias; to be clear, I do not think that the persons with the REDIRECT opinions are to be accused of systematic bias in any way. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] SHAHIDLIPI[edit] SHAHIDLIPI (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Lacks any real notability; two of the "references" are exact copies of one another and the third only mentions "ShahidLipi" as part of a list of software. Failed PROD. Collectonian (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Lets' not delete the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.68.236 (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong Keep for the moment. If sources were added, it would be clearly notable. Give it 3 months, to see if sources surface. Sources for this would be few and far between, likely mentioned in a single edition in a magazine like PCW. scope_creep (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Neutral It really needs to be cleaned up. I did a very minimal job, but since I'm not really sure what it's about, I can't really vote on it, can I? —Scouter Sig 22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relist Don't know about the notability, but it appears to be. Probably needs to be relisted. • Lawrence Cohen 23:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Conditional Keep or merge to the Bengali script article, in case the information can be verified. (BBC story and an article in The Daily Ittefaq certainly would be enough to at least merge.) If nobody is around who can perform the required research though, it probably has to go for now. --Allefant (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 15:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to Bengali script. No notability beyond the claim that it was the "first Bengali implementation in computers". One of the references says that it "failed to sell in the market"; Google turns up about five passing mentions minus the Wikipedia and its mirrors. utcursch \| talk 12:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - If it indeed was the "first Bengali implementation in computers", then it defintely can be considered notable and as such would warrant atleast a Merge with Bengali script if not Keep - Failed PROD or not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antariki Vandanamu (talk • contribs) 10:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 There is certainly no consensus to Merge and those that would like to see a Merge cannot seem to agree on where to merge. Some say President-elect others Prime Minister. So for the time being a Keep is the only truly consensual result (closed by non-admin). RMHED 20:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Prime Minister-elect[edit] Prime Minister-elect (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This is and can be nothing more than a stub. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. At this rate, we're going to have every-electable-position-on-earth-elect as articles. KTC (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. I believe it could be developed much further because the media is using the term quite frequently. It also appears in a Wikipedia article (Kevin Rudd) - in the lead section. President-elect refers to the 'Prime Minister-elect' too, but in the context that the PM was not directly elected (but appointed by a head of state). Here are some places where the term is used: [32][33][34][35][36][37][38] You get the general idea! Auroranorth (!) 12:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. as per above. What's wrong with it being nothing more than a stub in any case? Better to have a description on a seperate page rather than clagging up an article with explanations of terms. Sting_au Talk 12:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep, this is a real position though, that is actually used in the media. Lankiveil (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC).[reply] Keep. Just let me look for a few sources about this term being used in Canada. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Done. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note I never suggested that the term isn't (widely) used. My point is that the article will be nothing more than a dictionary definition. I'm open to suggestion to what can be in the article apart from "X-elect is a person who's elected to X but has not taken office yet". KTC (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Actually it can be expanded. A Prime Minister-elect does have some of the powers of a full-fledged PM in practice. For example, he can tell civil servants to ignore a piece of legislation he intends to repeal as soon as he is sworn in. He also has the same moral authority that he would have after being sworn-in, while the lame-duck PM loses all those powers. It's just that not being sworn in does not allow him to enact legislation. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge With President-elect, and move to some neutral pagename like -elect. No need to have a seperate page for each title that this postfix can be applied too. Taemyr (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge as above - seems a very sensible suggestion that does not invite copycat articles. WWGB (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge with President-elect. --147.143.162.104 (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge with Prime Minister (and merge President-elect with President too). Note that the outgoing Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, is still officially the caretaker Prime Minister until Prime Minister-elect Kevin Rudd is sworn in. See http://www.pm.gov.au right now, where it states: An election for the House of Representatives was held on 24 November 2007 at which the Coalition Government led by the Prime Minister, the Hon John Howard MP, was defeated. A new Government led by the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Kevin Rudd MP, is expected to be sworn in by the Governor-General in the near future. In the interim, media content is available on Mr Rudd's website. Any comments or messages to Mr Rudd can also be made via Mr Rudd's website. Mr Howard will remain the caretaker Prime Minister until the new Ministry is sworn in. Until this time any comments or messages to Mr Howard can be made through the following form - Contact the Hon John Howard MP. Archived material from the former Prime Minister's website is available on the National Library of Australia Pandora archive. --Brendan [ contribs ] 05:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge with Prime Minister of Australia, Prime Minister of Canada and other territories where the convention of "Prime Minister-elect" is established. Do not merge to the general Prime Minister article as the convention is specific to certain territories . -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep as a seperate article This is a distinct and notable position, and the status of a Prime Minister-elect is very different from that of a President-elect as the PM-elect is the leader of a party which has a mandate to form government while a president-elect has a personal mandate to govern. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. The constitutional situation is quite different in a constitutional monarchy. Australia is currently in a caretaker arrangement until the Governor-General swears in the new Prime Minister later this week. The article, while still a stub, has already gone beyond a dictionary definition and is capable of further expansion. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep as per Capitalistroadster now more than a dictionary definition and has the potential to be expanded further noting already the comments in this debate that have sought to clarify the position eg Mattinbgn -> the convention is specific to certain territories that seems interesting to me - needs expansion and referencing not deleting.--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle ^talk 09:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep As other people have pointed out, Prime Ministers and Presidents are completely different. The situation between elections in, for example, Britain and Australia are also different. There's a perfectly good article to be written about this subject, although the current piece has little meat on its bones. The 'slippery slope' argument in the nomination is a logical fallacy. Nick mallory (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Per Capital. Given the large-ish number of sources, i see no reason to delete an article on a perfectly good topic. Twenty Years 14:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep - per Capital. Benea (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I have now done a bit of work and note the diversity of consitutional positions - eg Israel and Solomon Islands - also inconsistency in the use of the term in the UK where Gordon Brown was referred to as PM Elect (by a reliable source) even before the elections had been held. Needs expansion and further work - I am not prepared to do any more til this debate is finished though. The work I have done shows the potential for expansion and that this article will not merely be nothing more than a stub or dictionary definition. I do not think that developing this article gives rise to the threat that At this rate, we're going to have every-electable-position-on-earth-elect as articles This role is sometimes constitutionally defined, other times by convention and the differences between countries is interesting and encyclopaedic. --Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle ^talk 23:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep - There is enough in to justify a short but useful article, especially considering the variety of practices between countries and over time.--Grahamec (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] ~~Keep~~ - theres enough to justify the article, additionally a PM elect can be replaced by the party. Gnan garra 03:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge it does make more sense to be merged into PM article as its a transitionary position after some form of election with just a delay between being acknowledged as the next PM and officially being sworn into the office. Gnan garra 00:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'd like to see some sources that actually discuss the word, rather than use the word in the context of a news article. Spebi 05:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Response - not all of the sources are news articles and for example the Israeli and Solomons Islands sources talk about the specific role (which has a constitutional basis) not just use the word--Matilda ^talk 05:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] *Delete This is a false terminology. A person is not elected Prime Minister. A person is appointed PM by the Head of State (or HoS represenative) in Republics & Monarchies. The correct terminology is Prime Minister-designate. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Evidence, please. WWGB (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Response - unfortunately I cannot resist pointing out that you hold a view not held by everyone else or at least of limited geographic scope. Direct prime ministerial elections have been known - for example in Israel. Moreover the appointment by head of state in other instances often follows party room elections. Google hits number only 89,700 for "prime minister designate" compared with 182,000 for "prime minister elect". The term is correct terminology in some instances being for example enshrined in Israeli legislation see section 14 of Israel's Basic Law: The Government (1992).--Matilda ^talk 23:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'm way in the minority anways, but you're correct there are some PMs who get elected - Note however, not by the populace but by their Parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Prime Minister of Australia is never elected by 'their' parliament. Auroranorth (!) 09:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge with Prime Minister, the position technically does not exist in Westminster style parlimentary democracies (but does exist in some locations ie/ Israel). The informationin the article is better described as a subsection in Prime Minister under the heading "Prime-Minister Elect" with the information about Israel and a brief mention of it's growing use in the UK & Australia (per the links above). Shot info (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge with Prime Minister, the term PM-elect does indeed exists (see Prime Minister of Israel) & it is used in Australia. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment if this article is kept, then an article called Prime Minister-designate should be created. GoodDay 17:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] OK, as long as editors don't suggest it has any applicability to Australia. -- JackofOz 22:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kevin Rudd is in no way the 'prime minister-designate'. He was elected and not appointed (like a normal minister would). Auroranorth (!) 01:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep (preferably). But I wouldn't object to a merge with Prime Minister etc., as long as the info isn't lost. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. There was a genuine question about this term on Talk:Kevin Rudd or Talk:Prime Minister of Australia just a few days ago, so there is certainly a need for it. The article is also well referenced. -- Chuq (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment In a personal capacity, I'm appalled at the bastardisation of political terminology. But if it continues to be used, we will have to document this perfectly cromulent neologism. I don't know if having information on a wide variety of political systems in a single page makes for coherent reading, though. Andjam 04:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] It's simply not factual to call this a neologism. It's been widely used in Australia to my personal knowledge since at least as far back as 1972, and I'd be very surprised if it didn't go back a lot further than that. -- JackofOz 09:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] I never heard it used in 1996. How many reliable sources are about the position, rather than using the term? Andjam 03:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep, well-referenced information, and the sources from Israel and the Solomon Islands certainly shows that this could well expand further. --Stormie 08:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong keep. Very notable. Many references can be found. --S.dedalus 23:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge to Prime Minister. The post rarely has any official existance, a huge variety of terms are in use, some are used in very different situations (in the UK, to my knowledge, the main use of "Prime Minister-designate" was by two parties fighting an election together and indicating which leader would be PM if they won) and overall there's not much here that wouldn't be better put with the main article. The Israeli 1996-2001 situation is best handled on the relevant page because it's more akin to a directly elected President than most Prime Minister posts. Timrollpickering 14:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 non-notable publishing company without any reliable sources. WP:SNOW except for creator. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Twin Engine Productions HB[edit] Twin Engine Productions HB (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Advertisement. The creator and main contributor to this article has been plugging this company in book articles. Robin Johnson (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, company does not appear to be notable. Lankiveil (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC).[reply] Keep, I am the original author of the article and although i am new to Wikipedia and its particular culture the policy on deletion states that for the article to be deleted it must be "inapropriate" for inclusion in Wikipedia. I may have made the mistake of stating that the company is one of several publishers of a particular author. But that does not make the article on Twin Engine "inapropriate" or even untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealkove (talk • contribs) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. No sources found in Google News Archive, fails WP:CORP, our notability guideline for businesses. Wikipedia is not about everything that is true. As for author pages, there is little reason for listing publishers of an author in an article (although a particular source should be identified when used as such). That is why we have the WP:ISBN functionality built in. --Dhartung \| Talk 00:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. --S.dedalus 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per Dhartung --Tikiwont (talk) 11:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Nythine[edit] Nythine (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Fictional town. Not notable. Hammer1980·^talk 11:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Let's see... a town that exists only in a novel nobody has heard of yet... talk about lack of notability. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 11:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Although I feel that this was handled badly. Putting a new users first contribution up for AfD within 5 mins of the creation of the article runs the risk of turning new contributors away. Taemyr (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Happened to me, actually. And I've stayed, and I'm doing new page patrol on a semi-regular basis. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, a bit harsh doing it this way, but it is a fictional town in an (unpublished?) book. Lankiveil (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC).[reply] Delete I agree that a notability or sources tag should have gone up first, as this feels a little bite-y. But, that said, I note that I can find no evidence of an author by the name of Savannah West or a novel entitled "The Forest". If the novel has been published, more information is required. If the novel is unpublished, then this falls under WP:CRYSTAL, and should be deleted until the novel is published and reliable information or confirmation exists. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom, nonsense. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:28, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Jeremy Shum[edit] Jeremy Shum (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Fails to establish notability. Only independant source prints a one line apology for a mistake in previous week's article. Hammer1980·^talk 11:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. As above, and I'm inclined to believe that if an eight-year-old can nominate you, being nominated for bachelor of the year isn't particularly noteworthy. Lankiveil (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC).[reply] Delete per nom. Very little notability there. Tim Ross·^talk 18:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Arunabh Kumar[edit] Arunabh Kumar (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Fails to establish notability. Only seems to have been involved with one film. Hammer1980·^talk 11:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, does not appear to have a particuarly extensive or notable career in films yet. Lankiveil (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC).[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 15:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I dont get why this page needs to be deleted. An assistant director in a movie as big as Om Shanti Om deserves mention, right. I know some details about his early life too, but due to lack of citings, I have removed them. However, why the article needs to be deleted totally, I dont know. Maybe we can have some sources in the coming months and can add to it. Crackjack (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - He is not very notable as of today and seems to have been linked with only Om Shanti Om. I could not find any reliable sources to prove his notability. By the way, notability is not always inherited. That he had a part to play in the making of Om Shanti Om, does not make him notable. IMDB is not a very credible source as per this. Hence, I would propose a delete for now unless reliable sources to prove notability are added. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. --Brewcrewer (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Keep—The lack of independent coverage by secondary sources noted in the nomination has been addressed. The potential for COI issues is not fodder for deletion - as long as the article is NPOV and satisfies sourcing requirements establishing notability, potential COI remains "potential". We have remedies should the primary editor exhibit ownership tendencies, so there is not a reason to shoot down an editor's work on a presumption of bad faith. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Capazoo[edit] Capazoo (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Yet another social networking site, article created by yet another single purpose account. All versions have been the work of SPAs, including the current one, and it's been deleted twice as WP:CSD#G11 and twice as WP:CSD#A7, by three different admins. The current version makes some attempt to establish notability but lacks reliable independent sources attesting to significance. And it still reads as advertorial. I mean, is the fact that it has a hosting deal with a big provider actually any kind of evidence of anything much? Guy (Help!) 11:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak Keep, definitely written in the wrong tone, but the references in the AZ Republic and Media Week are better than trivial. Lankiveil (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC).[reply] Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep,Current revision reads much less advertorial than previous one, and some references are decent, as Lankiveil said.--Liekmudkipz (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. In addition to refs in article there's this site profile on Canoe.com. It's buried in the external links and in French so perhaps wasn't used by anyone yet, but surely establishes notability. --Dhartung \| Talk 00:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete This page has clearly been written by the company as a marketing tool. --65.211.179.9 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Per Nom Ricardo-Quaresma 19:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Fairly well sourced now, and some external notability. If it has indeed been written as a marketing tool as is possible, it will be the responsibility of real editors to keep the page in line. --S.dedalus 23:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 21:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Vito Arcilesi[edit] Vito Arcilesi (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) No notability, references or citations, or real content. This article only existed in the first place on account of unreferenced claims that the subject was involved with rumrunning and the Mafia, claims which have been refuted, though again unreferenced, by a relative of the subject. Ben iarwain (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete, no notability asserted now. --Dhartung \| Talk 11:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy, notability not asserted, and apparently no further sources available that would indicate it. Lankiveil (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC).[reply] Speedy Delete have tagged it, no assertion of notability. RMHED (talk) 20:26, 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. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 10:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sword of Truth locations, part 2[edit] Agaden Reach (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Aydindril (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Boundary (Sword of Truth) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) D'Hara (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Garden of Life (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Hartland (Sword of Truth) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) King's Port (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Midlands (Sword of Truth) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Palace of the Prophets (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) People's Palace (Sword of Truth) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Rang'Shada (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Tamarang (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Tanimura (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Westland (Sword of Truth) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Wilds (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Wizard's Keep (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Underworld (Sword of Truth) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Category:Sword of Truth locations (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) (I know this isn't CFD, but this nom would empty the category.) Following this previous AfD, this nomination encompasses all the remaining contents of Category:Sword of Truth locations, as a component of an ongoing attempt to clean up articles related to The Sword of Truth series. Similarly to the articles involved in the previous nomination, all of these articles appear to fail many of the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction: They are composed in large part of direct quotations from the books, and constitute copyright violations. Wizard's Keep is a good (bad!) example of this - the grossly over-detailed descriptions are all directly paraphrased from one or another of the novels. A search in Google Books will probably turn them up. They are in-universe descriptions of fictional subjects - they fail to provide any real-world context for, or any critical analysis of, their subjects. Most of the articles' subjects have minimal notability, at best. As before, there will be more of these nominations. I'm breaking these up into blocks of 10-15 articles at a time to make sure commenters have an adequate chance to look at the articles in question. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] delete fiction cruft, no encyclopedic content in any of these articles, as was the case in the previous AfD. All the article contents are strictly "in universe", there is no literary analysis of the locations which might be of any interest to anyone other than a rabid fan of the books (not that I can imagine what "use" a fan would put this information to, either). All of these articles amount to a collection of details from some novels without context or meaning. The Sword of Truth Wiki has 939 articles, I can't see any valid rationale for them all to be over here as well. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Forgot to mention that I think the Category Category:Sword of Truth locations has no rationale for existence if the member articles are all cruft like this. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete no secondary sources establishing real world notability of these fictional locations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RMHED (talk • contribs) 20:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong Delete. Aaaaah! Not more fancruft! It’s everywhere. Utterly non notable unsourced fictional locations. --S.dedalus 23:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete all without secondary sources. Capitalistroadster 23:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. See here for the deletion review discussion. Auroranorth (!) 05:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Matilda Hunter[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Matilda Hunter Articles for deletion/Matilda Hunter (2nd nomination) Matilda Hunter (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Fictional character with no sign of real world notability Pak21 (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep major character in well-known soap opera, like articles on characters from EastEnders or Coronation Street.--UpDown (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Other stuff exists is not a strong argument in deletion discussions; the problem with the article is not untidyness, but the fact that it in no way demonstrates its notability via citations from reliable secondary sources. --Pak21 (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep as per UpDown. Auroranorth (!) 12:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete no indication that Ms Hunter herself is substantially the subject of published material. Yes she is a character in a TV show but what has been written about her ?Ga rr ie 04:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Per Garrie. Twenty Years 05:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as non notable fictional character, or Merge, to Major characters from Home and Away. Drastically cut down and merge Template:Home and Away characters into the new page. --S.dedalus 23:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect→Home and Away#2008 Main cast members and tag with ((R to list entry)). I agree that this article has insufficient notability to stand on its own. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of soap opera articles nominated for deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Notable character on well known Australian soap [39]. Well developing article, watched over by WP:SOAPS and being improved. IrishLass 15:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: a plot summary is not a well developed article. A verified one with citations showing how this is notable outside the soap itself would be. --Pak21 15:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment to comment. The same could be said for WWE wrestlers, how are they notable outside of wrestling. I added a link to the official site showing her as a main cast member. IrishLass 16:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The fact that other articles do not have references does not mean that we should keep all articles that do not have references. --Pak21 16:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] You are missing the point. You said she's not notable outside of soaps. I said the same can be said for wrestlers. That was the point. Don't make mountains out of molehills and try and start problems. Regardless, I've added sources. IrishLass 16:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Please read WP:N and WP:FICT: sources must be independent of the subject, and the official site for a soap is clearly not independent of characters in the soap. Unless sources can be found which show how Hunter is notable outside the soap, this is not a suitable article for Wikipedia. Professional wrestlers are commented on in many forums which are not directly connected with their organisation. Where are such sources for this character? --Pak21 16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Don't play the "read this" card like I'm an idiot that's never read anything. The source is the television site, not a show site. The same sources are used for Coronation Street, East Enders, and several American soaps. If you want to count "forums", well all soaps have forums but those aren't reliable sources. So that would negate the argument on wrestlers. Many people come to Wikipedia to get information on soap characters. This is an article with a good start. It should be allowed to be developed. Let the project work on it.IrishLass 16:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] See for example Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Victor_Kahu for the established precedent here; character plot summaries do not belong on Wikipedia, as is acknowledged by WP:SOAPS: "Character articles should always be written from a "real world" perspective, and should definitely not consist simply of in-universe plot summary. [...] Remember that we are here to create an encyclopedia, not to provide a comprehensive guide to soap opera storylines." --Pak21 16:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] It's being worked on now. It's tagged start class and the WP:SOAPS project banner added. It deserves a chance for clean up and does meet the character criteria. The project had little to no notice about the above AfD, so I can't comment on things I didn't get a chance to assist on. Regardless, I've provided outside sources and this article is a good start to be rewritten correctly. I've stated my case, I'm done arguing with the likes of people like you who just won't ever understand. IrishLass 16:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Additional comment - after looking around, this show is shown in not only Australia but also in the UK. The WP:SOAPS project is relatively new and should be allowed to develop this character as there is information out there outside of just the one official television station page. IrishLass 16:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep I agree with 'IrishLass', it is capable of being improved, and I dont agree with deleting articles if they have potential. There is a big effort by a small number of soap editors (like IrishLass and me) who are trying to cleanup soap character articles to make them comply with policy, but it's a huge job and more soap editors need to start helping out if they want these character pages to be kept. At the moment this is just unsourced plot summary, so in order to keep it, independent sources discussing the character and her storylines need to be found. But that shouldn't be too difficult. Soap characters and their actors are often featured in the press. If a storyline is controversial or has a big impact, then it's often reported on by the media. Info on casting, critical commentary, reception, criticism, popularity, popular culture, ratings, character development (from the view of writers, producers and the actor) are all things that could be included to make this comply with policy. I don't watch this soap so I would not be the best person to do the editing, but if any home and away editors are interested in keeping this page, then they need to start searching for sources. Try Australian newspapers, news archives, magazines etc.Gung adin ♦ 16:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep A main character on a programme that is top-rated in Australia, Ireland, and the UK. A person with a stack of magazines about soaps would be able to source this. I remember reading an interview with the actress where she spoke about the character. AfD is about an article's potential, and looking at the excellent work that editors have done on other fictional soap opera characters like this and this, I'm sure the same can be done here. Bláthnaid 23:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Thinking back, I think the interview was in a teen magazine where the actress Indiana Evans talked about how her character changed over the years, and there was a "how to dress like Mattie" spread also. That was last year I think, I'm afraid I can't remember the name of the magazine, it was just something I was flicking through. Bláthnaid 23:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete or merge. This WikiProject must get WP:RS or face mass deletions. Sorry. 17:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Furyondy[edit] Stock location for a role-playing game that fails WP:FICT for lack of reliable secondary sources. It is not normally advisable to split out a separate article on a location from the game, as each split lowers the level of notability. Gavin Collins (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep or merge into an appropriate sub-article of Greyhawk. — A notable state within the context of a notable setting. 21,300 ghits. — RJH (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep per RJH. Gavin, can you lay off a little? This is getting relentless and annoying. You're proposing these so fast that it's requiring interested parties to check Wikipedia every day just to keep up with your rampant deletionism. Iquander (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep per RJH.--Robbstrd (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep per RJH and Iquander. BOZ (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete for being completely in-universe and failing to show how this is culturally relevant or notable at all. Notability is not inherited. - Chardish (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Actually, it is, regardless of how you interpret your silly guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innerroads (talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: Innerroads is a blocked sockpuppet. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] No, it's not. Notability of the parent does not imply notability of the child. This article must show that it is independently notable and not merely notable because the game itself is notable. - Chardish (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Your argument is completely bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.247.31 (talk) 22:36, 29 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, BLACKKITE 17:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relisted after discussion; the first Keep vote claims notability and 21000 Ghits; there are in fact only around 300 unique hits on Google ([40]). The other Keep votes are per this vote. Without enough rationaled comments, a relisting is appropriate. BLACKKITE 17:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge to Greyhawk. --Nlu (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep. Only in-universe notability, but seems to have enough to back it up, if only just so. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete; Only in-universe notability is reason enough to delete on its own. — Coren ^(talk) 19:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Nominator incocrrectly list this as a stock location. There are ample primary sources, the article just needs sourcing and a bit of cleanup. Edward321 23:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep The article needs to be cleaned up but there are references out there. There is more to research can running a Google search, sometimes you have to actually work and not slap a tag on something. Web Warlock 02:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Why don't you show us some of these sources then? I (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Because I had to get my kids to bed. Plus these are in stacks of old magazines I have so I have to go through them one at a time. Real research takes a while. Web Warlock 12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Added four and will have more to add tonight. Still and going through physical stacks of magazine, journals and various books. Web Warlock 21:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Fancruft, no stated external notability. --S.dedalus 22:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] According to WP:ITSCRUFT, "cruft" is not enough of a reason to delete. I am in the process of getting external sources to establish notability. Web Warlock 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] WP:IINFO, this article is clearly utterly non notable. --S.dedalus 23:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Splitting articles into sub-articles is perfectly acceptable. It prevents articles from becoming overly long. Rray 00:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Refactor as split from Greyhawk—As currently written, this article does not qualify as a split-for-convenience from Greyhawk as it is not a cross-referenced sub-topic article. Rather, I would suggest this being refactored into a sub-topic article entitled Kingdoms and cities of Greyhawk with an appropriate Template:Main cross-reference from the Greyhawk#Political powers section. The sources provided at present are primary rather than secondary sources; it is my opinion that these would be sufficient for a sub-article of the type suggested here, but not for the current stand-alone article that this currently is. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I would support this plan. (no time to do anymore digging for articles from 80's gaming journals) Web Warlock (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Speedy Delete as an obvious hoax. Vary \| Talk 05:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Le Wiggles[edit] Le Wiggles (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Le Wiggles is an uncited franchise of the successful Austrailian children's group. The author of this page has yet to give a citation that the group exists, but I trust that it does as it is part of the Wiggle's marketting plan. The problem is that a franchise of a successful musical group is not notable. This isn't even the first such franchise, other groups exist in Latin America, China, and India---those groups do not meet the requirements for WP:Music thus the generic article Wiggles' franchises This page should be deleted (~~or at best redirected~~) to the franchise article.Balloonman (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Editors on The Wiggles main page have been notified of this debateBalloonman (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 'Comment:Also, I dispute the image that is being used for "le wiggles." This image is straight from The Wiggles main page, it is not unique to the French Franchise. Furthermore, the link provided as the French version of the Wiggles is a broken link.Balloonman (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC) EDIT: I am NO LONGER assuming good faith on the behalf of the person who created this page, but looking into this in more depth I cannot find anything that supports the notion that there is French version of the Wiggles. (This is why I propose the deletion.)Balloonman (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)EDIT: PURE hoax.Balloonman (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to Wiggles' franchises: No reason for a separate article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to Wiggles' franchises. Obvious! Snalwibma (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete - opinion changed in the light of the obvious nonsense that the article is being padded out with, as in this edit. Snalwibma (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I agree with this nomination for deletion. It's likely a hoax. If you look at the author's contributions, you'll see examples of vandalism and clear misinformation. I keep up with news reports about The Wiggles, and there's simply nothing in the press about such a group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Figureskatingfan (talk • contribs) 20:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Figureskating fan is the primary editor/reviewer of the Wiggles pages.Balloonman (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as obvious hoax from user deserving of a long block. ThuranX (talk) 05:36, 27 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. If interested in transwiki (assuming compatible licensing) or merging, please contact me and I will userify the content accordingly. — Scientizzle 17:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Locations in His Dark Materials series[edit] Locations in His Dark Materials series (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Fancruft. An unsourced article about some nonexistent locations. This page is of no use to anybody other than a fan of His Dark Materials. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nomination. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Fancruft. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Nobody but a fan would actually find use for this article. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] delete article content is all "in universe", there is no encyclopedic content, no literary analysis of the locations which might be of any interest to anyone other than a rabid fan of the books. This is not an encyclopedia article, it's just a very tangential collection of meaningless details from some novels without context or meaning. I don't even know what use a fan would put it to,.. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 14:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete useless listcruft. RMHED (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep: Strongly disagree with deletion. The only deletion criterion this could fall under is 'not suitable for an encyclopedia'. Clearly this is a matter of opinion. I would suggest that the popularity of His Dark Materials and the book's critical standing is great enough to make exposition of locations, characters etc from the book's universe notable within the context of Wikipedia (e.g. see list characters in Final Fantasy cited as an exemplar in the Manual of Style). The comment that it is unsourced is not relevant given that this information is about the locations within a book and the book is self-evidently the source. Wikipedia acts, by its own admission, as an almanac as well as an encyclopedia and consequently the inclusion of a list is appropriate. However, this article clearly does need to be rewritten to provide some real-world context. Given that some of these locations are real-world or have real-world cognates, this is eminently possible. To that end I have added an in-universe template. Inbetweener (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] First things first. The book itself may be notable, but fictional locations like “Torre degli Angeli” surely are not. Secondly , Wikipedia policy and precedence requires reliable external sources in most cases. From WP:Plot: "Summary descriptions of plot, characters, and settings are appropriate when paired with such real-world information, but not when they are the sole content of an article." And from WP:IS, “It has been noticed, however, that some articles are sourcing their sole content from the topic itself, which creates a level of bias within an article. Where this primary source is the only source available on the topic, this bias is impossible to correct.” It seems clear that this article does not follow these criteria in any way. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The notability of the book implies the notability of the locations. For examples see Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Padmé Amidala, both of which are articles written entirely about fictional characters in entirely fictional universes. They have both, however, been given real-world context and context within the wider realms of cinema / gaming / fiction by high-quality writing. Hence both of these articles have previously been Wikipedia featured articles. There is no substantive difference in the notability of the subjects of these articles and the article under discussion. The difference lies in the quality of the article itself. A poorly written article is not a criterion for deletion, it is a criterion for improvement of the article. Hence the appropriateness of an in universe template but NOT of deletion. I entirely agree with your points from the WP:IS and WP:Plot but they are further evidence of the need to improve the article, not to delete it.Inbetweener (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] On the contrary, I don’t think the notability of a book itself has any bearing whatsoever on the notability of locations in the novel. Perhaps locations in Star Wars or Harry Potter are notable enough because of the plethora exterior sources. However if I were to write an article about the planet Xathru from Timothy Zahn novel The Icarus Hunt it would be deleted as fancruft overnight. I don’t see why “The Clouded Mountain” is any more usfull to non fans of the book than would be Xathru, and I believe wiki-precedent supports this interpretation. --S.dedalus 00:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] I can see no possible empirical basis for the a priori assertion that Star Wars and Harry Potter possess a plethora of external sources which are unavailable for His Dark Materials. In the context of the 'controversy' regarding the religious themes of the trilogy, it has generated many newspaper column inches and a great deal of academic and lay discussion. The amount of literary criticism available on His Dark Materials is, in any case, certainly greater than that on the characters found in the computer game Final Fantasy VIII. The locations described, be they the University of Oxford as a bastion of rationalism, the allegorical "Clouded Mountain", or other real-life locations such as Svalbard and Novaya Zemlya are all part of that literary discussion. I can make no comment on Zahn other than to say that the sales of his novel, and the controversy generated by it, are probably significantly less. In any case, the fact that none of the authors of the present wikipedia article have availed themselves of the available literature on the subject does not imply that the article should be deleted. On that basis the vast majority of articles on molecular and cellular biology topics in Wikipedia should also be removed because, although there is usually a vast academic literature on any individual protein or gene, it is very rare for these to have been referenced on cited in the majority of these articles. Inbetweener 11:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Here’s a compromise. How about if we transwiki this article to Srafopedia (the Dark Materials wiki)? If you think the article can be adequately sourced here, by all means go ahead. My primary concern is that this is non notable fancruft and there for should not be on Wikipedia. A quick Google search appears to support this position, because, although there are 5,000 some hits for “Cittàgazze” [41] nearly all appear to be passing mentions on fan sits or Wikipedia mirrors. --S.dedalus 20:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep or merge. This useful reference for anyone reading or researching Philip Pullman -- let alone for fans or proto-fans -- builds the web and has the potential to become more like the articles on Tolkien's Middle-earth. The interrelationships between Pullman's world and others -- suggested and documented by links rather than citations -- call for subtle treatment: preferably in this article, but alternatively within a more bloated His Dark Materials article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I fail to see how a list of fictional locations from His Dark Materials would help anybody research Philip Pullman. That seems to like a huge non sequitur to me. Such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. I also don’t see why an alleged similarity between Dark Materials and Middle-earth justifies original research and lack of proven notability in the article. WP:BTW can in no way solely justify the inclusion of an article. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Suggesting (among other things) that a list of locations may help research an author constitutes nothing out of the ordinary. We research authors by examining their texts, and the names in those texts, in particular, often provide patterning and resonances. -- The similarities between His Dark Materials and the tales of Tolkien's Middle-earth seem equally apparent. Both, as works of fiction, set up and elaborate fictional settings. Readers become attracted to such settings, just as readers become involved in plot and in character, and transfer some of their in-depth interest to Wikipedia. See also List of Foundation universe planets. Some of the settings may eventually aspire to their own articles, but Torre degli Angeli has not yet reached this phase, unlike Jordan College, Oxford. -- One could make a good case for building the web providing the sole justification of including an article -- in the case of re-directs, for example -- but in this case "building the web" makes no claim to providing the sole reason for this article, but well illustrates the need for distinguishing the fictional from the actual (Svalbard) and the geographical from the biographical (Scoresby Sund vs Lee Scoresby). -- Pedant17 11:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It is clear that there is consensus to keep the article, and that notability has been established through verifiable sourcing. However, there may be some outstanding content disputes. Please continue discussing making this article better on it's talk page.-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Roger Wright[edit] Roger Wright (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) I have nominated this article for deletion based on the the PR nature of it, and the fact that there is nearly no sourced material. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] — Jkp212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Delete No quality sources to establish notability per WP:NOTE. Keep notability asserted and established. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] ~~Weak~~ keep. My concern is that the article was stripped bare by the nominator in this edit just before the AfD nomination, which I think distorts the condition of the article. I think the correct solution is to fix the article rather than delete it. Yes, it's sat a while, but it hasn't been tagged as being in need of sources. Based on the history, I just can't endorse deletion, at least not at this point in the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Based on the current revision, the article is now verifiable (cites to reliable sources) and demonstrates notability. I have no qualms with suggesting the article be kept. —C.Fred (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep: Some of the content that the nom deleted can be restored. I agree with the deletion of a lot of it though. Anyways, after that, add some ref's and we've got a stub. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Notability is not asserted. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak delete. There are some awards, but it's not clear that any are notable. There's only one record on a major label; the rest are self-published. I'm reviewing the material deleted by Jkp212, which I agree was a capricious way to approach the AFD. Deletions of this type should have a solid justification such as an urgent WP:BLP issue; allow the article to stand on its merits, and allow AFD commenters to use the material to find sources. In this case, there are a few, but I think he still fails WP:MUSIC at this time. --Dhartung \| Talk 11:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Disclosure: I created the article and provided >90% of its content. I will abstain from voting. Thank you, C.Fred and Dhartung, for pointing out that the article was "stripped bare" before being nominated for deletion; I hope other voters will examine previous versions of the article and also the discussion on the talk page, where I defended the subject's notability at a previous time. This article was one of my earlier efforts, and the language may have been effusive at times. This is adjustable and should not require removal of the great majority of the text. I do feel that the inclusion of excerpts from reviews in major publications, however praise-filled and "PR-like," is appropriate, even necessary, to establish notability. I question suggestions that Wright has not satisfied notability status for musicians. He has won international competitions. He has performed as a soloist on multiple continents. He has been the primary subject of full articles in major newspapers and magazines in multiple countries. He has recorded for a major label; yes, his more recent recordings have been self-produced, but that is being done more and more by artists in recent times for reasons having little if anything to do with their legitimacy, ability, or notability. One more point that I consider very important: Wright may very well meet notability requirements based on his Scrabble achievements alone. He was a US national Scrabble champion. Following links from categories of Scrabble players, I found several articlesstubs, in some caseswhose subjects were described only in reference to their Scrabble playing and whose achievements in Scrabble were clearly less than Wright's; yet their notability had not been questioned. Should not Wright's achievements and major media attention in two such disparate pursuits be viewed as notable? Emoll (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete On balance I think delete because I'm not convinced of his notability. For example: what, exactly, is a US Scrabble champion? Does that mean THE US Scrabble Champion or was he just one of many? The music side of his 'fame' doesnt convince me either. Maybe someone can? Marcus22 (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Keep** It seems this guy was the US National Scrabble champion. That seems to be normally sufficient for an article on Wiki. Might be worth relegating his musical side to an aside however as, at the moment, Scrabble would appear to be what he is notable for. Marcus22 (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] It means THE US Scrabble champion for 2004 (note that every other winner since 1987 has a Wikipedia article). As for "the music side of his 'fame' " (why the quotation marksare you quoting something?), what do you need in the way of convincing? Reviews in major newspapers and magazines? There were several in the article, pre-pruning. I can supply many more, or you can look at his website. You already voted, Marcus22, but perhaps others willl take this information into account. Thanks. Emoll (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] No-one has used any "quotation marks". I put 'fame' like that because it is his fame which is in question. (I could have italicized it which would have been the same thing). Marcus22 (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I want to give a heads-up: I am going to try to restore the Roger Wright article to its pre-Jkp212 version. In doing so the AfD tag may disappear momentarily, but I have every intention of restoring it immediately. I am not trying to get away with anything. I do want voters, especially those for whom assertions of Wright's notability appear to be lacking in the article, to see what was originally there. . . By the way, might one consider it relevant that Jkp212's entire edit history, outside of edits to his own talk page, consists of removing about 75% of the Wright article, then almost immediately nominating it for deletion? Emoll (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] All registered editors' comments are valid; however, it is worth noting that Jkp212 has not edited outside of this topic. Accordingly, I have tagged his nomination with ((spa)). —C.Fred (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Done. Article is restored to old version. "PR" language can be toned down; inline citations can be provided, and I will be more than happy to work on these, given some time. Marcus22, thanks for changing your vote. I will continue to believe personally that Wright is more notable as a pianist than as a Scrabble player, but I guess beggars can't be choosers. Emoll (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong Delete> not notable or sufficiently sourced. seems like a self-aggrandizing pr piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.109.175.35 (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] !vote placed in strikeout text to note that the comment was left by an unregistered user. —C.Fred (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Self-aggrandizing? I beg your pardon. I created the article, and I am not Roger Wright.Emoll (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] OK, folks. I've redone the article. It has lots of citations. There are a lot of excerpts from reviews in independent sources regarding his piano playing . Probably too many. I'll gladly remove some of them if people will concede Wright is notable as a musician. By the way, thanks, C.Fred.Emoll (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I need to make a few things clear. I am not Roger Wright; I am not a member of his family; I am not involved socially, romantically, or in any other way with Mr. Wright. I have attended several of his recitals and have met him, and he's a very nice, soft-spoken, humble person. Of course he would like to be better known (as a pianist) by the public than he currently is (he said this to an audience during a Q&A at a recital; I'm not purporting to read his mind), but I'm quite sure he'd never resort to empty PR and certainly not to using Wikipedia for that purpose. He did not ask me to do the article. I did it totally on my own initiative. I am a huge fan of his playing, and I daresay my admiration has more than the usual legitimacy, as I am myself a professional musician. As an orchestral musician, I have played with pianists including Van Cliburn, Leon Fleisher, Alicia de Larrocha, Victor Borge, André Watts, Jorge Bolet, Philippe Entremont, Misha Dichter, Horacio Gutiérrez, Leonard Pennario, Christopher O'Riley, Richard Goode, Yefim Bronfman, and Abbey Simon; I've heard many of the other greats of the past 40 to 50 years, and Wright is in that echelon. My saying that does not in itself make him notable and qualify him for a Wikipedia article, but if you read the revamped article (here is the version I was referring to when I made that post) you'll see that I'm far from alone in that assessment. He's not a household name, but the world of classical musicians and music critics has taken note, and I have kind of resorted to overkill to make that point in the article (while attempting to be particularly careful of not injecting my own opinion). Anyway, I really resent accusations and insinuations that some kind of PR show is afoot and/or that I am Wright or am in cahoots with him. Just look at the article and judge it and its subject on its/his merits. If Wright is still judged non-notable, I guess I'll have to live with that, but frankly it would cause me to lose a lot of faith in the Wikipedia process.Emoll (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ok, now you guys have taken this too far.. It doesn't bother me so much to have an article about this guy, but the way it is written now reads like promo material.. Be realistic about the notability of the subject; he went to a local university for piano, and has earned a couple of adjectives from very minor and obscure publications. Bottom line: he is not a notable figure in the music or scrabble world. How many concerts is Wright giving? Are they in notable venues? From Emoll's links, it seems as thought Wright is seeking out gigs on very mediocre internet forums. Also, user C. Fred -- who gives the authority to strike a comment from an editor, even if he/she is unregistered? Last I checked, in the community unregistered users are allowed to participate. If you feel it's a puppet, then do a check. But at least let everyone have their opinion, without striking the comment. --Jkp212 (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] (I have responded to Jkp212 on his/her talk page.) (now here) Emoll (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] After considering emoll's thoughtful comments and input on my talk page, I have become convinced he is right, and now believe the article should stay. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Week keep. Sufficiently notable pianist. His recordings are respected interpretations, and the article is sufficiently sourced. More sources can be found. Dr. Wright is a touring soloist if not a star. --S.dedalus (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I've done some more editing on the article, which is here. Believe me, I want it to be a good article, and I welcome constructive edits by others. I am gratified that more posters to this forum seem to be accepting the article and its subject as worthy of inclusion. Still, as this discussion is not officially closed and resolved, I will continue to be vigilant (and, I admit, nervous). I would like to make what I think is a reasonable request: that this discussion stay civil and on topic. Is Roger Wright notable as a pianist? Is he notable as a Scrabble player? Wikipedia policy on AfD seems to make it pretty clear that those should be the central questions addressed here. Wikipedia has a guideline page for what constitutes notability, and a supplementary one for what constitutes notability for musicians. My rationale for Wright's inclusion rests on presenting evidence that he has satisfied several of the criteria, even though the latter-cited page states: "A musician or ensemble . . . is notable if it meets any one of the . . . criteria." I maintain that he has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works in independent, reliable sources (criterion 1), that he has toured both nationally and internationally (criterion 4), that he has won two and placed in several other major music competitions (criterion 9, which requires only winning or placing in one such competition), and that he's been the subject of a half-hour or longer national radio broadcast (criterion 12 [he has done that, although the article as it stands doesn't really document this: I'd better get on it!] Done ). The case for his having satisfied criterion 5 ("has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels") is weaker: he's released only one recording as a performer on a major label and produced an additional one on an important indie label; for probably economic reasons his remaining performance releases, though popular and well received, have been self-produced. So discount criterion 5 if you will, but remember he has to satisfy only one criterion. . . . What about Scrabble? His case can rest on satisfying these criteria from Wikipedia:Notability (people) (again, only one required): "In depth, independent, coverage in multiple publications showing a widely recognized contribution to the enduring historical record in the person's specific field."; and "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." His 2004 U.S. national championship and the extensive media coverage Wright received during the tournament and afterwards should satisfy this. There is also what I consider to be a very important precedent to consider: every other U.S. Scrabble champion since 1987 has a Wikipedia article. Some of the AfD discussion suggests the article is (or was) unsourced. My original version of the article had several quotes from critical reviews, which were individually cited and sourced, and I covered the rest of the article with a list of sources and external links at the bottom (admittedly not the ideal approach, but not totally unsourced either). The AfD submitter, immediately before submitting the article, had deleted all the review excerpts: a double whammy because not only did all of the article's individually sourced statements disappear, but with them went all evidence that Wright had been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works in independent, reliable sources. . . . Anyway, that's all been addressed. The article is completely footnoted now. . . . At any rate, Wikipedia guidelines suggest that inadequate sourcing is generally not a criterion for deletion. The article can be tagged as needing citations, and then hopefully some good editing can resolve the problem. Deletion may be appropriate if the article cannot be sourced (because there just aren't sources out there) but in this instance that was never the case. Other posters have raised PR issues. The article was never intended to be PR, but perhaps previous versions came off sounding that way. I maintain that as long as the "goods" are there (the article asserts the subject's notability), the tone or style of the article can be adjusted by editing it, not deleting it. I've tried to do this. I think it's pretty prosaic-sounding now. Wright still comes off sounding like a good pianist and a good Scrabble player, but that's kind of the point, isn't it? A sincere request: if you (anyone) wants to remove material from this, or any, article, that is your prerogative as an editor. But please consider the consequences. Please don't remove statements that contribute to the assertion of the subject's notability, then complain that notability is not adequately asserted, or expose it to others to pass such a judgment. A subject need not have "fame." A previous post in this discussion included the statement: "I put 'fame' like that because it is [Wright's] fame which is in question." I insist it is not his fame which is in question. Wright is not particularly famous (at least for the moment), but I believe he is notable. Notability has extensive guidelines on Wikipedia (see above). The distinction between fame and notability is not trivial word-mincing. If it were, I don't imagine that "The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. This concept is distinct from 'fame' " would be the second sentence and the first part of the third in the "Wikipedia:Notability" article. If a person is notable, which university he previously attended does not change that. If a classical concert soloist is notable, whether or not he plays extra gigs does not change that. If a musician's only media coverage is "a couple of adjectives from very minor and obscure publications," well, that is a concern. On the other hand, don't make that claim if it's patently and demonstrably untrue. Civil and on topic. That's all I ask. Thanks. Emoll 03:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Winning prizes is a mark of notability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. In the least, his Scrabble career certainly warrants notability. Brianreading 07:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] STIDS[edit] STIDS (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Neologism. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as neologism or protologism, no evidence in the article for widespread use. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: NN neo. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete A redundant article. First line says "better known as a computer virus." Very Unnecessary ≈Alessandro ♫^{T • C} 07:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. This doesn't sound like a neologism, more like something somebody made up one day. Etymology might lend itself to a jargon based definition of sex (in this case, "Software EXchange), but that sdefinition is archaic and out of use, as near as I can tell - and that I remember, "STID" never showed up anywhere near the File. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. I have never come across this term before in my life, and Google doesn't turn up anything either. This appears to be a neologism. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 14:19, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Gender Portrayals in the Media[edit] Gender Portrayals in the Media (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) School project. Essay and original research. -- RHaworth (Talk \| contribs) 05:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Just an essay. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete for contravening WP:NOR. --DAJF (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: It is an essay. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete with no prejudice for recreation. This is a great subject for a Wikipedia article if it were properly sourced and Wikipediaic. Unfortunately this article isn’t. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. ≈Alessandro ♫^{T • C} 07:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 14:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. DJ Creamity (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak delete per S.dedalus. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Majoreditor (talk) 01:36, 29 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 without redirect (Risk Aversion & Management didn't specifically use 'accounting') SkierRMH (talk) 08:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Accounting for risk[edit] Accounting for risk (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Seems to be an essay rather than anything encylopaedic; I am not sure wikipedia is the right place for this. Oopsadoodle (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, nothing but an essay, not the right place for essays. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Per the above. It is an essay. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete essay, per above. Perhaps a redirect to Risk aversion might be worthwhile. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 09:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Looks like a rewrite for Risk management. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 14:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I do not agree that the article should be deleted. The subject is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. The article is better researched than the norm. The Articles for Deletion page states "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." This article is a case for improvement, not deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.200.11 (talk • contribs) Delete Looks like an essay. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] As mentioned by one user above, this is an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article. Those who are unhappy with the content or structure of the article please leave constructive comments which will assist the author in improving the article rather than suggesting it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaireLunday (talk • contribs) 12:48, 29 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 due to lack of references. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 10:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Songs from The Legend of Zelda series[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Songs from The Legend of Zelda series Articles for deletion/Songs from The Legend of Zelda series (2nd nomination) Songs from The Legend of Zelda series (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) No notability outside the games themselves. Miremare 03:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Miremare 03:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong Delete: Fancruft. If it is important to the game itself, merge in each games' article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Per Rjd0060. The songs do not need a separate article. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep: searches of Google news and scholar prove otherwise: [42], and [43]. I realize that there are a fair few which are not usable as sources, but there are enough to provide evidence for notability.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 09:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per Rjd0060. Which is a pity, the games are so great, and so is the music. :) ~ \| twsx \| ^talk_cont \| 10:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] ~~Delete~~ While the theme of having songs in the Zelda series deserves mention, listing these songs will (IMO) always be Original Research or a game guide. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Change to Keep, rename to Music in The Legend of Zelda and rewrite per Disavian. Amazon lists quite a few soundtrack (which I had been completely unaware of previously), but this article should then be centered around the (real-world) soundtracks, not mainly in-universe elements and plot. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I like that idea, especially the new name. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom, feel free to post on another site but doesnt really fit into an encyclopedia. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak Delete per Rjd0060; the content isn't suitable by itself, but a more general article on Zelda music may be able to establish notability. Haipa Doragon (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep Music plays a fairly important role in the Zelda series, and multiple Zelda soundtracks have been released as CDs over the years. Some more real world information is needed, but KrytenKoro's links provide some good leads for finding that kind of stuff. This article, for example, has a lengthy analysis of the music in Ocarina of Time. Zagalejo^^^ 20:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - Needs to establish notability thorough referencing and appears unable to do so. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep per the multiple (probably notable) Zelda soundtracks released over the years. This is a less substantial claim, but when people hear one of the main Zelda tunes, they probably recognize it. some of these articles may be relevant. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete This not significant enough for an article. Just merge and place info in various articles in the Zelda categories. Saria's song in the Saria article for example.YVNP (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep: Yes, I admit creator bias, but hear me out. Music is central to several installments of the series. As others have said the music is recognizable, and has been released on several soundtracks. But, more important to consider may be the question of why we have articles about characters and enemies in the series( and no, this is not a Pokémon test argument). The answer: because they are important recurring aspects. In Zelda, so is the music. I would not make the same argument about the music in the Mario series, for example. It’s great music, and very recognizable, but the difference is that in the Zelda series, the songs are integrated into the core gameplay and puzzle solving of several titles. Well, I’m tired and it’s not the most eloquent argument I’ve ever made, but hopefully I got my point across. Oh, and, briefly, what exactly is the nominator’s point? Many subjects of articles( characters, locations, fictional histories) are not necessarily notable beyond their importance to the larger work. That doesn’t mean notability is assumed to be inherited, it just means that information about notable aspects does not necessarily fit in full in the main articles. --WikidSmaht (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Basically there are not references, so there is no verifiability, and to keep this article from being deleted, it needs development information and stuff like that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: I don't see why any of the relevant and notable material can't be merged into the article. Just because it can attain some sites on a Google search doesn't make it adequately notable either. It's like typing in "Gameplay of The Legend of Zelda", and making an article out of that if a few sites appear. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. A crucial part of one of the biggest series out there, and - and this is important - works better as coverage of that series as its own article. If we sacrifice that to better uphold the rules, we are by definition wrong. Sources have been provided, the music has been played in numerous concerts and a half-time song or two. Several soundtracks have been released. I do support covering those. --Kizor (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep, music is one of the most important parts of the Zelda series, and the main theme of the game is arguably one of the most recgonizable music tunes of all time. Knowitall (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Just a comment on some of the "keep" arguments: Firstly, music is "important" to many games, but without sources specifically discussing "Songs from Zelda" there's no justification for a seperate article, and anything that is important should be mentioned in the articles on the games themselves. Secondly, this article isn't about the Zelda soundtrack albums that have been released, it's about songs played by the character in-game to perform specific tasks (and is more than a bit WP:NOT#GUIDE). Articles on the soundtracks already exist, such as The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (soundtrack), The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker Soundtrack, The Legend of Zelda The Ocarina of Time Original Soundtrack. Miremare 15:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for pointing this out, but it won't change my recommendation. I just found Music of Kingdom Hearts (a Good Article) yesterday, and I think the soundtracks and what's salvageable of this AfD'ed article should all be merged into one big Music article, which has the potential to become a GA one day. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Music of Kingdom Hearts has more than proven notability, this article has proven none, despite claims that it is so important. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I recommended a renaming of this article and merge the other soundtrack articles there. Then the article has pretty much the same basis as the Kingdom Hearts music article, including an established notability. Independent of the outcome of this AfD, I'll probably do the merge myself. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Pointless, should be moved to a gaming wiki at most.---E-Magination (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep as it passed as a keep before and is a discriminate and verifiable article of one of the all time most notable game series. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. Consensus can change, so stop ignoring that fact. Being kept in one AFD, doesn't mean it should always be kept. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Rjd0060 Solution ~~and transwiki to a gaming wiki if need be~~. Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 23:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Already done when it was first nominated (A better version was transwikied) see here --Cs california 07:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep- needs a ton of work, but I'm confident sources can be added in. I found one or two in passing just today, not even looking, including the Gametrailers LoZ retrospective, which discuss both the role in the games and the reaction and legacy. A bad article can become a Good Article. David Fuchs^(talk) 02:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] That source seems to be a blog... Miremare 02:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Then maybe you didn't follow the link to the main page, but Joystiq is still a source too... David Fuchs^(talk) 00:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, I know it's Joystiq, but I still don't believe a single blog (or any number of blogs for that matter) proves notability. Miremare 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] We're not basing this on a single blog. Other sources have been presented, like this. Zagalejo^^^ 00:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] That one talks about how the player must "play" music to accomplish specific tasks in Ocarina of Time. That could justify a section about this in the Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time article, but I don't see how it justifies anything more. There's little that can be said about that aspect of the game without venturing into game-guide territory, which is what this article already does. Miremare 01:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong Delete This is completely useless for an encyclopedia. It is completely unreferenced and cannot ever be referenced either. .:Alex:. 17:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete, socks notwithstanding. Sandstein 07:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Clean Sadness[edit] Clean Sadness (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Delete for lack of notability. Google search results in 34 pages, one of them a Wikipedia mirror and the rest irrelevant. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 03:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Not everything is on the internet. This article is in accordance with two of the criteria laid out in the WP:MUSIC guidelines: "7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city ... "9. Has won or placed in a major music competition." FeverDrum (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. Which style is he representative of? Which competition has he placed in? ... discospinster _talk 04:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Sorry, fails MUSIC guidelines. FeverDrum, if you can verify those claims (above) with third-party, reliable sources, then I'll consider changing my !vote. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep It's this new genre, SPEW. It's become a bit of a weird movement here in these areas of Ontario (Ottawa and Sudbury at least). Underground thing, very strange stuff, but a lot of people know about it, talk about it, and there for a lot of people would like to know more. This is a good way of finding out. -Alsamisath (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Alsamisath (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply] Delete per WP:NN, WP:VERIFY, and possibly WP:HOAX. --DAJF (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete does not appear to meet WP:N. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep SPEW is rapidly gaining popularity in Southern Ontario, this is one of the few relevant articles. - Eenocks (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Eenocks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply] Keep Just because an artist makes records on an independent label, why should that mean according to wikipedia that they don't exist? Clean Sadness is a great SPEW artist and someone should make an article on the SPEW genre as, to, my surprise, apparently many people outside The United States aren't aware of. Definitely keep it. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr timebomb (talk • contribs) 23:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC) — Dr timebomb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply] Comment. Please note that WP has a vast amount of articles on artists on independent labels. They are all also able to be backed up with sources. tomasz. 17:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Clean Sadness is definitely an artist many people want to find out more about, and even if there are only two sources, I don't think this is grounds to delete this page. - Chazzout! (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)— Chazzout! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply] Delete fails WP:V, WP:MUSIC unless reliable 3rd party sources are cited. dissolve ^talk 20:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:V, WP:MUSIC, WP:RS. I don't think a guy who's had less than 100 listens on his Myspace page qualifies as a wildly popular and notable cult artist. Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per Bearcat. GJ (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per Bearcat. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 17:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Not notable. None of the claims in support of notability have been supported with reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for local musicians. --Skeezix1000 18:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per Bearcat. nn artist. Reso lute 16:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. "Spew" music is an unpopular neologism. There's nothing whatsoever new in the idea of spoken word over rock/electronic backing. This is a non-notable artist. tomasz. 17:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Subject:CINEMA[edit] Subject:CINEMA (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Previously speedied per CSD A7 and prodded with the concern "The provided sources are insufficient to establish that this website meets WP:WEB." This website's claims to notability are passing mentions on MySpace pages, a quote on a movie flyer, and some forum posts. I believe these references are insufficient to establish the website's notability per WP:WEB's criteria. --Muchness (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete as A7 (no assertion of notability) and G11 (advertising). Note that this has also been speedily deleted under the name Subject:Cinema, and I deleted it previously under the present name. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete: On A7 and G11, and I'm tagging it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] thanks Hello again, Thanks for at least taking sometime to go through some of the links on the page. In addition to the claims listed below, one that was probably not reviewed by you due to time constraints I am sure, is the review by Adam Curry on the podfinder review link listed on our page. Adam is regarded as "The Godfather" of podcasting and his word carries some weight in the podcasting world and as a previous star of TV via MTV. His shining review of our podcast has sent 1,000's of new listeners to our website/podcast, so I am proud to list it as a credible source as a book review in the New York Times. As for the the myspace pages, these are mostly indie-film makers with no other avenue to get their films publicized. They should not be simply panned over since they are Myspace pages, Myspace is one of the most popular sites and highly-valued sites on the Net with major corps., and movie studios using it almost as much as wikipedia. As for "and some forum posts", they are on iMDB.com which is a site most of our listeners/readers use on a daily basis for all things movies. I consider iMDB a little more than just some random internet forum. Subject:CINEMA is also accredited as indie-film reviewers as mentioned in our references, which we know is not the New York Times, but we take it very seriously and try to provide the indie-film community with a source to which we can inform the public about the great films these folks are providing. Once again, I mention since you have a category for the listing of podcasts and there are very few there, how are the users of wikipedia supposed to know they exist unless you allow our inclusion to wikipedia the same as filmspotting of which we based our wikipedia page as a very similar podcast to our own and probably as much notoriety and also the daily source code page. If after all of this we still don't meet your requirements, I thank you for taking the time to validate our sources before making your decision. Thanks and have a nice day! :) Subject:CINEMA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subjectcinema (talk • contribs) 04:34, 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. WP:WAX is not a persuasive argument to keep when the article suffers from a lack of sources and a serious WP:V/WP:NOR problem. Sandstein 07:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Arthas Menethil[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Arthas Menethil Articles for deletion/Arthas Menethil (2nd nomination) Arthas Menethil (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Another WoW character article that does not meet notability requirements, does not meet WP:Fiction, is mostly fancruft, and is completely unsourced (except for article previewing the game he appears in). This character is already covered in the List of Warcraft characters and does not need his own article. The game is notable, every character in it is not. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. I think it's safe to say that this character is the single most notable of all those in the Warcraft universe. Not commenting on the article's status, hence not voting, but he is to Warcraft what Jean-Luc Picard is to Star Trek (my quote from Picard with the merge notice was reference to the fact that we have pages like Nog and friends, which also is not voting criteria but food for thought). Luatha (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] delete article content is all "in universe", there is no encyclopedic content, no analysis of the character which might be of value to anyone not a fan of the game. The sole "reference" for this putative encyclopedia article is a game review, not a secondary source treatment of the character "Arthas Menethil". I see no evidence at all of the "extensive coverage" in reliable secondary sources as required by WP:N. This is pure fan cruft. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Non notable, and nothing of encyclopedic value here. Also, the article is no where near sufficiently sourced, and has the familiar tone of fancruft. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge (after cutting down) into List of Warcraft characters#Arthas Menethil. Not notable enough for a separate article, but it seems he's important enough to the series to have more than one paragraph in the list. Pagra shtak 15:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 15:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge - His notability my increase over time, so lets save the information and merge him into the characters list. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - wasn't this nominated 3 weeks ago? Surely nominations have a common sense cooldown, or do thing keeps getting nominated until they're removed, and thus can't be nominated again? Kirkburn (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I wasn't aware of the previous nomination until after I'd already renominated, though with the last nomination ending in no consensus, I don't think renomination is too bad in this case. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Whereas dozens of other Warcraft characters are not notable, Arthas is one of them who actually is. One of the mainest characters in the series (if that's a word). Axem Titanium (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] If that's true, there's no way that those of us who don't play Warcraft would know that. Could you provide some secondary sources to show this? Pagra shtak 15:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. If both Sarah Kerrigan and Jim Raynor of the Starcraft series deserve separate writeups, why not Arthas Menethil of the Warcraft series? He's essentially become its signature character and "poster boy." His face is on the cover of the Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne expansion pack, just like Kerrigan's face is on the StarCraft: Brood War expansion pack. He's even on the cover of the upcoming World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King, which would seemingly beat Kerrigan's box top exposure. I'd sooner delete Jim Raynor's writeup than Arthas's. That said, I agree that the article is badly written and somewhat unhelpful. Mynabird 07:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Nothing against his character, but to keep the article, we must have notability established by references to verify the content. IN other words, stuff like, how did they come up with this character? What were their influences? What did video game reviewers say about his role in the games? If you don't have that, delete.Judgesurreal777 04:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete and redirect to Jeb Bush, the latter having been done already by Citicat (talk · contribs). I see no point in deleting the history at this stage unless someone tries to restore the article. Sandstein 07:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Noelle Bush[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Noelle Bush Articles for deletion/Noelle Bush (3rd nomination) Articles for deletion/Noelle Bush (second nomination) Noelle Bush (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Delete and redirect to Bush family per WP:BLP and WP:NOT#NEWS which states: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news.[5] Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article." -Strothra (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to Jeb Bush. Unless she's done something notable since 2002, this is old news. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Her criminal record does not make her notable, and her name alone isn't sufficient for notability. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. The news coverage is not enough to establish her as a notable person sufficient to overcome the BLP concerns. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. We have deleted a whole bunch of articles on people whose only claim to notability was to have been part of the Bush family, and this one fits the bill as well as the others. So she's the President's niece. Would Mrs. Bush have been notable had she been a regular Joe with the same kind of legal trouble? --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to her father. JJL (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to Jeb_Bush#Noelle_Lucila_Bush. The majority of this material is already there, and that's where it belongs.--TexasDex ★ 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Just a note that I would have redirected in this case, but the article already survived a previous AfD. Even though it was no consensus, I believe it would have been a bit too WP:BOLD. --Strothra (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to the Jeb article. Being the daughter of a Governor or the niece of a President is not an automatic entitlement to a Wikipedia article under any part of WP:BIO. Having a drug problem likewise does not satisfy WP:BIO. The conjunction of being related to a notable person and having a drug problem does not convey inherent notability. The news coverage was transient and per WP:NOT#NEWS this article need not remain in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep as a member of one of the two or three most powerful/notable political families in America and for making national news. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note that family lineage is not a valid argument for inclusion per WP:NOTINHERITED. --Strothra (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep ,just as with George P. Bush, their status are magnified because of the family lineage. Most objections would apply equally to George P. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note that family lineage (WP:NOTINHERITED) and WP:WAX are not valid arguments for keeping an article. GPB is independently notable from his family and was kept for that reason in the 2006 AfD. If any comparison is to be made it is with the Pierce Bush AfD. That article was deleted. --Strothra (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above assertion as to what constitutes valid argument is only an assertion and seems to be based upon a self described "essay" which clearly describes itself as"..not a policy or guideline..", so maybe the nominator subscribes to that essay's pov but I consider that essay to be Instruction creep and of no usefulness. I'd also argue that GPB is not independently notable from his family based upon his article's description of his less than notable activities. Family lineage is,obviously,a valid consideration for keeping an article. Also, Pierce Bush is not close to Noelle in terms of advanced search hits; ratio 20,000 for Noelle to 2,000 for Pierce. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Essays are still based in policy, in this case this is particularly true in terms of WP:BIO, WP:NN, and WP:NOT. This article also stands to easily violate WP:BLP on the only issue in which NB can claim independent notability. --Strothra (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I respectfully disagree wholeheartedly, stand by my reference to Instruction creep and I also endorse theseBD2412 comments which were made during the previous AfD attempt. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note that instructions are different from policy. In particular, policies like WP:BLP are put into place not to guide content, but to protect Wikipedia from legal liabilities which is why BLP must be strictly adhered to.--Strothra (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I do not think the case has been made that WP:BLP is offended with this article nor that Wikipedia needs to be protected from anything within this article. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] That's actually why I brought up WP:NOT#NEWS in the nom. That policy demonstrates the connection between WP:NOT and WP:BLP specifically in terms that relate to this article. --Strothra (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] That is a better point but I still think the reasons for keeping the article as outlined in the original AfD are more weighty than the reasons here for deleting it. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Fair enough :). --Strothra (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to Jeb Bush. The slight amount of notability is strictly inherited. Tim Ross·^talk 00:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete and redirect to Jeb Bush. I agree that she hasn't done anything sufficiently notable to justify having an article: children of famous people are not automatically notable themselves (unless they're going to inherit a throne or something), and the sole news story about her cited on this page seems absurdly minor. Following the guidelines of WP:BLP, I think we should avoid harm and delete this article. Terraxos (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - as an aside, it's worth mentioning that this article actually does, strictly speaking, pass our notability requirements. It has a sufficient amount of coverage from multiple reliable sources, and if it wasn't about a person, might well survive AfD. But articles about living people should always be treated differently when it comes to notability, and should be considered in a broader sense that weighs it against respecting their privacy; in other words, this article is the perfect demonstration of why WP:BLP exists. Terraxos (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep as an "answer" to royalty in the US. Utterly notable. Greswik 18:55, 30 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 00:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Altaïr Ibn La-Ahad[edit] Altaïr Ibn La-Ahad (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Video game character with no apparent notability outside the game. Anything important from here should be merged to Assassin's Creed. Miremare 03:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Miremare 03:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] delete article content is all "in universe", there is no encyclopedic content, no analysis of the character which might be of value to anyone not a fan of the game. I see no evidence at all of the "extensive coverage" of Altaïr Ibn La-Ahad in reliable secondary sources as required by WP:N. Delete as cruft. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Per the noms reasoning. Merge any important info to the Assassin's Creed article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] delete - Per nom. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Doesn't warrant separate own page. Dan (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Not notable enough for separate article. Pagra shtak 18:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Obliterate* into oblivion. Not notable enough for own article. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 23:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete and Merge Make a small bio of Altair in the Assassin's Creed article. --Dekabreak101 (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep I beleive it should be kept. The game just came out and not many may have it. As people beat the game such as i have they will be able to contribute more information on it for those who wish to contribute to the site as i have. This character will want to be viewed up with characters such as Master Chief of Halo and Solid Snake of Metal Gear Solid. He is a very popular character and more will be put in on him. Many with or without the game will want to know who he is. (I AM NOT A MEMBER AND ALSO DO NOT KNOW IF I AM ALLOWED TO POST HERE. IF NOT I APOLOGIZE I AM JUST EXPRESSING MY BELIEFS ON THE SUBJECT, thank you.) Anon IP's are certainly welcome for deletion discussions. However, I will point out that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we cannot speculate if this character will be as popular as Master Chief or the others for notability purposes. If, for some reason, Altair is mentioned and critically commented on in reliable sources, we can come back and create this, but for the time being it should be deleted. --MASEM 00:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete and Merge Non-notable at this time, merging back to ACreed article is perfect solution. --MASEM 00:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:39, 30 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-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Giant-penguin hoax[edit] Giant-penguin hoax (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This article is an unsourced, unfocused, and rather bizarre discussion about some alleged sightings of a 15 foot penguin in Florida. There are no inline citations, and the only cited references are a tripod website and an article (not available online) from a magazine called Fortean Times, which is apparently a conspiracy-theory magazine. Horologium t-c 02:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Okay , can we get an admin to close this as a Keep, under WP:SNOW? I'm going to withdraw this nomination, since there are plenty of sources after all. They just need to be added to the article. Horologium t-c 12:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. This is a hoax that meets notability, as a Google of florida+giant+penguin easily showed. [44][45][46] And while I will not directly dispute your characterization of the Fortean Times, it is possible to write objectively and authoritatively about conspiracies and hoaxes. --Dhartung \| Talk 03:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep I was about to post some of the same links as Dhartung. And the 1988 St. Petersburg Times article by Jan Kirby is available on Newsbank, for anyone who's interested. Zagalejo^^^ 03:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep, verifiable and sufficiently notable hoax. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Keep per Dhartung's sources, sufficiently notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep: Per the above. Notability does not expire. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep - notable hoax. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. No one here is trying to pass off a hoax as truth. The article clearly states that its subject is a hoax, and one that apparently deceived quite a few people, so the notability is not in question here. See Loch Ness Monster. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:10, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yoshiella[edit] Yoshiella (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Contested prod, apparent hoax. Miremare 02:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Miremare 02:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as hoax, nothing about it online. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: NN, probably a hoax anyways. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Even if it's not a hoax, it's not notable. Pagra shtak 15:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - No notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as non-notable and possible hoax. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:01, 27 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. CitiCat^♫ 04:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] John Edward Tang (author)[edit] John Edward Tang (author) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Non notable author.Delete TheRingess (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Hoax (clever one: isbns and everything, just that none of them link up to the titles given except the first, which was published under a different name from either given here). --Paularblaster (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Although, it is one of the best hoax articles I've seen. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/List of churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana Articles for deletion/List of churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana (2nd nomination) List of churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --Ichabod (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note This AfD is part of a series of AfDs made by the nominator that specifically targets lists of churches across the United States. The AfDs currently include this, this and this. • Freechild'sup? 15:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Per WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info, nor is it a directory, nor is it a travel guide. Useight (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Contains no info beyond that found in a directory. CitiCat^♫ 05:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong delete. We are not the yellow pages. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. This is an arbitrary list that adds no encyclopedic content, as is this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. • Freechild'sup? 15:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete sheesh. JJL (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:NOT. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:01, 27 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 00:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of Episcopal churches in Cincinnati, Ohio[edit] List of Episcopal churches in Cincinnati, Ohio (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Wikipedia is not a directory nor an indiscriminate collection of information. --Ichabod (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Per WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Contains no info beyond that of a directory. CitiCat^♫ 05:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:SHEESH (why is there no Sheesh! page?). JJL (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:01, 27 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 00:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sheep Dip whisky[edit] Sheep Dip whisky (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Tagged for notability for 5 months, no further edits. A google search yielded very few hits (62) suggesting this is not a well-known brand. Delete: Non notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete tiny brand no notability. RMHED (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as non-notable. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:24, 27 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 Same old Wikipedia Game. DS (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wikigolf[edit] Wikigolf (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) I wanted to remove proposed deletion from this page to give a chance to debate before deleting it. Anshuk (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] i have stated my argument for the retention of this article in a newly created 'talk:wikigolf' page.Cleanfatback (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Per WP:NFT and WP:N. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy per G4, this is pretty much "Six Degrees of Wikipedia" (the concept of which has been deleted too many times to count) in different wrapping paper. shoy (^words _words) 02:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:MADEUP. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete per CSD A9, "clone of Six Degrees of Wikipedia in article space". Yes, things may have gotten that bad. =) =) =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. I don't like it isn't a rationale (for me, at least), but WP:V and WP:RS are. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:46, 28 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 00:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Alice In Wonderland (Pantomime)[edit] Alice In Wonderland (Pantomime) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) I prodded Alice In Wonderland: The Pantomime as an article about a non-notable local amateur theatre group, and their productions, which included a pantomime of Alice in Wonderland. The creator blanked that article and created the article I have nominated for deletion; another editor redirected the original to this version. Zero Google/GNews hits for the theatre. Of 33 possible hits for the production, three appear to be relevant and none are significant. The only assertion of notability I can see is in the original version of the article, which claimed a box-office record breaker. However, the theatre apparently seats 300, so I don't believe this is enough. Kateshort forbob 01:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Non notable performance. Obviously, the subject of the performance is notable, but what does that have to do with this group? - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Neat, yet ultimately non-notable local theatre production. --Dhartung \| Talk 03:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - definitely not notable. Deb (talk) 17:12, 29 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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Madden NFL 08 en Espanol[edit] Madden NFL 08 en Espanol (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Same as the rest of the world release Madden NFL 08, i wanst sure if it should just be redirected Salavat (talk) 01:00, 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. CitiCat^♫ 04:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] 50 Entertainment[edit] 50 Entertainment (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Advertisement. Not notable. Speedy declined. Hammer1980·^talk 00:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Not really blatant advertising, but non notable nonetheless. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:38, 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. PeaceNT 01:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Jaxson Barham[edit] Jaxson Barham (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Non-notable Australian rules footballer, who does not meet WP:BIO for athletes. He has not yet played a competitive match in a fully professional league. Mattinbgn\^talk 00:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: Toby Thoolen (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) John McCarthy (AFL football player) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Steven Browne (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Dennis Armfield (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Cale Morton (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Jarrad Grant (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Trent Cotchin (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Callan Ward (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Easton Wood (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Dean Putt (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep for now until we see how their career in the AFL progresses. If they end up not playing in the seniors, we can reconsider then. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] You are suggesting hanging off for at least three more months, assuming that games from the NAB Cup are held as being part of a fully professional league (and that the first round will be in February, as it was in 2007). IMO, that's too long a review period: either delete them or keep them as a result of this debate.Ga rr ie 02:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment These are all players picked up in the 2007 AFL Draft. There is no guarantee that they will ever meet the WP:BIO criteria. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] There is no reason to delete them now and recreate them for their first game. A merge to an article on the 2007 AFL draft would also be appropriate. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep All: Being a part of the AFL (like the NFL) seems notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete all there are really two options here: Delete all or change WP:BIO. Currently, none of these players meet notability criteria. Either get the notability criteria changed - or at least make a case for it at wikiproject AFL - or delete these articles.Ga rr ie 01:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Actually, I'll add a third option: merge to AFL Draft, 2007 or similar. That way they are listed and easily recreated if they play a game.Ga rr ie 02:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep All: same reasoning as Rjd0060. As players on current AFL lists, it is reasonable to assume that people will seek to know the information listed about them: viz. position, junior experience, draft selection and then debut where applicable. If their careers tank, then delete them later. Aspirex (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep All: They are all on senior AFL lists they have made it to the top of their tree. All players on AFL lists should be included. There are many, many more players to delete than just the ones you have listed if you are going by this "theory" that you have created. While we are at it, sources have been added and they ARE verifiable sources. Plus if you want to re-create each of the players you deleted when they play their first game next year go ahead because I wont be....... Charedblack (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep All: There would possibly be more interest in some of these names than others with senior experience in the lead up to the next season, same every draft. 2 minutes research: NFL - Kevis Coley has not yet played a competitive match in a fully professional league but, along with everyone else on the Cincinnati roster, has a bio; Championship League (not even EPL) - Martin Riley ditto for Wolverhampton. Perhaps it is reasonable that if they are on a club list they may have an entry (i.e. same as happens in practice with NFL & EPL) and if they then never play a senior game they can then be deleted. Lintornterry (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep All: These people have received considerable media attention throughout the major media outlets in the past few weeks. There is a high chance that these people will all have significant careers within the AFL, and it will be within a day or so that each of their clubs will have pages dedicated to their biographies - in addition with the many articles already dedicated to them. Sure, they might be a bit bland at the moment, but the articles still have much room for improvement. If they are deleted now they'll just be re-posted within a few days/weeks. No point in stalling the inevitable. Dupz (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep All: As professional AFL players, they are notable. Supported by WikiProject AFL. And, like many others have mentioned, there are many 'non-notable' players (according to your definition) in other leagues/codes. Boomtish (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep All, it seems likely that many if not all of these people will play sooner rather than later. If, after a year or so, they still haven't made it onto the field at the top tier, then get rid of them. Lankiveil (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC).[reply] Delete all for reason summarised above. These people are not notable ... they may become notable. Until they do then they cannot have the notability of an article. Notability is not temporary. Once you have it, then you have it. Victuallers (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] So satisfying WP:N makes them non-notable? Twenty Years 10:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep All Whilst they may not have played a senior game to meet WP:AFL, it is more than likely that they will infact meet that criteria in the coming AFL season. In the mean-time, they clearly satisfy WP:N given the large number of reliable sources on each of these people who have been drafted by AFL clubs. Might be interesting to note the AfD debate on Matthew Kreuzer, who is also an AFL draftee, which was closed as a Keep. Twenty Years 10:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Matthew Kreuzer was the likely No. 1 draft pick who had significant media coverage about him not just listed as a potential draft pick. That is not the case with the others. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:17, 29 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. Sandstein 07:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Junius P. Rodriguez[edit] Junius P. Rodriguez (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Based on history of the edits, this appears to be a self-biography (WP:BIO) by User:Mj0514dr also connecting as Special:Contributions/198.88.216.101. Some of the material may support notability. However, no reliable sources are cited (the article needs substantial modification to justify retaining it). Tedickey (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak Keep: For now. Needs sources (I've tagged it) and cleanup / expansion, and was just recently created. Give it some time to come up to par, but it is acceptable as a stub (assuming sources are found asap). - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. Seems to have a reasonable amount of popular press: [47] [48]. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Maybe - there's material there to develop (and weed through - perhaps one does a reasonable job of analysis/criticism, though sadly insightful reviewers are rare). Searching just on the author's name, it seemed that I was mostly seeing advertisements for the books - a few reviews scattered around. However, this page came to my notice since its editor added several entries to other articles reference list. Further reading lists are one matter, but references are the data used to build the article. There are other book-advertisers in the same category. Tedickey (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep Look ok for now. But I would suggest deletion if it is not improved. Chris! _ct 02:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Editor of several major reference books by notable specialist publisher. Since there are apparently reviews, that's enough for notability. DGG (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Regarding reviews - as User:Mj0514dr continues editing, he's only supplied pointers to advertising material - no reviews cited, independent or otherwise (yet) Tedickey (talk) 11:00, 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 Merge most to List of Danny Phantom villains and ghosts. Some of these are, however, rather lengthy for merging (See Wikipedia:Summary style), and one or two "may" be developed enough for their own article (this being the disadvantage of a group nomination). Once I've completed the merging, no prejudice against (re-)nominating individually whichever ones remain unmerged, if that's deemed appropriate. (I'll note that here once I've finished the merging.) - jc37 09:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Dark Danny, Ember McLain, Nicolai Technus, and Skulker (Danny Phantom) were the ones not merged. - jc37 14:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Skulker (Danny Phantom)[edit] Skulker (Danny Phantom) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Nicolai Technus (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Desiree (Danny Phantom) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Walker (Danny Phantom) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Penelope Spectra (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Ember McLain (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Johnny 13 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Fright Knight (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Wulf (Danny Phantom) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Youngblood (Danny Phantom) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Pariah Dark (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Dark Danny (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Clockwork (Danny Phantom) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) The Observants (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Prince Aragon (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Frostbite (Danny Phantom) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Vortex (Danny Phantom) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Undergrowth (Danny Phantom) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Nocturne (Danny Phantom) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) These supporting characters do not satisfy the notability guideline for fiction and unlikely to do so at any point in time. All of them already have List of Danny Phantom villains and ghosts_{« ₣ullMetal ₣alcon »} 00:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Unless sources can be found, consolidation in the villains and ghosts article is appropriate. If sources can be found, a standalone article may be appropriate. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge: As of now, per the above comment. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] delete article content is all "in universe", there is no encyclopedic content, no analysis of the characters which might be of value to anyone not a rabid fan of the TV show. I see no evidence at all of the "extensive coverage" in reliable secondary sources as required by WP:N. Delete as fan cruft. I don't see the merit of merging all these characters into List of Danny Phantom villains and ghosts unless there is extensive ocverage in reliable sources of these characters as characters. If the TV show itself is the only topic to be treated as a subject of critical attention by reliable secondary sources, then the article on the show itself should be the only article related to the show kept on WP. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete all. List of Danny Phantom villains and ghosts is already doing a great job. Especially for cartoon characters, significant secondary coverage rarely exists (with a few exceptions like Simpsons or the South Park characters). – sgeureka ^t•c 11:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Hiding T 13:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge and Delete as needed as stated above. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{ho ho ho • under the tree}} 01:28, 27 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. A close call, but we may probably take into account that the article was created by the single purpose account Americanpatriot1976 (talk · contribs), who has also been repeatedly removing the AfD notices. This does not bode well for the development of the article. Let's give this guy a chance to write up his CV on his own website. Sandstein 06:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Doug Bennett (Massachusetts politician)[edit] Doug Bennett (Massachusetts politician) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) File:Bennettsmitts200 238.jpg (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) (added by closing admin) File:04-23-01dnews-1d.jpg (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) (added by closing admin) File:Bennettsign300 01.jpg (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) (added by closing admin) File:BennettWedding.jpg (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) (added by closing admin) Fails notability requirements. This person's claim to fame seems to be that he was a county selectman and lost an election for state senate. However, he does not seem to have received any attention from the media other than a couple of mentions in the local paper, certainly not "significant press coverage". Eatcacti (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep: Article needs quite a bit of work, however does appear to be notable. Google News search brings back over 50 hits, and some of the articles, according to the headlines, appear to be specifically about the subject himself. Reliable sources include the Cape Cod Times and The Boston Globe. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete unless rewritten from reliable sources by end of AFD. At present this is a frankly hilarious hagiography wherein the selectman is compared with Cincinnatus and Abraham Lincoln in the same paragraph, padded out with tangential puffery such as working at an "historic" fishmarket in the "legendary" Faneuil Hall. (I guess that must have been some fishmarket job.) There are many unsupported characterizations such as a "shocked" electorate (they must not have thought their votes would count). It also tries to fold in biographies of his relatives. Thin gruel indeed with lots of brown sugar. Naturally, it is written by a single-purpose account. --Dhartung \| Talk 03:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete for now. I see the Globe did do a profile on him.[49] That certainly counts. Not sure if I give as much weight to the Nantucket paper which is doing more or less a local blurb about his announcement [50]. Problems: parts of the article are copied verbatim from his senate campaign page [51] or very heavily influenced by his campaign [52]. At this point, I would bet my last dollar that he or his campaign is engaging in wikispam. He may have done genuinely notable things. If more articles similar to the Globe surfaced and the article underwent a complete non-Bennett influenced re-write I could certainly be pursuaded otherwise. But appropriating money isn't notable, nor is passing a non-binding resolution. Its what politicians do. Montco (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Seeing some of the changes, the campaign page copy was removed, however, they just make the article less copyvio but still spammy. I don't know how the article addresses notability. The source on his arrest for a racial attack that Sarcasticidealist brought up would certainly add to a case for notability but is not noted in the article. So far all I see is a county commissioner in Massachusetts who married well and has been defeated in races for higher offices with a unique campaign style. No sale.Montco (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] (link inserted into my commentary by Americanpatriot1976) [53] OK, so there is nothing to the racial attack angle. I thought something there would add to notability but I guess not. Delete I don't see anything here that makes him notable, the whole article reads like an ad. -- Dougie WII (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep He obviously doesn't hold a position that's been deemed inherently notable, but, as User:Rjd0060 noted, he's been the subject of significant coverage ([54], [55], [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CT&p_theme=ct&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=10A6C56440662F44&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM). Based on that third link, he seems to have something of a reputation for quixotic election attempts. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:05, 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 per WP:SNOW, WP:HEY, and after moving. I'm working on removing the cruft. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of Ithaca College People[edit] List of Ithaca College People (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Largely unsourced, and some inaccurate info. Many persons on the list lack notability, and the topic of the list (Ithaca College People) is vague and too open-ended. Weathermandan (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Per the nom's reasoning. A lot of people listed aren't notable. Add the actual notable ones to the list here, and delete the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Keep Almost every college has an alumni and personnel list. Fix problems, don't delete the good with the bad. Did the nominator notice the category Category:Lists of people by university in the United States. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep but rename to List of Ithaca College alumni, with the faculty list on the college page itself, and trim out most of the non-wikilinked "notables" such as the random CEOs and news reporters. Although do note the school is known for its broadcast journalism program. Redlink any that seem promising. The use of "people" is basically a holdover from the standard category structure for colleges & universities that puts categories for faculty and alumni under a "people" intermediate category. With a little work most of the blue-linked articles coudl probably have sources imported and if you think something is inaccurate, remove it (if you're not sure, tag it). As for "open-ended", what other kinds of people do you think might end up in this article? --Dhartung \| Talk 07:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep, since there's plenty of precedent for alumnus and faculty lists, but I support Dhartung's proposals above. EALacey (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep this is very standard on WP. JJL (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep, precedent has shown that lists of alumni and faculty are acceptable. I have moved the page to List of Ithaca College alumni. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Non-notable people should be removed, sources should be provided,list expanded, etc. But the list itself (per usual practice in WP) should stay. Good idea to rename (by TenPoundHammer). --Yury Petrachenko (talk) 20:05, 28 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 by User:Yamla, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] A.J. Walsh[edit] A.J. Walsh (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Non-notable actor. He might become notable if and when he shows up in season 8 of Degrassi, but until then, he doesn't even show up in imdb. Corvus cornix_talk 00:33, 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 I withdraw. -Good sh op ed 01:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Jodi Te Huna[edit] Jodi Te Huna (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Non-notable person -Good sh op ed 00:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Never heard of her, will withdraw if I can find five or more refs about her. -Good sh op ed 00:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep, looks like she played at the highest level of her sport. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep: Here are some notability-establishing, reliable sources which can be added to the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Might As Well, but how do you close an AfD debate? -Good sh op ed 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 Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Armistice (band)[edit] Armistice (band) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Contested Speedy. Looks nn to me. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete. Contested speedies do not require AfDs, in fact, it's the responsibility of the person putting the "hangon" tag to explain on the article's Talk page why they feel the speedy is incorrect. This has not been done, therefore there's no need for the AfD. They fail WP:BAND. Corvus cornix_talk 00:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] speedy delete just the same per Corvus. Nothing's been placed on the talk page yet, so let the speedy run its course. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:36, 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. Tyrenius 17:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Rene Capone[edit] Rene Capone (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This looks like a non-notable, although not to say unremarkable young artist. Nominating for delete, with regrets. Ambition and talent are not eneough to be included in this encyclopedia. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I found this: http://www.renecapone.com/biography.htm. Looks like there may well be enough writtent about this artist to warrant inclusion. I will retract my nom if others agree? —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] That's not a valid reliable source, but http://www.sfbaytimes.com/?sec=article&article_id=7053 and http://www.sfbaytimes.com/?sec=article&article_id=6839 may be notable enough. Corvus cornix_talk 00:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep: Notable; add the above sources to the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Even with the new refs, not notable yet. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as non-notable. Two mentions in a weekly paper are not enough. freshacconcispeaktome 03:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, per above. Modernist (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per above. These sources aren't enough yet, but a google search suggests that the artist is gaining popularity within the gay community, and may be reconsidered in the future. JNW (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as non-notable. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. The artist is just starting out - the SF Bay Times references don't amount to notability. Maybe sometime soon.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:45, 27 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 00:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Executive Towers[edit] Executive Towers (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Delete This is nothing really: essentially this is not even an advert. Its just a brief description of a non-notable real estate development. Is there anything here of any use to an encyclopedia? I vote delete it and especially delete the individual articles on the individual towers. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete for now. To me the project sounds like it has some potential to become notable someday, but we're not there yet. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 00:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Executive Towers only: Non notable, and the individual towers aren't notable either, but a formal AfD is needed for the others, preferably in a group AfD. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete This article is not notable. Chris! _ct 02:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete there are a ton of Executive Towers. 21:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.99.122 (talk) Delete as NN. There are lots of them. I lived in one in Albany. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, unreferenced, no infobox, no claim to notability. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 20:34, 29 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 album by User:Dennisthe2, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I Like Traffic Lights[edit] I Like Traffic Lights (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Nothing notable about this song. P4k (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, non-notable song, with a dash of WP:OR thrown in. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to album, logical choice for non-notable song. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to Monty Python's Contractual Obligation Album. Corvus cornix_talk 00:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to here: Non notable song, no reason for a separate article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect per everyone. Maxa megalon 2000 07:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Bold redirect, i.e., I have done just that, per the suggestion. Song's not notable and rather arduous to listen to. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:57, 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 Speedy close, possibly WP:POINT nomination, user's only contribution was listing this article for AfD. Subject was a prime minster of Australia and is thus quite notable indeed. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Paul Keating[edit] Paul Keating (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Unnotable and small leveled- politician User:Carrie Qiue 00:49 UTC Nov. 26, 2007 He was a Prime Minister of Australia FFS. Ridiculous idea to even consider deleting it. Why don't we delete JFKs page while we're at it. He didn't even serve a full term as President, obviously unnotable. Scmods (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yes, this is someone's idea of a time-wasting joke. The deletion nominee should be reprimanded. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] It's probably against WP policy but I've removed the AFD notice. Stupid troll. Oh by the way Keep, duh. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:08, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Jason Chan (Spiritual Teacher)[edit] Jason Chan (Spiritual Teacher) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Vanity page. Lacks notability YCCHAN (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Per the nom. Non notable, and G-News search brings back nothing of relevance. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete I suppose if I googled Jason Chan, I would come up with about a million hits, few of them actually relating to this one. The article has to have references. This "has the highest selling Tai Chi video/DVD in Europe" is clearly the persons primary claim to notability. Unless its sourced by an independent and reliable party, I choose not to believe it. And without that claim, the person fails WP:BIO.Montco (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. The original author has had more than enough time to source the subject's claim to notability. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:19, 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 Keep. Strothra 04:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia in culture[edit] Wikipedia in culture (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) While the list is interesting, it's mostly original reasearch and loosely related items, and cultural references of the "Oh look, Sideshow Bob mentioned Wikipedia last night!" type (and yes, it was, and yes, it's there). The only good relevant part of the article is probably Wikiality, which could be merged into The Colbert Show. Will ^(talk) 17:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. The article is simply a trivia collection. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep Wikipedia is popping up in society and culture at large, as news. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong delete - indiscriminate collection of non-associated items. The items on this list bear absolutely no relationship to each other past happening to have included the word "Wikipedia" in them. Otto4711 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] And before anyone suggests it, oppose merger of any of this content into Wikipedia or any other article. Otto4711 (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:IINFO, indiscriminate list of Wikipedia pop culture mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Possible speedy keep due to being improperly formatted. I believe this discussion needs to acknowledge the earlier AfD that resulted in "keep" in the nomination and that this discussion should therefore have a "2" in the title. Probably an honest error, but I believe that is the format of these things and we do need to be consistent. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy keep does not apply here. Otto4711 (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Again, though, the article's talk page indicates that this discussion is technically the second one and I believe the typical format is to note the earlier discussion in the title of the AfD and in the nomination. Even if that doesn't make a speedy, then I still think we should follow the regular format and anyway, the topic is clearly notable enough and organized coherently enough to satisfy list and merit inclusion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Hey, here's a thought, read the guideline. Wikipedia:Speedy keep specifies the circumstances under which an AFD may be closed speedily and none of them remotely apply to this AFD. The article has a different name than the last time it went through AFD and the nominator, clearly and obviously acting in good faith, did not notice it. You have now linked the previous AFD (although you should probably learn how to do direct links to other Wikipedia pages sometime soon) and there are no grounds for a speedy keep. It does not matter that this AFD doesn't say "(2nd nomination)" in its title. Did you have a comment on the substantive issues of the nomination or are you only interested in wikilawyering? Otto4711 (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] In that case, then still keep the article for meeting notability guidelines and following our requirements for lists. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] So, no comment on the substantive issues. OK then. Otto4711 (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] There are no substantive problems with the article. It is a discriminate list of items with a common theme or element. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] "Someone said 'Wikipedia'" is not a theme. "Someone said 'Wikipedia'" is not an element. Otto4711 (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The article demonstrates Wikipedia 's influence/affect on culture by referencing its various appearances in comics, on television, etc. in a relatively thorough manner. Anyone wondering what impact Wikipedia has had can look at this artilce, see its various mentions and have a decent idea of Wikipedia 's prominence. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] No, it really doesn't. The fact that a word is merely mentioned or a concept merely referenced does not mean that the mere mention or reference itself demonstrates influence. One word out of a two-hour movie or 30 minute sitcom or even four-panel comic strip does not tie the movie or sitcom or comic strip to each other in any meaningful way. There is likely not one person on the face of the Earth who, if presented with any two items off this list, think to themselves "oh yes, X is so much like Y, they both included the word 'Wikipedia' once!" If this list were called what it actually is, List of times Wikipedia was said, then even the most hardcore inclusionists might be given pause. But instead it's dressed up in the "... in culture" label which causes so many people so much confusion from thinking that running to the computer to try to win the "spot the reference" game is a constructive use of time. Otto4711 22:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Keep per WP:SNOWBALL - previous AfD and sources. --Strothra (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Noting again that speedy keep is not an option. Otto4711 (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Read WP:SNOWBALL. --Strothra 18:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. This article needs some attention; the content needs to be organized better and duplicate entries need to be removed, but it should be kept. It is a discriminate, associated list, limited to references of Wikipedia in different media. Since Wikipedia itself is the product of a cultural phenomenon, this page is important because it highlights the parallel of Wikipedia's growth in both general awareness and popularity. Cheers, --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 05:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The section of the main article that actually discusses the cultural significance of Wikipedia serves that purpose and is sourced prose. This list remains nothing more than a list of times someone said "Wikipedia" on TV or in the comics. It is out-of-control trivia. Otto4711 (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] You point to WP:TRIV like it is a policy about content, when in fact it is a manual of style guideline that deals with how to organize content. From the "What this guideline is not" section in WP:TRIV: This guideline does not suggest omitting unimportant material. It's fine if you don't believe this is useful content, I happen to disagree with you about that, but let's all make sure we are citing guidelines that actually support the points we are trying to make. Cheers, --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 13:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Actually I'm not pointing to WP:TRIVIA as if it is policy. I am pointing to WP:NOT as if it were policy, because it is, in fact, policy. If the only association between the things on this list is the presence of a single word, then the association between them is, to say the least, loose. If the items are included on this list because the word "Wikipedia" is mentioned no matter what the source or context, then the list is indiscriminate. Otto4711 (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] In the context of your previous response to me, it sounded like you believed WP:TRIV contained criteria for removal. I am glad that we are all clear that you never held that belief, and that we shouldn't misconstrue your words to think you believed that. With regards to your point about the policies at WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIR (which you only linked in your initial vote, not in the context of responding to me), I can only repeat my earlier point: this is a discriminate, associated list; the article is not just documenting every instance of the word "Wikipedia", it documents the social process through which Wikipedia went from unknown to known by the general public. You pointed to Wikipedia#Cultural_significance, which demonstrates the significance of this information, and readers can find further information about the cultural significance of Wikipedia in the dedicated article. Again, it needs some cleanup/restructuring, and but the content is valuable and it should not be deleted. Cheers, --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The notion that a list of times someone said Wikipedia on TV documents anything about the social process is, frankly, nonsense. Otto4711 (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Then it sounds like we have conflicting opinions; I hope you are as pleased as I am to come to this understanding. And now that we have both clearly expressed our different view points, I think we can let others continue this discussion. Cheers, --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. There is some notable stuff here, such as Wikiality, but In pop culturitis is so rife here that the patient will never be healthy without radical amputations and very strict monitoring. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Move to Wikipedia: namespace, then clippingly merge whatever useful there is to History of Wikipedia and/or Criticism of Wikipedia, or some other relevant articles. We can document all minor little factoids in project space but only major things that are somehow relevant in grand scheme of things should end up in articles. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Support the above suggestion, that seems most sensible to me. This page is of interest primarily to Wikipedians; it would be more appropriate to choose a few major things for article space. -- Mithent (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Support wwwwolf's suggestion; proper application of WP:NOT, etc. --Orange Mike \| Talk 14:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep per above.- Just Phil 18:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. The article is plainly neither "a directory" nor "an indiscriminate collection of information". Overly broad invocations of WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO such as these could be used to delete every single list article that exists on Wikipedia -- this is clearly not what those policies are intended for.--Father Goose (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] No, they couldn't, because not every list article that exists on Wikipedia is an attempt to capture the appearance of a single word every time it appears in any popular medium the way this one is. Otto4711 (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] That is a spurious characterization of the article.--Father Goose (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] If by "spurious" you mean "accurate" then I agree. Look at the actual article. The vast bulk of it is "On this TV show a character said said 'blah blah Wikipedia blah blah." and "A character said 'Wikipedia blah blah blah' in this comic strip." The sole inclusion criterion for the list is "the word 'Wikipedia' is mentioned." Otto4711 (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep - Per above and the large amount of great sourcing. Cirt (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC).[reply] Move to Wikipedia: namespace nothing notable other than maybe "Wikality", but of interest to Wikipedians. Laïka 13:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I Agree with that. Very few non-Wikipedians would really care. After all, there is no "Encyclopædia Britannica in culture". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Considering the number of people who are interested enough in Wikipedia to have made the references documented by this article, I suspect non-Wikipedians do indeed care. The argument presented here is a variation of WP:WHOCARES either way.--Father Goose (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep as notable, well-sourced, useful per WP:LIST. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep per above. ISD (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Notable, per above arguements. Kolindigo (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong keep. There are plenty of secondary sources in this article which prove the notability of the topic. Even if the list itself violated policy it would be a travesty to delete the entire article because of it. However, the list doesn't violate policy. Claims of policy violation are based on misinterpretations of no original research, which specifically allows citation of primary sources for making descriptive claims (and the fact that the nominator himself was able to verify the Sideshow Bob reference is proof alone that it is not original research); loosely associated topics, which requires entries that are "associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic", which in this case they plainly do (no policy requires list entries to be associated with each other, despite Otto4711's assertions); and indiscriminate information, which specifically lists various types of articles which consensus has determine are not appropriate for the encyclopedia—lists of cultural references being nowhere to be found on that list, nor is there any evident wide consensus that they do not belong in the encyclopedia. DHowell (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] It has been fairly clearly established through countless AFDs that the list at WP:NOT#IINFO is not exhaustive and that even if a list doesn't match 100% one of the enumerated items the list can still be indiscriminate. The notion that the simple mention of the word "Wikipedia" is automatically "significant" is ludicrous. But clearly the idea of having a masturbatory "ooh-wee, somebody said wikipedia on the tee-vee" is so compelling that rational arguments make no difference. Oh well. Not like this is the only compilation of garbage that will persist on Wikipedia. Otto4711 (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] That the policy heading is constantly abused in AfD discussions does not establish a consensus for its application to any type of material that is not specifically enumerated in that policy. See prior discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 11#Wikipedia is not clear (or at least one section isn't). Most things that get deleted with a nomination reason of "indiscriminate information" get deleted for other reasons, such as failing not a directory or notability (or because a bunch of "I don't like it"-type delete arguments were piled on and nobody seemed to care enough about the article at the time to argue to keep it). Saying "indiscriminate information" to mean anything outside the enumerated items is simply a statement of opinion, and is no better an argument for deletion than saying "unencyclopedic". Note that attempts to prohibit "trivia" in the WP:NOT#IINFO section have been soundly rejected by consensus. DHowell (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: This article itself was cited as a reference in an academic paper: "Creating, Destroying, and Restoring Value in Wikipedia". DHowell (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] In the interest of a full disclosure, in the context this article is citied (Page 2, section 2.2.2, half way down on the right hand column), I think the author of that paper would have been better citing the Wikiality article. But your point is still made, this article has been cited in an academic work. EDIT Laf. I think the author of that paper was smarter than I am, because as you can see, my link to Wikiality is redirected to this article. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep - as above keeps. Valid topic. Perhaps a name change to Cultural impact of Wikipedia or Wikipedia in society. Think outside the box 13:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Per above arguements. Greswik 18:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Again for all the reasons the keepers gave above JayKeaton 00:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas davids

The result was speedy delete per criteria G10. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas davids[edit]

Not really usefull... The Helpful One (Talk) 20:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt as non-notable, attack page, hoax, etc. Article tagged and has already been deleted three times. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zena Jung[edit]

Has no apparent use for Wikipedia The Helpful One (Talk) 20:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. So tagged. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 20:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 01:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection Mary[edit]

Article contains no sources and has been tagged as such since January 2007. Doesn't assert notability. Seems to be entirely Original Research. Pdelongchamp (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources being under External links is not the same thing as "no sources", even if it does violate the WP:MOS. In any case, there are hundreds of references found on Google Books, everything from Weird Illinois to a Complete Idiot's Guide to Ghosts and Hauntings. So, a notable ghost story. --Dhartung | Talk 22:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly widespread urban myth in Chicago, plenty of citations. DJ Creamity (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Dhartung. A casual search of Google Books [2] or Google News [3]reveals sufficient reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage to satisfy WP:N and WP:V. Edison (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Article does assert notability (it's the best-known Chicago-area ghost story), and tons of sources are available. Zagalejo^^^ 04:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. I have updated the tags. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This is the just the result of a misunderstanding. The sources were added as External links rather than inline citations. They support the entry and assert notability. I'll recode them when I have time, if nobody else does it first. They are all sufficient to support this entry if converted into the correct format. - perfectblue (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This is a very famous ghost story. Surprised you weren't aware of this, Pdelongchamp. Next time please try a Google search before launching into this exercise, MrHarman (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. NF24^{(radio me!)} 16:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Winston[edit]

Unsure - the only role that would appear to get him past WP:BIO is his role on John from Cincinnati and as I haven't seen it I don't know how significant his role in the series was. The vast majority of his credits look to be day-player kinds of things. Ghits and Google News hits don't appear to strongly support independent sourcing being available. Otto4711 (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article could use alot of work, but notable enough for here. DJ Creamity (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:BIO. --Strothra (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His role in John from Cincinnati was fairly major, as was his recurring role as Crewman Daniels on Star Trek: Enterprise. Pinball22 (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete per NEO, NFT, SNOW, etc... SkierRMH (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frerard[edit]

Prod tag was removed by the author. This appears to be a neologism with limited notability, i.e., lots of ghits, but most look like YouTube, Myspace, blogs, and fansites. Also, it seems to fall into the category of things made up one day. —Travis ^talk 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NFT, nothing but a neologism. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NFT. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. Hammer1980·^talk 23:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 01:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. James086^{Talk | Email} 06:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danvignes[edit]

Notable? Few articles link to it Rtphokie (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While orphaned articles aren't necessarily non-notable, this car seems to fail WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked for more references to add but can find nothing about the vehicle. Would like to see it expanded but without refs its has to fail WP:V as mentioned above. Hammer1980·^talk 23:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a reference cited in the article, though none of us apparently has access to the book in question. It's harder to find good online sources for a subject that is less recent. I did see a few mentions in foreign language cites - for example (horrible translation job) - which corroborate the info in the article. I don't think WP:V is so much the issue as WP:N.--Kubigula (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely passes WP:V. It is easily verifiable by going to a library and looking up the reference cited in the article, or by doing a simple Google book search which finds two further references. I think those refs are enough for notability, but if not then the fact that a 70-year old car gets non-wiki Google hits in eight different languages (I spotted French, Polish, German, Dutch, Japanese, Russian, Bulgarian and English) shows that it's pretty widely notable. And btw I did check that those hits are for the car, not Colonel Danvignes. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I have added to references one of the Google Books citations mentioned by Phil Bridger, above. This satisfies at least the minimum most verifiability standard. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Car models have generally been considered notable as there are typically sufficient sources available. It's more challenging with older models, but we need to be careful to avoid bias against pre-computer age topics. We now have enough sourcing to comfortably meet WP:V, and I have little doubt there are enough sources to meet WP:N given time. As it is, the stub adds value to Wikipedia.--Kubigula (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Davewild 13:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Gamma Psi[edit]

Small fraternity that has more or less closed up shop, only one surviving chapter, questionable notability in the scope of Wikipedia. Poorly written, seems almost promotional. Probabally fails WP:V and WP:N Rackabello (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will nominate this for speedy deletion as copyvio of [4]. —Scouter Sig 19:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**Thanks for catching that! Rackabello (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC) **Coppied as far as I can tell from the entire KGS website Rackabello (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues have been corrected, but now there is not much left to the article and notability is not asserted at all. Delete Rackabello (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original article author continually removes AFD and CSD notices placed on the page Rackabello (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Notable fraternity which commissioned a work from one of the U.S.'s most prominent composers and included at least one prominent American composer as a member. Blanking this article's content entirely would do a disservice to our readers. Tagger's policy of "tagging and running" without input (though requested four times to do so) at the article's discussion page shows a lack of considered, thoughtful editing and, one must conclude, bad faith. Tags were removed pending the "tagging and running" editor's explaining him/herself at the article's "Discussion" page, which is Wikipedia's standard procedure in such cases, recommended even by the template itself. One encourages the "tagging and running" editor to modify his/her behavior accordingly. Badagnani (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand what all the fuss is about. Keep. Tonywalton | Talk 22:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to have been notable enough at one time. Even if it was never a very large fraternity it had a more specialized purpose than most. Notability does not expire. --Dhartung | Talk 22:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. One of the external links is the website of Kappa Kappa Gamma, a very large sorority which seems unrelated to the topic of this article. (Probably that external link is just a mistake). This article claims that Halim El-Dabh was a notable member. However his WP article does not mention this society. This society's website indicates that the current membership (in the surviving chapter at Ithaca College) consists of just nine people. Former notability, of course, would remain, but there are no reliable sources to attest to that. No objection to re-creating this article if reliable sources for the past glories could be found. EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sources added--problem solved. Let's move on to enhancing and creating great Wikipedia content, not impoverishing it, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sponsorship of the contest, with sources to support it, demonstrates the notability of the organization. —C.Fred (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. BLACKKITE 01:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Anderson (Another World character)[edit]

A couple questions raised by this article - 1) like many TV characters, this article should either be deleted or merged into the main article because this character (by itself) is not notable. 2) Even if the character was notable at the time for some strange reason, since last appeared 14 years ago... Has notability, well, expired? Avruch ^Talk 19:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, yes, notability has expired Rackabello (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Characters should be merged with main article unless something really exceptional causes notability, (eg the Who shot JR Ewing story in Dallas many years ago). Hammer1980·^talk 23:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot see how this character is notable. (BTW, I found my way here because the creator removed the afd tag.) I suppose a merge might be in order, but he seems to have no relevance. Dlohcierekim 01:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Further comment" I don't think that notability expires. Either one had it or one does not. I don't see substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. He has not a mention in the Another World (TV series) article. I don't think a merge there would help much. His character is too minor. I see nothing that would not violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#PLOT-- no real world significance. Dlohcierekim 14:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirected to CSI: Miami (season 1). BLACKKITE 01:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bunk (CSI episode)[edit]

Non-notable episode of CSI Miami. Ridernyc (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but this really is but a drop in the non-notable episode article ocean. RMHED (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One drop at a time... JohnCD (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. CSI: Miami is the world's most popular TV show. If any series merits episode stubs, it's this one. I'm concerned that we're creating massive, institutional violations of WP:NPOV through excessive application of WP:N.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

individual episodes have to meet there own criteria for inclusion. For example, pilot episodes, award winning episodes, controversial storylines etc.. Really how many episodes of any tv series merit anything more then a plot summary which violates WP:Plot, Wikipeida is a real world world encyclopedia for things that have real world context. You just can not do that with tv episodes, the series as a whole yes but endless minutia of detail about episodes and charters and plot lines are better served somewhere else. Ridernyc (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has enough Star Trek and Doctor Who fans to find something 'notable' about every episode of those shows. We do not have very many crime fiction fans; should crime fiction therefore be pulverised in light of this?--Nydas^(Talk) 14:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so you are saying it's bad that certain groups care enough to follow the rules on wikipedia, while others just create cruft.Ridernyc (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One group is tiny, another is huge. Would you support annihilating articles about towns in Africa because no-one can be bothered adding sources?--Nydas^(Talk) 19:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

one group has a 30-40 year history, one group is a set of shows that have been on for a few years and have no history. You bring up two shows that are considered cultural landmarks, that's a poor way to make a point, now if you had said something about Law and Order episodes you would have a point. The reason those shows have large groups of editors supporting them is because they made a huge cultural impact, that is why you can insert real world context into them. Ridernyc (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cultural impact of the CSI franchise has been immense; see the CSI Effect. The reason Doctor Who and Star Trek have large groups of editors is down to Wikipedia's systemic bias, not their cultural impact. Notice the minimal number of episode articles we have for I Love Lucy and Dragnet (series), both incredibly influential shows.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When there are 100 conventions a year with prople dressing up like David Caruso, then we can talk about CSIs huge cultural impact.Ridernyc (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most conventions mean virtually nothing in the real world. Still, your view that sci-fi fandoms matter more than legal systems is probably the majority view on Wikipedia.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to intrude on this lovely argument you two are having, but the cultural impact of CSI or Dr. Who as a series has just about nothing to do with this debate, which is about an individual episode. What cultural impact does this episode have? Where is the notability for this episode? (And Wikipedia:Television episodes tells us that the same question needs to be asked about any article on any individual episode of any television show. If a Dr. Who or Star Trek episode don't meet the requirements, by all means either fix them or AfD them, just like any other article.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Doctor Who or Star Trek episode is ever going to be deleted because (a): they have lots of fans to vote 'keep' (b): they have lots of fans to discover trite little bits of 'real-world' information (c): they have lots of fan-orientated publications devoted to documenting factoids. You could argue that "oh well, fan-orientated TV shows just happen to satisfy our episode notability guidelines, and normal TV shows just happen to fail them." In which case, it's OK to eliminate all the African town stubs.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh lord, redirectify. Will ^(talk) 11:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CSI: Miami (season 1), as per Wikipedia:Television episodes. No claim that this individual episode meets WP:Notability. (why did this even get to AfD?)--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I always AFD things like this, if I just tried to redirect this without going through AFD it would create a huge nasty edit war. Sad but that's the way things are. Ridernyc (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the AfD result is to redirect, than you can revert any un-redirect attempts any time, and, if need be, alert an admin to protect the page in its redirected state. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC) I misread your statement and thought there'd be edit wars despite the AfD. Nevermind. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 17:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes I know that. TThat's why I send things here to get the AFD result. Without that, issues like this one will tend to turn into nasty edit wars that will end up here anyway.Ridernyc (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I still do the redirect one time with an edit summary that explains why, in the spirit of not biting the newbies. If it gets reverted without meeting Wikipedia:Television episodes then I AfD away with a clear conscience. :) --Fabrictramp (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. If there was more content, I'd have gone for redirecting, but the one line of plot summary can safely be deleted. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CSI: Miami (season 1) per WP:EPISODE, and please don't bring things to AfD just to avoid edit wars. AfD should be the last resort, not the first. DHowell (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Acalamari 20:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uses for Vinegar[edit]

A completey random list. Fails to show any notability or encylcopedic content. Lack of references. Hammer1980·^talk 19:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a howto guide. --TexasDex ★ 19:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I inserted the PROD just before this nomination. Oh well... --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 19:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of stuff. Better to cherry-pick the best ones and merge with vinegar. JFW | T@lk 19:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete looks like a copyvio to me (see article) Rackabello (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inflationomics[edit]

Neologism of unasserted notability. Delete. Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 18:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 23:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another cute neologism. Delete. Majoreditor (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. All bar one of the arguments to keep seem to be centered around it being useful, which is not convincing. A list article entitled List of fiction set in Atlanta would necessitate pruning and researching this wholly unreferenced list of trivial mentions to the stage where it would be simpler and quicker to start a fresh, untarnished, referenced list. Which I recommend doing. Please let me know if you wish this list userfying in order to import the most pertinent appearances into a small section on the Atlanta, Georgia article. Neil ☎ 10:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta in fiction[edit]

Wikipedia isn't a directory, and isn't a trivia collection. Some relevant (and important) information should be put in the Atlanta article, and leave it at that. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge anything worth saving into Atlanta. JohnCD (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists of times a thing is mentioned in TV, movies, and comic books do not belong in an encyclopedia. Such mentions are not ipso facto notable even if the subject being mentioned is itself notable. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a discriminate list that demonstrates Atlanta's notability by indicating its influence and use in various works of fiction. I feel strongly that these "in fiction" articles are encyclopedic and I have been working to improve a variety of them. Appearances of city's in fiction influence the tourism of the area and so there is a real research interest in knowing how popular particular city's are and how accurate the fictional depictions of these city's are. Plus, we clearly are shifting in a keep or no consensus mindset over these types of articles lately anyway: [5] and [6]. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This isn't a matter of all or nothing. Just because some are kept (or have no consensus) doesn't mean all are. That's not how things work on Wikipedia. We aren't going to assume or just guess (or crystal ball) that all "in fiction" articles will be kept, just because some were. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all delete this'un per WP:Trivia. By the way, I was surprised that the list omits The Misadventures of Sheriff Lobo from its list of TV shows. Majoreditor (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:Trivia is a guideline about the organization of the content in articles; it contains no criteria for removal, and should not be misconstrued as such. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 21:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The opening sentence of WP:TRIVIA says "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts." This article is just that: a trivial list. Majoreditor (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: "Avoid creating" is not the same as "Delete". Read further down the page: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page." "This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose." "This guideline does not suggest omitting unimportant material." "This guideline does not attempt to address the issue of what information is included or not — only how it is organized." DHowell (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is a very handy type of list to have around. Perhaps the name could be changed to something like List of fiction set in Chicago. --Jolomo (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of fiction set in Atlanta. Someone could no doubt write an encylcopedic article about Atlanta as it is portrayed in various works of fiction (a good reliable source might be The Postsouthern Sense Of Place In Contemporary Fiction), but this is not that article, this is plainly a list. But Atlanta as a fictional setting has been commented on by enough reliable sources that the topic is clearly notable. The list as a whole is not "trivia", though certain references like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory are probably trivial enough to be eliminated from this list, as the film is clearly not set in, nor does it even feature, the city of Atlanta. But Gone With the Wind and ATL are clearly works that are "associated with" and have "significantly contributed" to the list topic, which meets the criteria to not be a loose association of topics. This list also doesn't fit any of the types of articles listed as indiscriminate information, which are the only types of "indiscriminate information" which have consensus for exclusion. DHowell (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to category—This is a simple list of instances, which is suitable content for one or more categories, such as Category:Works of fiction set in Atlanta. Lists allow for expansion upon the line items, but that is not done in the case of the present article; by 'expansion' I mean in this case noting the significance of placement in Atlanta, which would be citable to a review or critique. If an author simply places a work in Atlanta without a reason, that would be an incidental usage; the present list does not distinguish between plot-relevant and incidental use of Atlanta as a setting. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. However I will note that no good reason has been given to maintain the list but the article is now more than a list. Mango juice^talk 15:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo in pop culture[edit]

Wikipedia isn't a directory, and isn't a trivia collection. Some relevant (and important) information should be put in the Tokyo article, and leave it at that. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists of times a thing is mentioned in TV, movies, and cartoons do not belong in an encyclopedia. Such mentions are not ipso facto notable even if the subject being mentioned is itself notable. This list is dominated by Japanese media mentioning Tokyo — mentions of Tokyo in such are not in any way an interesting phenomenon. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a discriminate list that demonstrates Tokyo's notability by indicating its influence and use in popular culture. I feel strongly that these "in popular culture" articles are encyclopedic and I have been working to improve a variety of them. Appearances of cities in popular culure influence the tourism of the area and so there is a real research interest in knowing how popular particular cities are and how accurate the fictional depictions of these citites are. Plus, we clearly are shifting in a keep or no consensus mindset over these types of articles lately anyway: [7] and [8]. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe this type of article has potential only if this kind of thing has been observed by a good reference. I am sure that there is an interesting text to be found about how Tokyo is represented in popular culture and that it could be used as a reference. In fact, I would tend to vote keep in hopes that such references are found, but the current article is nothing more than a collection of links, and that does not make it a real article.Youkai no unmei (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edgarde. The topic is far, far too broad to be coherent in this Wikipedia article. There could be prose articles like Cultural depictions of Tokyo in literature, Cultural depictions of Tokyo in film, et cetera, but this is just a list of indiscriminate topics that happen to be Tokyo-originated. The existence itself hardly depicts its placement in pop culture. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is much better than Atlanta in fiction which was also nominated, which I also argued to keep. If someone wants to improve this article, a good reliable source would be Dawn to the West: Japanese Literature of the Modern Era by Donald Keene. Tokyo as a fictional setting has been commented on by enough reliable sources that the topic is clearly notable (and who doesn't have the image of Godzilla destroying Tokyo somewhere in their brains)?. The list is not "trivia", it avoids trivia by stating "A title with just a brief episode in the city is not listed." The list shows fictional representations of Tokyo which are "associated with" and have "significantly contributed" to the the popular cultural conception of Tokyo (which is the topic of this article), and thus meets the criteria to not be a loose association of topics. This article doesn't fit any of the types of articles listed as indiscriminate information, which are the only types of "indiscriminate information" which have consensus for exclusion. DHowell (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Popular culture", by definition, is extremely broad. Anything could be related to Tokyo through popular culture -- locations, people, cuisine, historical events, politics, etc. Without the lack of criteria, editors can add and remove any entry as they please, making this topic far too subjective and indiscriminate. It would be far more beneficial to narrow the scope, as I mentioned in my Keep comment above. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but prose-ify(?). The current format invites unencyclopedic additions. The Article needs to explain stuff, more than just list stuff. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Nothing here is relevant; it's just a gigantic trivia section for the Tokyo page. Sorry.--CastAStone|^(talk) 15:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Mountain Dew. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dewmocracy[edit]

I cannot see how this campaign by way of interactive web-game from PepsiCo is so notable as to merit its own article, so I wanted to discuss if it should be deleted here. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some basic facts into Mountain Dew#Marketing and promotion, as with other Mountain Dew marketing; no notability for this particular advertising campaign has been established. -- Mithent (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mithent Jonathan^T•@•C 02:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and Mithent. This is an easy one. Xihr (talk) 08:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I have to ask, if this campaign is not notable, why should we crowd the Mountain Dew article with this type of junk? Surely you must be aware that there are multiple marketing departments within PepsiCo thinking up this crap day in and day out, that doesn't mean we need to document every example of it. Coccyx Bloccyx 18:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "merge some basic facts", not the whole article - Mountain Dew#Marketing and promotion has a couple of lines about other promotions. Something along the lines of "In November 2007, the interactive game Dewmocracy was launched, in which users vote to determine the can graphics, colour and flavour of a new Mountain Dew product to launch in 2008" was what I was thinking. It's of some limited interest in the context of Mountain Dew because this upcoming product is voted for by users, but it's not independently notable and thus not worth an article. However, I don't feel especially strongly about it; I wouldn't mind if the article was just deleted. -- Mithent 18:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. Xihr 02:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; non-notable unless something actually comes of it, at which point the information on Dewmocracy can be merged into a section on the new flavor. --Golbez 19:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing of substance to merge. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I didn't think I would find myself defending this article's retention ... there are a number of independent media stories on this campaign, which I will add as references shortly. It is not uncommon for marketing campaigns to be significant if they involve a major public figure (as this one does) or significantly influence the trajectory of a product (as this one might ... or might not [thinking of the New Coke debacle]). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a notable ad campaign? did it innovate? is it something different? No, no, no. Delete--CastAStone|^(talk) 15:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. The otherstuffexits argument notwithstanding. CitiCat^♫ 19:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metamorphosis Tour[edit]

Article about a tour to promote an album. Fails to establish notability. At best merge into artist page but informtaion not encyclopedic. Hammer1980·^talk 17:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while Hilary Duff is notable, this article doesn't establish anything particularly notable about this tour. -- Mithent (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. thisisace (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. There are over 500 articles on concert tours in Wikipedia, see Category:Concert tours and subcategories. Some good examples of the article type include Blond Ambition Tour, The Adventures of Mimi Tour, Bruce Springsteen with The Seeger Sessions Band Tour, The Rolling Stones American Tour 1972, and so forth. There is plenty to say about this Hilary Duff tour: how long were the shows, was she really singing or was there lip-synching, was the focus on music or on stage performance, how successful was the tour commercially, how successful was the tour in terms of reviews. The current article is a stub and needs expanding and citing, not deletion. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly weak keep. As mentioned above, tours certainly can have meaningful articles written about them... if good sources can be found that talk specifically about the tour, this should be kept and expanded. I'd especially like to know if Hilary Duff turns into a large insect during the show. Pinball22 (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wasted Time R. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concert tours aren't notable by defult, the keep reasounings is mainly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, no sources to back up notabilty of this tour. This is a Secret ^account 17:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article about the artist, leave merging without violating WP:UNDUE to the denizens of that article. Don't leave as is. GRBerry 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Davewild 13:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rudrasankar[edit]

Fails to establish notability. Hammer1980·^talk 17:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is valuable.(User: Pompy B)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.186.29.13 (talk • contribs) )— 146.186.29.13 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Not to be confused with "Lord Rudrasankar". Couldn't find any non-trivial mentions of this person. Suspect not notable. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 00:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poet Rudrasankar is well recognized poet, hence this article is highly notable [Surojit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.204.30.2 (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources found in Google. Will change to Keep if reliable sources are added -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 01:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article states that "his poems were published in several leading literary journals and collections of poetry in India, Bangladesh and USA". If the author of the article could list these journals and collections it might be possible to establish notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After looking for sources that can establish notability, I have to go with delete. It looks like some people are interested in keeping the article as they have removed the afd tag a number of times and blanked this page. If these parties were to provide some sources from which we can establish notability, I will change my vote. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Davewild 13:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IAENG[edit]

Looks like a directory. Hammer1980·^talk 17:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is nothing but a list of members of a non-notable organization. If anyone on that list is notable, then an article should be written about that person, and maybe the list can become a category, but for the time being this does not seem possible nor useful. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the article is not an article. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnyao (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. The contents have been enriched with the publication of the organization, as well as the main societies that the organization consists of. The list of the co-chairs of the organization has also been removed as suggested.[reply]

Delete Not an encyclopedia article but a collection of trivial information Rackabello (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnyao (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Thanks again for the suggestion. For the content, different wiki articles have been visited and their styles and contents has been studied as reference sites. As a result, the content has been enriched in such a way that it is of the same content level as the other encyclopedia articles of organizations in wiki.[reply]

Delete unless there is some evidence for real world notability. It publishes journals, but I cannot find them listed in worldCat. It held 2 conferences, but the proceedings, according to WorldCat, [9] are each of them held only in two libraries. this is not yet a notable organisation. Our purpose is not to provide PR to help them get started . DGG (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnyao 15:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Thanks for your information about the WorldCat. But, besides WorldCat, there are other more traditional academics databases like IET INSPEC, EBSCO, ISI Thomson Scientific, CSA (Cambridge Scientific Abstracts), etc. They have been indexing the journals and conference proceedings books. As these databases may be only available to the subsripted universities, for convenience, this indexing information can be found at: http://www.iaeng.org/IMECS2008/doc/INSPEC.txt http://www.iaeng.org/IMECS2008/doc/EBSCO.pdf http://www.iaeng.org/IMECS2008/doc/ISI.pdf http://www.iaeng.org/IMECS2008/csa.html[reply]

The result was Keep. Davewild 13:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lorna Bailey[edit]

Nominated purely for it being unsourced and notability of these entries are questionable, plus these are nothing but a vanity page as these consists of nothing but a list of trivial information, plus where is the promised cleanup, it dosen't exist, not to mention that wikipedia is not a buyers/collectors gide. Charley Uchea (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is asserted and shown, however the cleanup tag should remain in place. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: notability is only shown from primary, non-independent sources. --Paularblaster (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find over 100,000 references to Lorna Bailey on google. Many seem to be reliable sources to me. Marcus22 (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and keep the cleanup tag. Only one of the countless references is independent. I think there is notability in there somewhere, among all the catalogue and promotion stuff. Is there any way to give a deadline for cleanup - finding independent sources and slimming it down drastically? JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. This is a Secret ^account 17:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Bishop[edit]

Nominated purely for WP:COI issues within the article as one editor has bought up on the Moorcroft, also these entries unsourced and notability of these entries are questionable, plus these are nothing but a vanity page as these consists of nothing but a list of trivial information, plus where is the promised cleanup, it dosen't exist. Also looking at the User talk:Websitemad page, who created the article, that previous creation of the same person has been CFD'd before

On a note, I want to nominate Moorcroft, but this needs vast cleanup. Charley Uchea (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious COI but notable potter: article should be kept and trimmed. --Paularblaster (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who attemmpted a partial clean-up, I declare an interest. I hope I am being objective when I state that a) this person is a notable ceramic designer b)the article needs trimming. The fact that there aren't many references is in part due to the fact that ceramic design is under-researched and many of the notable figures have been overlooked because they are women. --Alan (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is she that notable? She doesnt look it to me: many of the GHits are not about her. (She looks like she is perhaps becoming collectable, but she is not a big name yet). I also dont buy the idea that she is not famous because 'ceramic design is under-researched' or that 'she is a woman'. What about Clarice Cliff? What about Suzie Cooper? Marcus22 (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I would have no objection to a clean sheet recreation if she is that notable as I have never heard of her, considering I am from the area myself. I do agree with what Marcus22 with his comment about the women and ceramic design. Willirennen (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Userfy and redirect.. I'll put the article in User:Fergananim's userspace for now, and see if it develops. The article title will be redirected to the main page. CitiCat^♫ 18:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leabhar I (Leabhar na nGenealach)[edit]

Fails to establish notability. Hammer1980·^talk 17:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hardly any context, just references.172.142.28.123 (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reference to "Leabhar na nGenealach" is Gaelic, and refers to a book written from 1650-1666 by Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh on Irish Geneology. The book was published in 2004. Leabhar I might be a volume of that work, or an individual featured in that work - but there is no context with which to judge - especially since I do not actually speak Gaelic. There is also no evidence of notability, as there is no content. If the author intends to expand the article into a workable stub, now would be the time. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I see that there is already an article on the Leabhar na nGenealach, created about 7 hours ago by the same author. Two other articles, Díonbhrollach (Leabhar na nGenealach) and Rémhrádh (Leabhar na nGenealach), have already been redirected to Leabhar na nGenealach. Were there any information here to merge, I would say that it should be merged there. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a section of Leabhar na nGenealach that somehow broke out and became an article all by itself by mistake. Simply delete asap. --Paularblaster (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I apologise for this. I had to leave the article unfinished at the time, and have only now returned to Wikipedia. I feel there is a need to add these descriptions of the divisions or 'books' of Leabhar na nGenealach because I do not wish to make the prime article too big. Please allow me to finish the article, then see what you think. I am happy to accord with your final judgements. Is mise, Fergananim (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the chief page for the time being to Leabhar na nGenealach; its current contents seem almost entirely redundant at this point. Preserve the instant text on the talk page of the article in question, where it can be developped, and when it becomes enough to merit a full article, replace the redirect text and keep the new text. It certainly seems a worthy subject that may well be developped into a full article. Note also that the article in chief seems to contain blank sections about several of its other divisions that inspire mild curiosity. Might be worthwhile to fill those in before expanding the section about Book I at length. - Smerdis of Tlön 00:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, leave merging without violating WP:UNDUE to the editors of the main article. GRBerry 18:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. BLACKKITE 01:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foxfang[edit]

Fails to establish notability. Hammer1980·^talk 16:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to ahve been no character by that name in Digimon. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be made up. No incoming links, websearch brings up nothing. shoeofdeath 19:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete by LaraLove. closed by non-admin. RMHED (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slam Dunk The Funk[edit]

no real information about minor song Rapido (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete no context, notability not established Rackabello (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Alexander MacKenzie[edit]

Delete - Puff piece on non-notable person Mayalld (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only a few trivial Ghits here and there. His book, The Unbiased Advisor is also up for afd a few entries further up. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 23:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional material (i.e., spam) for non-notable subject. Pastordavid (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he offers unbiased second opinions - Well, my unbiased opinion, like Pastordavid, is non-notable spam. Tim Ross·^talk 01:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Davewild 13:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff "ActionJeff" Garza[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jeff "ActionJeff" Garza

Delete non-notable poker player (borderline speedy). Only references are to blogs and the like Mayalld (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. non-notable. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable via BIO or Wiki Poker project guidelines. Would Support Speedy Delete. 2005 (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I moved the article to Jeff Garza before I noticed an anon had removed the AFD notice. I put the AFD notice back on, but now this would apply to the two different article locations. 2005 (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Deleted G7 after being blanked by author and only contributor . ELIMINATORJR 16:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most Wanted Tour[edit]

Article about a tour to promote an album. Not notable. Hammer1980·^talk 16:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete all subarticles, keep parent (which is moved to Bakushou!! Jinsei Gekijou) in order to give time for notability to be asserted. No prejudice to re-nomination of that article in the future. BLACKKITE 02:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bakushou!! Jinsei Gekijou[edit]

Unnotable game, lacking in any sources beyond a Moby Games link. Seems to be completely based on the editors own views, research, etc. Since it is only available in Japanese and in Japan, it seems unlikely that either sources or notability could be established for the English Wikipedia. (Failed CSD) AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are related articles of the same series and also unnotable and unsourced.

Delete all per nom. JohnCD (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Mainichi Shimbun has a (very short) blurb which at least verifies that such a game exists and that it's a life simulator. [10] Presumably more sources exist in the form of early 1990s Japanese video game magazines; someone who's interested in this sort of thing (i.e. not me) and has lots of back issues may come along during the AfD period and point us to some articles, in which case I'd be convinced to vote "keep". There is no such thing as "notability for the English wikipedia"; if something has enough non-trivial, reliable sources with enough information to write a full article, then it's notable, period, regardless of the language of those sources. cab (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think that I'd vote to have all articles merged into Bakushou!! Jinsei Gekijou (series). To be honest, never heard of the game. I'm sure it is notable to some place in the world, so I don't want to be too quick to judge. Sources may exist, but only in the Japanese language. I think that putting them all in one article might be the best course of action. Just a thought anyways. DMighton (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While the game was never released in North America or Europe, it probably was notable among Jinsei Game fans in Japan. Wikipedia is supposed to educate and inform people about things around the world, even about stuff that are unfamiliar to the English-speaking world. GVnayR (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was SPEEDY DELETE UNDER WP:SNOW. Manning (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Property Dictionary[edit]

Fails WP:DICTIONARY by its own definition. Hammer1980·^talk 16:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I prodded it for precisely this reason simultaneously with your AfD. ~Matticus ^U_C 16:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 16:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does the Prod come off during AfD, or do they run together? ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the prod tag, as I was the one who put it there using Twinkle (mere seconds after Hammer1980 completed tagging it for AfD - we both clearly had the same objection to the article). It's not necessary to have both. ~Matticus ^U_C 17:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE invoking WP:SNOW. Does anyone strongly disagree with that idea? Manning (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Let it snow. Hammer1980·^talk 19:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot be speedied per WP:CSD, but can be snowballed: that's not the same thing. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom! Oh, the weather outside is frightful, But the fire is so delightful, And since we've no place to go [with this], Let it snow! Let it snow! Let it snow! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy snow delete: Fails WP:NOT#DICT. Tiptoety (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. Manning (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut nation[edit]

non-encyclopedic essay (IMO, should have been speedied, but was told it was not eligible) Mhking (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nonsense. I agree it should have been speedied. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's actually a work of fiction... is there not a speedy category for this? Let me go check. If I can justify it I will speedy the article and close this AFD.Manning (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. This isn't patent nonsense by a strict interpretation, but considering WP:SNOW perhaps this could be speedied in any case. Tonywalton | Talk 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per nom. Should easily be speedied, but looking at article history not entirely suprised it hasn't been. Hammer1980·^talk 16:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from admin closing AFD
The article was a lengthy short story and clearly was a work of narrative fiction. I invoked WP:SNOW and took the position that this constituted "nonsense" within an encyclopedia framework and so deleted accordingly. Manning (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete—I have added a copy-to-wiktionary tag and will wait for that automated process to complete before deleting this article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Napoo[edit]

Fails WP:DICTIONARY. Hammer1980·^talk 15:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article has no content. --S.dedalus 00:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, third tier league inherently notable Woodym555 (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese Third Division[edit]

Third football division of a small country. Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 15:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth tier, even. I'm leaning towards delete, we don't cover such amateur leagues. Punkmorten (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst I accept that Malta is a small country with a comparatively poor standard of football, a recent AfD !voted to keep an article on a level 16 league in England, which is essentially simply a city league. The Maltese D3 at least has in its favour that it's a nationwide league...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No problem with an article on the league itself, though I am concerned about articles on the clubs at this level. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. – Pee Jay 10:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We need to come to some general criteria for the notability of football competitions, but in the meantime I think that being a football competition organised by the national football association is sufficient notability for Wikipedia. A ecis^Brievenbus 10:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. National level of competition, this league article should not be deleted. King of the North East 13:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for obvious reasons BanRay 19:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with 57 on this, the League is notable enough to have an article. Woodym555 (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of above especially ChrisTheDude's reasoning. This is a national league at a pretty high (3rd / 4th) tier in albeit a small country. Peanut4 (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all above. Jonesy702 (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirected.—Random832 20:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tohko Aozaki[edit]

Fails to establish real world notability. Hammer1980·^talk 15:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per author request. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect; since this appears to have been turned into a redirect, this debate can close. I'll non-admin in a little bit, unless someone who didn't discuss the deletion does so first. Thanks! ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 01:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bentley High School[edit]

Notability Rtphokie (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See discussion at WP:SCHOOL. Wouldn't it be more productive to discuss the general priniples of school notability rather than go over the same ground every time a high school AfD comes up? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:N and WP:SCHOOL. Over 900 Ghits [11], notable alumni at [12], large enrollment, etc. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on reasoning by Bearin, the rationale for not keeping needs some improvement as no real argument was made. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly notable high school. Article tagged for expansion for which there are plenty of sources. We improve such articles not delete them. TerriersFan (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep notable school with an article that needs expansion, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep - Highland Games are as much about music as they are athletics. I'm quite satisfied that Notability has been established. Nick (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan McFarland[edit]

Biography of an accounting student/part-time musician who does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC or any other notability guideline. The individual has competed in a number of national music competitions associated with Highland games, but it is unclear if any of these qualifies as "a major music competition" (criteria 9) instead of athletic events with added musical and dance components. Cited sources are lists of competition winners with no information beyond the names of individual winners instead of the non-trivial coverage normally expected for verifiability purposes. Allen3 ^talk 15:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article may have copyright/plagiarism issues as it appears to have been a straight copy from User:Ryan McFarland. Issue is not completely clear as account creation time for Fing Yon (talk · contribs) combined with a rapid recreation of a speedy deleted article suggests that he may be the same person as Ryan McFarland (talk · contribs). --Allen3 ^talk 19:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appalling vanity. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you User:Allen3 for notifying me of this discussion. Winning the B March at the Cowal Highland Gathering [13] alone places McFarland amongst the top competitive pipers in the world today and satisfies WP:MUSIC guidelines and other numerous notability guidelines. Barring a few exceptions, the greatest professional pipers in the world are all part/time musicians and have full time jobs as well. Entry to the Argyllshire Gathering see [14] is one of the premier piping competitions in the world with rigorous entry testing based on track record of past results and there is no question it meets (criteria 9). To gain entry to this competition places you in the worlds top 100 pipers and to finish in the prize-list at this competition is notable indeed. Please also notice link 8 ([15]) which talks of McFarland as being a 'well known piper' and further evidence of notability.

Please also notice a direct quote here form McFarland published on PipesDrums Magazine ([16]) regarding Bleary & District Pipe Band. Please also notice in Category:Bagpipe_players only 5 of the 25 names listed have achieved more competitive success than McFarland. Please also note that there will be a steady increase in this list over the coming weeks as more of the top competitve pipers in the world from Priemier, A Grade and B Grade will be uploaded such as prize winners form the Argyllshire Gathering and the Northern Meeting[[17], Cowal Highland Gathering [18] to wikipedia. Successful Solo Pipers are cleary defined as the most competent Highland Bagpipers in the world. Fing Yon —Preceding comment was added at 19:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please notice latest updates to the page providing albums McFarland has appeared on and radio broadcasts he has appeared on. Thanks Fing Yon —Preceding comment was added at 20:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just a further note about the reliability of the links. Allen3 stated “Cited sources are lists of competition winners with no information beyond the names of individual winners instead of the non-trivial coverage normally expected for verifiability purposes”

Pipes Drums Magazine is the world’s largest Piping Publication and is totally independent! ^[1] If Allen3 had taken the time to look through the links thoroughly he would have found this. To be an individual who gets published on PipeDrums Magazine clearly defines that individual as notable and newsworthy. Just to add to Allen3, quote above, these “names of individual winners” as he calls it are indeed news articles of the biggest solo piping contests in the world.

Allen3 also stated “The individual has competed in a number of national music competitions associated with Highland games, but it is unclear if any of these qualifies as "a major music competition" (criteria 9) instead of athletic events with added musical and dance components.”

Please see links to [19] and [20] and make up your own mind these qualify as “a major music competition” (criteria 9). Allen3 also stated that “the individual has competed in a number of national music competitions” If he had have taken the time to look trough the links thoroughly he would have found that McFarland competes at International Level against the greatest pipers in the world at the top solo competitions in the world.

In conclusion I think Allen3's argument is weak and not thoroughly researched. I have proved every one of his points wrong here in this discussion! Don’t take my word for it, just look at the cited sources and you will see for yourself. A strong Keep.Fing Yon

Keep Whilst the competitive bagpiping world may be geographically contained, achievements within it are no less notable for that. The article could do with some work but I do believe the subject to be worthy of inclusion; in amongst the laundry list of achievements are wins at Highland and Island Young Piper of the Year, an event which the BBC describes as 'prestigious' in a note about another previous winner - Griogair Lawrie [21] and at the All-Ireland Championships a competition which BBC Northern Ireland considers important enough to televise [22]. I think this qualifies them as "major music competitions" and is enough to satisfy criteria 9. nancy ^(talk) 17:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge. —Random832 15:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

InVANET[edit]

A duplicate article exists - Intelligent Vehicular AdHoc Network E_dog95'^{Hi '} 07:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - clear case. Both articles were started by the same user Netresearchlabs (talk · contribs) within a minute, but not as duplicates. Lars T. 01:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes. The articles share the same author. It's clear to me these articles are related; they use the same terms. It could be said that they're saying the same type of things which, as it turns out, is not much. Both pages have a lack of notability. So ...these get merged. Then what do we have? An article that still doesn't qualify as encyclopedia material with no notability or references.

Look it up - (

) E_dog95'^{Hi '} 05:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 05:35, 18 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, ~Eliz81 ^(C) 10:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge if it has anything not already in the other article. Collectonian (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete. Add any useful information or sources to Intelligent Vehicular AdHoc Network --S.dedalus 00:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete all. Tikiwont (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballin' Underground[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ballin' Underground

Fails WP:Music#Albums. It's pretty well established that most mixtapes aren't notable. No in-depth sources asserting notability. Unlike typical albums, these have no reviews or anything to expand from a track list. At most, they should be mentioned in the discographies. Spellcast 16:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Public Enemy No. 1 - This is not your typical mixtape, as it's more of what's known as a street album. While not "official", it's more polished than a standard mixtape. It's arguably one of Cam's better albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.232.17 (talk • contribs)

If it's not even an official work, that's all the more reason to delete. Spellcast 02:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of them - Keep the B-Real mixtape and remove the rest. B-Real has not got any albums yet so this should be kept, I was thinking to create article for his other mixtape too. But remove all other one's. Woop-Woop That's the sound of da Police 11:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support recreation if in-depth sources are provided. At most, it deserves a mention in the discography. Spellcast 02:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:16, 26 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, Kurykh 05:40, 18 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, ~Eliz81 ^(C) 10:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only citations, which might at first seem to establish notability, are to promotional downloads. ENeville (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons given above. Seal Clubber 01:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 01:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Donkey Kong characters[edit]

This article is a huge in-universe list of all the Kong characters from the Donkey Kong games. As such, it has no notability, no referencing, and is just duplicative of information from the characters sections of various Donkey Kong game articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I'm not crazy about the multitude of Donkey Kong game articles either. However, in the interests of consolidation, I think the better practice would be to delete individual articles (Dinky Kong, Dixie Kong, Cranky Kong, etc.) as well as many of the other, and to keep the "scorecard". Loath as I am to write these words, Donkey Kong is eminently notable. He and his progeny have been players for nearly 30 years in a multi-billion dollar industry. Mandsford (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is, this isn't a list of all the Donkey Kong characters, this is a list of the Kong characters from Donkey Kong. I agree, an article about the Characters of Donkey Kong, meaning all of the notable ones, might be worth having, but a list of Kongs just isn't. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You two do realize that this actually is a list of all Donkey Kong characters, not just the Kongs, right? Lord Crayak (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, there are no enemies or boss characters listed here. It is at best Donkey Kong and his allies article, which would still be unencyclopedic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its just the way the discussion was going, it seemed like you were saying the article was a list of the Kongs and nothing else. Anyways, couldn't the Kremling/Animal Buddy/DK Enemy articles be deleted and anything noteworthy from them integrated here? Those were made before this article was changed from a list of nothing more than redirects to an actual character list, explaining why its composed of essentially nothing more than "good guys". And this article does have some potential for improvement, considering Rare often has commentary on the creation history and such on their characters (for example, the DK Jr./Diddy thing). Lord Crayak (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be best to just to create on from scratch, as there is way to much cruft and other junk in this one. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's the best option available, so delete per Judgesurreal777. Lord Crayak (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please donkey kong is important so why would we not want a list of the characters yuckfoo (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I do favor having a Characters of the Donkey Kong series article, but this isn't that. This is just the "Kongs" and friendly characters, which has no how of being a good encyclopedic article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles just Kongs now; now that I think about, they, along with K. Rool, are pretty much the only noteworthy characters, considering the rest of them have only ever appeared in two games at max. Lord Crayak (talk) 02:42, 23 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, ~Eliz81 ^(C) 09:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a reasonable list to carry is it not Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Donkey Kong is classic, and its charcters are too. DJ Creamity (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to closer; please take into account those who use actual wikipedia policy in their arguements. The last two comments show no understanding or regard for wikipedia policies, like notability not being inherited, and "I like it", neither of which are valid arguments. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can start showing under what policy this should be deleted under rather than cherry picking comments YOU like Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Donkey Kong is a major series of video games, and spinning out the characters into an annotated list into a separate article, a well-annotated list, is appropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, and just because Donkey Kong is notable, doesn't mean every Kong friend of his deserves his own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know where else to put all that good infomation of characters to the respective character's game. Really, its too much info to merge or delete. 1yodsyo1 16:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1yodsyo1 (talk • contribs)

The result was delete as unsourced for 8 weeks, no evidence of notability, which is not inherited by its stars. Bearian (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Fish[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Let's Fish

notability. Only a single episode aired. Merge to Adult Swim? Rtphokie (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, merge if you think fit. It's poorly written and isn't explained in terms an unfamiliar audience would understand. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merege if there is anything to actually merge. Hammer1980·^talk 23:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The pilot aired on a national cable channel and had one very notable star. That alone is sufficient for WP:N. The series has not been officially canceled (or approved). At the very least, it's premature to delete this. Torc2 (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Will put a suggestion to merge on the article. CitiCat^♫ 18:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Six Feet Under deaths[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article is completely unsourced and primarily fancruft that tacks on original research and editor statistical analysis of the show. Yes, death is the major focus of this particular show, however if these deaths are of great importance, they should (and mostly are) be covered in the plot summaries in List of Six Feet Under episodes. Having a second article just to list off the deaths for each episode is unnecessary and redundant. (relisting of earlier withdrawn multiple article nomination) Collectonian (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft at its worst.--Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 15:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect I added the merge tag 2 weeks ago when someone protested that the article had been redirected as "trivial list. These should be covered within the episode list anyways." About a week ago, I pointed out that those wishing to keep the information should start the merge soon, or the list could be AfDed any day. Well, nothing happened, so the (non-notable) list should no longer have its own article. I could/would recommend a merge, but I don't want to be the admin who closes this nom. Merging can be done as an editorial process later, either by keeping a redirect, userfying, or someone asking later for a copy (if deleted). – sgeureka ^t•c 16:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as some of the cercumstances of the deaths that begin each episode are not covered in the episode synopsis, are central to the episode theme over many episodes, that are difficult to explain except as an 'arc' of the show. Examples: the death of 8 Chloe Anne Bryant Yorkin played into the tackovers of Kroners taking over the skills of Diaz. The death of 13 Lilian Grace Montrose was also by Kroners in not having care of its actions. Death of 32 Callie Renee Mortimer related to the thoughtless actions by her friends vis a vis Diaz wanting to see how care was delivered to the dead's family, as shown in difference culturally with death 68 Pilar Sandoval (cacasuan v. hispanic funeral patterns)
Anyway that is what the list says to me and why it should be kept. rkmlai (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Excuse me for not understanding what you just said (really), but it seems like you're arguing from a position of plot relevance. However Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) (which also applies to lists) requires real-world notability and/or significant coverage from the secondary sources, which I doubt exist. Now, I don't object to the wish to keep the in-universe information (and actor names), but why is a separate article needed for the deaths? (Especially since the episode list is a fine merge target if someone wants to do the actual merge.) – sgeureka ^t•c 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with Merge or Improvement of article. I object to outright deletion as was originally done here and here. I am working on a way to merge the articles but writing takes time. I dont want to change the page (on wikipedia) while the debate is in progress especially as I find out these messages, such as yours, days after they have ben posted. rkmlai (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admins cannot delete articles. The article was just redirected. You can merge articles while they are redirected, but as long as progress is made, a temporary keep is alright. As I said, the lack of secondary sources makes article improvement very hard to imagine, but merging into the episode list is IMO the perfect way. If you volunteer, great. I would change my recommendation to keep/merge depending on how soon you'd begin. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As explained in the previous AFD just two days ago. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is one of the main elements of the show 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is not notable, it is not verifiable, and it is indiscriminate in terms of plot detail and statistics. First of all, WP:N requires for a topic to establish notability through significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. The article simultaneously does not meet WP:V with the lack of secondary sources, which leads to WP:IINFO. In-universe information is supposed to be supplied to complement real-world context of the topic (and the topic cannot exist here due to lack of notability). Instead, there exist statistics without verifiable explanatory text at List of Six Feet Under deaths#Statistics. I recognize that death is a common theme in Six Feet Under, but this non-notable list of indiscriminate in-universe information gives no encyclopedic insight about this theme. A better approach would be to use academic studies of how the TV series has depicted the deaths, which would qualify as real-world context. This existing list does not warrant encyclopedic inclusion for this multitude of reasons. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are all reasons to improve the article, not to delete it. See WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, there is no notability for such a list. WP:NOEFFORT does not apply if the list is not warranted to exist on Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason I gave last time and also because it is a discriminate list. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not discriminate at all. Under WP:NOT#PLOT, this fictional topic fails to contain any "sourced information on the works' real-world context"; also, "Summary descriptions of plot, characters, and settings are appropriate when paired with such real-world information, but not when they are the sole content of an article." Additionally, it contains statistics, and under WP:NOT#STATS, "In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." There is no verifiable explanatory text for the statistics, only original unsubstantiated calculations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 100% discriminate in that it only lists deaths from one show whose centered on death. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no verifiable indication that such a list is discriminate. You say that the show is centered on death, I say the show is centered on homosexuality, someone says that the show is centered on character development. Even if an aspect of the show is verifiably relevant, it does not immediately warrant a list. Death in the show, if it is thematically relevant, can be explored in prose passages using secondary sources talking about its real-world context. Here, there's no verifiable distinction that death is anything more than a plot point. It does not warrant listing any more than any other plot point that may be subjectively deemed by you or me as discriminate. Ultimately, the list fails to address any sort of real-world context; it is still a compilation of plot points, which I've indicated is clearly not appropriate per WP:NOT#PLOT. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Six Feet Under" refers to people being six feet below the ground when buried. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of secondary coverage to show notability, as required by Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Also, without secondary references discussing "deaths in Six Feet Under", the article's whole approach is original research (not just the statistics), because treating the deaths in isolation from the rest of the plot is an original method for studying the series. EALacey 19:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as considered in the nom. Bearian (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per improvements during discussion. Davewild 13:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beatty Secondary School[edit]

Secondary school that makes no claims of notability. Ridernyc (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See discussion at WP:SCHOOL. Wouldn't it be more productive to discuss the general priniples of school notability rather than go over the same ground every time a high school AfD comes up? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - agree Victuallers (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to parent district (or equivalent administrative body in Singapore) article if it exists, else delete. Solely a directory entry, which Wikipedia is not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DIR. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, until the proposed guideline becomes a real one. --Yury Petrachenko (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what little there is and redirect. I suspect that the result here after a new guideline would be exactly the same as this suggestion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable and NPOV. It is now properly sourced. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of awards to establish notability and the key facts are now sourced to meet WP:V. TerriersFan 03:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - more material now added. TerriersFan 03:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per expansion and addition of references/new info. LordHarris 08:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per expansion.--Aldux 13:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete. Manning (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CRap[edit]

this is a non sense article Kameejl ^(Talk) 14:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

((db-empty)) - This article has no content, so I tagged it for speedy d. It was created as a redirect to Hip Hop Music. ((db-vand)). --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied by Manning (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Basketball Association games televised by ABC in the 2007-08 season[edit]

Pointless list. Not an encyclopedic article. Hammer1980·^talk 14:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is deleted then many of the other NBA on ABC articles should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fathugo (talk • contribs) 14:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's not really a strong argument to keep this article, as it's possible that the other articles in question should be deleted. This debate is concerned with whether this article is or is not encyclopedic. A list for list's sake is probably not, while a list that discusses the notability of the topic is. Is there information that discusses ABC's coverage of the NBA? Specifically, why is their coverage notable, beyond the fact that the games are being played? Are there unusual or notable commentators broadcasting the games, or is there some novel marketing angle that increases notability? I don't know - but, for the article to remain, it should show why this season's broadcast coverage is notable. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete unless improved per my comment above. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 15:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is Wikipedia, not TV Guide. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couchpotatocruft. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless some argument can be made as to why there is some unique association here, there is no place for this. Next will come every other network's sports listings. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless listcruft. Wikipedia is not TV Guide or TV IV Doc Strange (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedied as was determined to be SPAM. Manning (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ilandi.co.uk[edit]

Article been speedied once. I can't see if its a recreation but still seems spammy to me. Hammer1980·^talk 14:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: A7 as tagged, possible G11 as well. It is a recreation, but that doesn't really matter as G4 doesn't apply to speedily deleted articles anyway. --Pak21 (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 14:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not establish notability, and has spam/COI issues. --DAJF (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if no improvement in next day or so I removed it from speedy as the creator appears to be sincerely trying to conform to guidelines, so he gets the time benefit of an AFD over a speedy. However I remain unconvinced for the moment. Manning (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update to above: Pak21 has confirmed to my satisfaction that there is a blatant COI going on here, and the article is thus clearly spam. Hence I have Speedied and closed this AFD.Manning (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was: Speedily deleted - promotional, partially copied from the website of the winery ([23]). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excelsior Estate Robertson[edit]

Fails to esbalish notability. Probable hoax. Hammer1980·^talk 14:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oreste Baldini[edit]

minor role in major film not sufficiently notable. Rtphokie (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. GregorB (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, IMDb lists only five minor roles in almost twenty years. Jeodesic (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to IUPAC nomenclature of organic chemistry(non admin closer) . Tiptoety (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parent chain[edit]

3 year old article contains only dictionary definition, per WP:NOT#DICT Rtphokie (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ changed to Neutral, as the Hydrocarbon article mentions chains only once. There isn't anywhere to merge this short reference. Also, no sources. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, albeit weakly. Google Scholar lists 694 results, most of which appear to be relevant. This may have grounds for expansion, and a simple redirect to hydrocarbon may not be what is wanted here; the links appear to discuss proteins as often as they do hydrocarbons, and I suspect the concepts may be similar, but not identical. I would cheerfully defer to the opinions of adepts in organic chemistry. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're probably right. My expertise in chemistry is limited to making mixed drinks, so I'm no help. I mentioned the article at Wikiproject:Chemistry, so maybe we can get some expert insight on how to expand the article. I agree, though, that it's probably worth expanding - thus, count me as neutral for now. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, changed opinion, to IUPAC nomenclature of organic chemistry, which seems to be the article on chief on the subject, with thanks to Itub, who brought the adeptitude needed to figure out what to do with this. That article speaks of "parent hydrocarbons" which is apparently a reference to the same subject. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to IUPAC nomenclature as parent chain is quite a major concept there. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as its own article until merged elsewhere, or leave as is if no single article should be a redirect target. --- RockMFR 15:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It's an important term in IUPAC nomenclature, but I don't think there's much to say about it on its own other than in the context of IUPAC nomenclature. DMacks (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IUPAC nomenclature per the other wikichemists. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Transwiki. Redirect it to IUPAC nomenclature, and maybe see if we can add this to Wiktionary. ViperSnake151 16:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IUPAC nomenclature of organic chemistry, not to IUPAC nomenclature, as only the organic nomenclature article discusses parent chains. FWIW, I checked the IUPAC books, and they don't call this the parent chain, but the principal chain. Some textbooks do use parent chain, and yet others use main chain or longest chain. But in any case I see no point in having an article about this concept. --Itub (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Itub. shoy (^words _words) 20:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Megastores store locations[edit]

Straightforward breach of Wp:not#Wikipedia is not a directory. PROD of 19th Nov removed without comment. The previously deleted Zavvi store locations appear to have been added to this as well (Virgin own Zavvi) Given this lack of respect for Afd, perhaps dissallow recreation of both ? -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 13:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a corporate directory. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Doc Strange (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 14:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Virgin Megastores article should have a link to the corporation's site, and that is where such information should be found. WP:NOT --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 18:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Toddst1 (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Davewild 14:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Galemore[edit]

This article was tagged for notability since mid-November but nothing happened to it. The claims for notability are minor at best and the only source cited is the subject himself. I am not certain whether this is an autobiography, but the creation of this article has been the only edit of its creator to date. I propose to delete this article for lack of notability. Crusio (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete all three—I will leave the talk page of each intact with the oldafdfull template and a note indicating to contact me for undeletion as a user subpage to allow recovery of data if desired by editors as indicated by several of the comments below. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark national football team season 2006[edit]

Contested prod. Reason for prod was "National teams have no seasons, but campaign; and I doubt EURO 2008 qualification campaign are such notable". – Pee Jay 13:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Pee Jay 13:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but sort all the entries and put into their individual campaigns whether successful or not. I'm not a big fan of the season's articles but what's good for one, is good for another. Peanut4 (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this cruft, we don't cover individual matches to this extent. Furthermore it is true that there are no seasons as such in international football. We can have history pages instead (History of x in year-year). Punkmorten (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete remove all match reports, the remaining content (not that much, actually) can be easily featured in a xxxx-yy in Danish football article. Articles in their current form are definitely wrong (as I already explained in the talkpage) as well. --Angelo (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to cover individual matches in such detail. Ricardo-Quaresma 19:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 01:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exercise induced nausea[edit]

Not quite an established condition. 4 hits on pubmed. Delete please. JFW | T@lk 12:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Four pubmed hits is enough for me to believe it's sufficiently legitimate to warrant an article. Plus, I got 1600 ghits, indicating significant notability. Tim Ross·^talk 00:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was interested in finding out more about this condition and this was one of the few useful pieces of information on the topic that I found.--Gfairbairn (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several peer-reviewed works from different authors makes this a notable medical concept, regardless of how well established it is. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
revise or remove Tend to agree with JFW that at face value, this is a pretty esoteric thing. Doing a little digging, I'm thinking what's described is actually part of the more described exercised-induced anaphylaxis phenomena [24] Droliver (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That paper only describes nausea as being a symptom of late stage exercise-induced anaphylaxis, after many other symptoms have developed. It doesn't sound at all like what the paper cited in the article is describing. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Someguy1221, Tim Ross, et al. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep as sources merely need to be integrated into the article. Peacock terms need to be cleaned up, too. None are reasons to delete. Bearian (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon & Software Systems (S3)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Silicon & Software Systems (S3)

Fails to establish notability. Reads like and advertisement. Hammer1980·^talk 12:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: move to /dev/null. Could have been ((db-spam)) Andante1980 (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, looks like an ad. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 14:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the author of this article. This is not an advertisment, it is just some introduction and useful infomation on the S3 group, It is a massive multi-national corporation, I think it deserves a wiki page Fluid-Rock (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with modifications Fluid-Rock's claim that this is a significant corporation is, I think, quite correct. Unfortunately, the article does read like an advertisement, and clearly lacks a neutral POV. If the advertising tone can be converted into a more neutral tone, this could be a useful article. Tim Ross·^talk 01:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have stripped out any commentary that might be considered marketing speak. I hope it is down to bare facts from an editors perspective. Notability has been established mainly through press coverage. Published datasheets for the technology may add to the notabilty of the design completed by the corporation, but I don't want to add these links if another considers it further marketing. Hopefully this meets the criteria of those deciding so far. ThanksFluid-Rock (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked it again, Fluid-Rock. It is clearly improved, but still not really neutral. Ad-speak phrases are still common in the article, such as "world-class technology", "highly skilled organization with a passion for technology", "innovative consumer solutions", "provides expertise across the full breadth of the value chain". These are highly subjective evaluations, not usefully verified information. Tim Ross·^talk 11:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant advertising Mayalld (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fair comment on "World Class Technologies" stripped back yet again. S3 Group has distinct business units that can stand together or separately. Effort to explain the difference between these divisions by describing what each one does. Not meant to be advertising and benchmarking against sites like Motorola, Fujitsu and Intel, seems that as a smaller less known entity we may be penalised. Explaining what Silicon and Software Systems S3 is beneficial to users of Wikipedia Fluid-Rock (talk) 22:32, 03 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. There are potential sources identified at the bottom. There is potential for a good article here after a rewrite. Capitalistroadster 22:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. This is a Secret ^account 06:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional brands in South Park[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I have no idea how this survived its first AfD. Pure listcruft/fancruft/SouthParkcruft - whatever it is, it's cruft. Fails WP:FICT miserably IMO and belongs on some obsessive fanwiki far away from here. •97198 talk 11:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:IHATEIT is not a valid reason which is your motivating reason to delete it. Notability is a guideline and a derivative of WP:V and WP:NOR, which this fails neither. Notability is your excuse to put it here. Cburnett (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with Cburnett (talk), Well researched article from a notable show. Shoessss | Chat 12:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or move to another suitable wiki if one exists. It's obvious a lot of work has gone into this, but the article provides no evidence that "fictional brands in South Park" is a topic covered by reliable sources independent of the programme (as required by the fiction notability guideline), and the connections the article makes with real brands seem to be original research. EALacey (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems the whole article structure is based on original research (fictional brand <-> real brand; description), and it also lacks real-world notability as outlined in WP:FICT. Editors wishing to keep this list need to give reasons why the WP:FICT guideline does not apply to this article. Transwiki if there's a South Park wikia. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT:: A case can be made that :”…*The article is kept if the subject has received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources and this coverage is explicitly referenced in the deletion discussion or is used to add real-world content to the article. Articles about fictional topics that are notable should be given time to develop. As an example the following article from “Marketwatch” a division of Dow Jones can be viewed as a notable secondary source. [25] Shoessss | Chat 12:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see one trivial sentence ("Nickelodeon flew in a candy artist whose clients include Paris Hilton and Nicolas Cage to make lollipops in the shape of "South Park" characters.") How does this justify keeping the article? Are there any reliable sources (i.e. not the show itself) that say "SUNTOFU" is based on "Subaru"? If not, then the article is based on Original Research. In the absense of significant reliable sources, the theme of fictional brands can still be summarized in a paragraph in the main South Park article. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is about real-world context, and there is no secondary information about these items. I would imagine that a section about "Fictional brands" on the main South Park article talking about its conception and implementation would be completely appropriate (though a full prose article would be possible if there was sufficient real-world context). Here, the list is an inappropriate directory of every fictional brand that's been mentioned on the show -- there's no relevance indicated by this collection of indiscriminate information. I would suggest instead a transwiki to a South Park Wikia and perhaps provide an external link to it under wherever a prose section/article about the show's fictional brands would exist. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a discriminate and verifiable list with real-world notability and editors willing to improve the article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No secondary sources are utilized in covering any item in this list. It's merely a compilation of plot information, an explicit violation of WP:PLOT. Wikipedia needs to implement real-world context, not every indiscriminate happening in a fictional topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I am sorry —Erik talk • contrib I have to disagree with you. The list is not a indiscriminate list, as noted and linked in your deletion comment. But rather, a very specific reference of fictional “Brand Names” mentioned or shown in a “Notable” TV show. Regarding “Secondary Sources”, I believe that is provide above over my signature. Hope this helps. Shoessss | Chat 01:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I say that the list is indiscriminate, I mean it in the definition of Wikipedia, not the dictionary definition. According to WP:NOT#PLOT, "Summary descriptions of plot, characters, and settings are appropriate when paired with such real-world information, but not when they are the sole content of an article." This article is the epitome of what Wikipedia is not supposed to be. In addition, the reference you provided had only one mention of South Park, not even related to fictional brands: "Nickelodeon flew in a candy artist whose clients include Paris Hilton and Nicolas Cage to make lollipops in the shape of 'South Park' characters." This is marketing information not at all related to this topic. Because a TV show is notable does not mean anything and everything, especially plot detail as indicated above, is appropriate to write at length. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I love about Wikipedia, disagreements that do not end with someone getting shot. Back to our differences, you looked at one quote from Wikipedia I happened to look at, which is also listed at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; “…Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List.” Which lends itself to my contentions to keep. Your turn :-) Shoessss | Chat 10:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the issue, though. There is no list topic at hand, and if there was a prose topic, that wouldn't permit such a list. An example like Nixon's Enemies List is a preexisting list. Same goes for a cast list or a list of episodes. Here, this list is done piecemeal -- it's originally put together by editors who have some knowledge of South Park and pop culture. Like someone pointed out above, how does Suntofu → Subaru? In the contemporary understanding of the show, most of these entries would make sense to a certain audience, but to audiences outside it and audiences in the future, such entries, without verifiability, would be seen as an originally compiled list. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a single third-party source identifying any form of notability for "fictional brands in South Park". Guess what, even lists need to be notable. Shoessss, you quoted what Wiki is not about having lists if they are famous. Again, not a single third-party source suggesting that this list is famous in any way,shape,or form. Not to mention that without even so much as a primary source confirming what all these brands are supposedly spoofing, all that "Real brand" information is original research. It doesn't matter how "obvious" it may be, the fact remains that it is unverified information. So, we have unverified information, coupled with no sources addressing the notability of this topic. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully no one minds, or most likely, I will probably confuse everyone, I am going to try to answer two comments in one response. First to you Erik talk • contrib, you bring up the point; “…Like someone pointed out above, how does Suntofu → Subaru?” I happened to Google the exact phase you quoted; “…Suntofu → Subaru” guess what? There where actually hits on Google as noted here [26]. Yes some were Wikipedia itself, but in addition, there were independent websites!. Now to you BIGNOLE (Contact me), you state that; “….not a single third-party source suggesting that this list is famous in any way, shape, or form.” I do not believe that Wikipedia needs a third party source, but rather just needs a secondary “Independent” verifiable, reliable and trustworthy resource. That I believe has been provided. It is not expected or mandated that we check the sources, source - source. Hopefully, I have answered your concerns. Have a great day all. Shoessss | Chat 01:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I must be missing it, because I don't see a single source in the whole article. Exactly where is this "independent, reliable, verifiable, trustworthy source" you are claiming is provided? Just to point out, providing a source here means about as much as providing salt water to someone that lives on the beach. It's not in the article. Secondly, this is the only thing about South Park in your source--"Nickelodeon flew in a candy artist whose clients include Paris Hilton and Nicolas Cage to make lollipops in the shape of "South Park" characters"--Not only does that have nothing to do with how brand names are featured in the show, but it doesn't have anything to do with events in the show at all. Most importantly, notability is "significant coverage", that means more than one source, and more than just a single, solitary line of information that does more than simply mention the show by name. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per EALacey, sgeureka, Erik, and Bignole. Fictional brands have no relevance on Wikipedia under they are independantly notable. Notability is not inherited - being a part of a larger notable topic does not make something notable. By that logic, we would have a separate articles for every member of a famous person's family, because that person is notable and their family are associated with them. Everything must establish notability of it's own accord... think about it; planet Earth is notable, does that mean we need a separate article for everyone who lives on Earth? I mean, they live on a notable planet, so why not? (Please note sarcasm) Listing every fictional brand on a popular TV show is indiscriminate information. If something is notable for being on South Park, what's to stop me from making a List of characters in South Park with brown hair? Notability guidelines exist for a reason. This article fails to establish why it deserves a place on Wikipedia. It's fancruft - perfect for South Park wiki but certainly not here. Paul 730 02:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. James086^{Talk | Email} 07:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Men's Rights Agency[edit]

I've had a look through Google News, Google Scholar and Google Google for this group and have found a few references, but generally it is just the group commenting or making a one-liner. The group hasn't achieved anything, just made public statements about men's rights, eg. [27], [28], [29]. There's no secondary websites with any information about the group themselves as a group, so this should warrant them as non-notale Montchav (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I also Googled the organization and found the following notable news articles on the organization[30]. However, the article does need to be expanded. Shoessss | Chat 12:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is quite a misleading search to base a keep arguement on.Ga rr ie 04:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

, Jezz, I am going to have to change my idea of what is misleading. Attaching a link to a Google search is misleading? I would have thought just the opposite. Shoessss | Chat 12:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think that the sources are really weak on this one. I think that the general subject is worthy but this group has not achieved any reasonable level of notability. --Stormbay (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I have heard of them, I would not say they are a notable organisation and the rather misleading google result courtesy of Shoessssss tends to confirm my opinion.Ga rr ie 04:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment', Perhaps what Garrie meant was not that a google search is misleading, but that that particular one was a bit too broad. This search [31] is a little tighter, with only two results. Pastordavid (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment':::Thanks for your comments Pastordavid talk. The last thing I want to do is mislead. I always believed, just “state the facts” and I let the individual make up their own mind! Additionally, thank you for refining the search. The question I ask now is how many references does one individual person, product, group, concept, etc, ECT have to have before we include in Wikipedia. I admit, I am an in_clusionist and do sometimes tend to vote for groups on the fringe. However, what I have found in life, is that the group I thought were on the “Fringe”, by my perception, were actually very well know by individuals with a different geographical, cultural or philosophical outlook. Shoessss | Chat 02:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tox[edit]

No claim of notability. Ignoring all the unreferenced statements about where his "tag" hsa been seen, we're left with a statement by the British police mentioning that Tox is a problem. Doesn't seem relevant for me. Montchav (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia regardless. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RMHED (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And whilst you are at it, you might take a look at some of the other (many) nn graffiti artists on Wikipedia! Marcus22 (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point, I was thinking the same thing. -RiverHockey (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Lack of consensus between KEEP and REDIRECT—I'm going to go out on a limb and close this with the functional outcome of KEEP. There is sufficient evidence to raise reasonable probability that the key claim to notability is true and that time will lead to better sourcing in support of that claim. I also think that retaining the article rather than redirecting is a reasonable step in terms of working against systematic bias; to be clear, I do not think that the persons with the REDIRECT opinions are to be accused of systematic bias in any way. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SHAHIDLIPI[edit]

Lacks any real notability; two of the "references" are exact copies of one another and the third only mentions "ShahidLipi" as part of a list of software. Failed PROD. Collectonian (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets' not delete the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.68.236 (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for the moment. If sources were added, it would be clearly notable. Give it 3 months, to see if sources surface. Sources for this would be few and far between, likely mentioned in a single edition in a magazine like PCW. scope_creep (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It really needs to be cleaned up. I did a very minimal job, but since I'm not really sure what it's about, I can't really vote on it, can I? —Scouter Sig 22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Don't know about the notability, but it appears to be. Probably needs to be relisted. • Lawrence Cohen 23:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep or merge to the Bengali script article, in case the information can be verified. (BBC story and an article in The Daily Ittefaq certainly would be enough to at least merge.) If nobody is around who can perform the required research though, it probably has to go for now. --Allefant (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 15:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bengali script. No notability beyond the claim that it was the "first Bengali implementation in computers". One of the references says that it "failed to sell in the market"; Google turns up about five passing mentions minus the Wikipedia and its mirrors. utcursch | talk 12:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If it indeed was the "first Bengali implementation in computers", then it defintely can be considered notable and as such would warrant atleast a Merge with Bengali script if not Keep - Failed PROD or not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antariki Vandanamu (talk • contribs) 10:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep There is certainly no consensus to Merge and those that would like to see a Merge cannot seem to agree on where to merge. Some say President-elect others Prime Minister. So for the time being a Keep is the only truly consensual result (closed by non-admin). RMHED 20:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister-elect[edit]

This is and can be nothing more than a stub. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. At this rate, we're going to have every-electable-position-on-earth-elect as articles. KTC (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe it could be developed much further because the media is using the term quite frequently. It also appears in a Wikipedia article (Kevin Rudd) - in the lead section. President-elect refers to the 'Prime Minister-elect' too, but in the context that the PM was not directly elected (but appointed by a head of state). Here are some places where the term is used: [32][33][34][35][36][37][38]

You get the general idea! Auroranorth (!) 12:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as per above. What's wrong with it being nothing more than a stub in any case? Better to have a description on a seperate page rather than clagging up an article with explanations of terms. Sting_au Talk 12:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a real position though, that is actually used in the media. Lankiveil (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Just let me look for a few sources about this term being used in Canada. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I never suggested that the term isn't (widely) used. My point is that the article will be nothing more than a dictionary definition. I'm open to suggestion to what can be in the article apart from "X-elect is a person who's elected to X but has not taken office yet". KTC (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually it can be expanded. A Prime Minister-elect does have some of the powers of a full-fledged PM in practice. For example, he can tell civil servants to ignore a piece of legislation he intends to repeal as soon as he is sworn in. He also has the same moral authority that he would have after being sworn-in, while the lame-duck PM loses all those powers. It's just that not being sworn in does not allow him to enact legislation. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With President-elect, and move to some neutral pagename like -elect. No need to have a seperate page for each title that this postfix can be applied too. Taemyr (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above - seems a very sensible suggestion that does not invite copycat articles. WWGB (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with President-elect. --147.143.162.104 (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Prime Minister (and merge President-elect with President too). Note that the outgoing Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, is still officially the caretaker Prime Minister until Prime Minister-elect Kevin Rudd is sworn in. See http://www.pm.gov.au right now, where it states:
An election for the House of Representatives was held on 24 November 2007 at which the Coalition Government led by the Prime Minister, the Hon John Howard MP, was defeated.
A new Government led by the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Kevin Rudd MP, is expected to be sworn in by the Governor-General in the near future. In the interim, media content is available on Mr Rudd's website. Any comments or messages to Mr Rudd can also be made via Mr Rudd's website.
Mr Howard will remain the caretaker Prime Minister until the new Ministry is sworn in. Until this time any comments or messages to Mr Howard can be made through the following form - Contact the Hon John Howard MP.
Archived material from the former Prime Minister's website is available on the National Library of Australia Pandora archive.
--Brendan [ contribs ] 05:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Prime Minister of Australia, Prime Minister of Canada and other territories where the convention of "Prime Minister-elect" is established. Do not merge to the general Prime Minister article as the convention is specific to certain territories . -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a seperate article This is a distinct and notable position, and the status of a Prime Minister-elect is very different from that of a President-elect as the PM-elect is the leader of a party which has a mandate to form government while a president-elect has a personal mandate to govern. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The constitutional situation is quite different in a constitutional monarchy. Australia is currently in a caretaker arrangement until the Governor-General swears in the new Prime Minister later this week. The article, while still a stub, has already gone beyond a dictionary definition and is capable of further expansion. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Capitalistroadster now more than a dictionary definition and has the potential to be expanded further noting already the comments in this debate that have sought to clarify the position eg Mattinbgn -> the convention is specific to certain territories that seems interesting to me - needs expansion and referencing not deleting.--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle ^talk 09:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As other people have pointed out, Prime Ministers and Presidents are completely different. The situation between elections in, for example, Britain and Australia are also different. There's a perfectly good article to be written about this subject, although the current piece has little meat on its bones. The 'slippery slope' argument in the nomination is a logical fallacy. Nick mallory (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Capital. Given the large-ish number of sources, i see no reason to delete an article on a perfectly good topic. Twenty Years 14:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Capital. Benea (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have now done a bit of work and note the diversity of consitutional positions - eg Israel and Solomon Islands - also inconsistency in the use of the term in the UK where Gordon Brown was referred to as PM Elect (by a reliable source) even before the elections had been held. Needs expansion and further work - I am not prepared to do any more til this debate is finished though. The work I have done shows the potential for expansion and that this article will not merely be nothing more than a stub or dictionary definition. I do not think that developing this article gives rise to the threat that At this rate, we're going to have every-electable-position-on-earth-elect as articles This role is sometimes constitutionally defined, other times by convention and the differences between countries is interesting and encyclopaedic. --Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle ^talk 23:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is enough in to justify a short but useful article, especially considering the variety of practices between countries and over time.--Grahamec (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - theres enough to justify the article, additionally a PM elect can be replaced by the party. Gnan garra 03:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it does make more sense to be merged into PM article as its a transitionary position after some form of election with just a delay between being acknowledged as the next PM and officially being sworn into the office. Gnan garra 00:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see some sources that actually discuss the word, rather than use the word in the context of a news article. Spebi 05:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - not all of the sources are news articles and for example the Israeli and Solomons Islands sources talk about the specific role (which has a constitutional basis) not just use the word--Matilda ^talk 05:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This is a false terminology. A person is not elected Prime Minister. A person is appointed PM by the Head of State (or HoS represenative) in Republics & Monarchies. The correct terminology is Prime Minister-designate. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence, please. WWGB (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Response - unfortunately I cannot resist pointing out that you hold a view not held by everyone else or at least of limited geographic scope. Direct prime ministerial elections have been known - for example in Israel. Moreover the appointment by head of state in other instances often follows party room elections. Google hits number only 89,700 for "prime minister designate" compared with 182,000 for "prime minister elect". The term is correct terminology in some instances being for example enshrined in Israeli legislation see section 14 of Israel's Basic Law: The Government (1992).--Matilda ^talk 23:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm way in the minority anways, but you're correct there are some PMs who get elected - Note however, not by the populace but by their Parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Prime Minister of Australia is never elected by 'their' parliament. Auroranorth (!) 09:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Prime Minister, the position technically does not exist in Westminster style parlimentary democracies (but does exist in some locations ie/ Israel). The informationin the article is better described as a subsection in Prime Minister under the heading "Prime-Minister Elect" with the information about Israel and a brief mention of it's growing use in the UK & Australia (per the links above). Shot info (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Prime Minister, the term PM-elect does indeed exists (see Prime Minister of Israel) & it is used in Australia. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if this article is kept, then an article called Prime Minister-designate should be created. GoodDay 17:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, as long as editors don't suggest it has any applicability to Australia. -- JackofOz 22:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Kevin Rudd is in no way the 'prime minister-designate'. He was elected and not appointed (like a normal minister would). Auroranorth (!) 01:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (preferably). But I wouldn't object to a merge with Prime Minister etc., as long as the info isn't lost. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was a genuine question about this term on Talk:Kevin Rudd or Talk:Prime Minister of Australia just a few days ago, so there is certainly a need for it. The article is also well referenced. -- Chuq (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In a personal capacity, I'm appalled at the bastardisation of political terminology. But if it continues to be used, we will have to document this perfectly cromulent neologism. I don't know if having information on a wide variety of political systems in a single page makes for coherent reading, though. Andjam 04:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply not factual to call this a neologism. It's been widely used in Australia to my personal knowledge since at least as far back as 1972, and I'd be very surprised if it didn't go back a lot further than that. -- JackofOz 09:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I never heard it used in 1996. How many reliable sources are about the position, rather than using the term? Andjam 03:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-referenced information, and the sources from Israel and the Solomon Islands certainly shows that this could well expand further. --Stormie 08:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Very notable. Many references can be found. --S.dedalus 23:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Prime Minister. The post rarely has any official existance, a huge variety of terms are in use, some are used in very different situations (in the UK, to my knowledge, the main use of "Prime Minister-designate" was by two parties fighting an election together and indicating which leader would be PM if they won) and overall there's not much here that wouldn't be better put with the main article. The Israeli 1996-2001 situation is best handled on the relevant page because it's more akin to a directly elected President than most Prime Minister posts. Timrollpickering 14:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as a non-notable publishing company without any reliable sources. WP:SNOW except for creator. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Engine Productions HB[edit]

Advertisement. The creator and main contributor to this article has been plugging this company in book articles. Robin Johnson (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, company does not appear to be notable. Lankiveil (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, I am the original author of the article and although i am new to Wikipedia and its particular culture the policy on deletion states that for the article to be deleted it must be "inapropriate" for inclusion in Wikipedia. I may have made the mistake of stating that the company is one of several publishers of a particular author. But that does not make the article on Twin Engine "inapropriate" or even untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealkove (talk • contribs) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources found in Google News Archive, fails WP:CORP, our notability guideline for businesses. Wikipedia is not about everything that is true. As for author pages, there is little reason for listing publishers of an author in an article (although a particular source should be identified when used as such). That is why we have the WP:ISBN functionality built in. --Dhartung | Talk 00:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S.dedalus 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung --Tikiwont (talk) 11:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nythine[edit]

Fictional town. Not notable. Hammer1980·^talk 11:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let's see... a town that exists only in a novel nobody has heard of yet... talk about lack of notability. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 11:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I feel that this was handled badly. Putting a new users first contribution up for AfD within 5 mins of the creation of the article runs the risk of turning new contributors away. Taemyr (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Happened to me, actually. And I've stayed, and I'm doing new page patrol on a semi-regular basis. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a bit harsh doing it this way, but it is a fictional town in an (unpublished?) book. Lankiveil (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I agree that a notability or sources tag should have gone up first, as this feels a little bite-y. But, that said, I note that I can find no evidence of an author by the name of Savannah West or a novel entitled "The Forest". If the novel has been published, more information is required. If the novel is unpublished, then this falls under WP:CRYSTAL, and should be deleted until the novel is published and reliable information or confirmation exists. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nonsense. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Shum[edit]

Fails to establish notability. Only independant source prints a one line apology for a mistake in previous week's article. Hammer1980·^talk 11:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above, and I'm inclined to believe that if an eight-year-old can nominate you, being nominated for bachelor of the year isn't particularly noteworthy. Lankiveil (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Very little notability there. Tim Ross·^talk 18:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)}

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arunabh Kumar[edit]

Fails to establish notability. Only seems to have been involved with one film. Hammer1980·^talk 11:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to have a particuarly extensive or notable career in films yet. Lankiveil (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 15:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont get why this page needs to be deleted. An assistant director in a movie as big as Om Shanti Om deserves mention, right. I know some details about his early life too, but due to lack of citings, I have removed them. However, why the article needs to be deleted totally, I dont know. Maybe we can have some sources in the coming months and can add to it. Crackjack (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He is not very notable as of today and seems to have been linked with only Om Shanti Om. I could not find any reliable sources to prove his notability. By the way, notability is not always inherited. That he had a part to play in the making of Om Shanti Om, does not make him notable. IMDB is not a very credible source as per this. Hence, I would propose a delete for now unless reliable sources to prove notability are added. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. --Brewcrewer (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep—The lack of independent coverage by secondary sources noted in the nomination has been addressed. The potential for COI issues is not fodder for deletion - as long as the article is NPOV and satisfies sourcing requirements establishing notability, potential COI remains "potential". We have remedies should the primary editor exhibit ownership tendencies, so there is not a reason to shoot down an editor's work on a presumption of bad faith. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capazoo[edit]

Yet another social networking site, article created by yet another single purpose account. All versions have been the work of SPAs, including the current one, and it's been deleted twice as WP:CSD#G11 and twice as WP:CSD#A7, by three different admins. The current version makes some attempt to establish notability but lacks reliable independent sources attesting to significance. And it still reads as advertorial. I mean, is the fact that it has a hosting deal with a big provider actually any kind of evidence of anything much? Guy (Help!) 11:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, definitely written in the wrong tone, but the references in the AZ Republic and Media Week are better than trivial. Lankiveil (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,Current revision reads much less advertorial than previous one, and some references are decent, as Lankiveil said.--Liekmudkipz (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to refs in article there's this site profile on Canoe.com. It's buried in the external links and in French so perhaps wasn't used by anyone yet, but surely establishes notability. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page has clearly been written by the company as a marketing tool. --65.211.179.9 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom Ricardo-Quaresma 19:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fairly well sourced now, and some external notability. If it has indeed been written as a marketing tool as is possible, it will be the responsibility of real editors to keep the page in line. --S.dedalus 23:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. W.marsh 21:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vito Arcilesi[edit]

No notability, references or citations, or real content. This article only existed in the first place on account of unreferenced claims that the subject was involved with rumrunning and the Mafia, claims which have been refuted, though again unreferenced, by a relative of the subject. Ben iarwain (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no notability asserted now. --Dhartung | Talk 11:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, notability not asserted, and apparently no further sources available that would indicate it. Lankiveil (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete have tagged it, no assertion of notability. RMHED (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 10:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sword of Truth locations, part 2[edit]

Following this previous AfD, this nomination encompasses all the remaining contents of Category:Sword of Truth locations, as a component of an ongoing attempt to clean up articles related to The Sword of Truth series.

Similarly to the articles involved in the previous nomination, all of these articles appear to fail many of the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction:

They are composed in large part of direct quotations from the books, and constitute copyright violations. Wizard's Keep is a good (bad!) example of this - the grossly over-detailed descriptions are all directly paraphrased from one or another of the novels. A search in Google Books will probably turn them up.
They are in-universe descriptions of fictional subjects - they fail to provide any real-world context for, or any critical analysis of, their subjects. Most of the articles' subjects have minimal notability, at best.

As before, there will be more of these nominations. I'm breaking these up into blocks of 10-15 articles at a time to make sure commenters have an adequate chance to look at the articles in question. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete fiction cruft, no encyclopedic content in any of these articles, as was the case in the previous AfD. All the article contents are strictly "in universe", there is no literary analysis of the locations which might be of any interest to anyone other than a rabid fan of the books (not that I can imagine what "use" a fan would put this information to, either). All of these articles amount to a collection of details from some novels without context or meaning. The Sword of Truth Wiki has 939 articles, I can't see any valid rationale for them all to be over here as well. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention that I think the Category Category:Sword of Truth locations has no rationale for existence if the member articles are all cruft like this. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no secondary sources establishing real world notability of these fictional locations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RMHED (talk • contribs) 20:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Aaaaah! Not more fancruft! It’s everywhere. Utterly non notable unsourced fictional locations. --S.dedalus 23:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all without secondary sources. Capitalistroadster 23:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here for the deletion review discussion. Auroranorth (!) 05:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda Hunter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fictional character with no sign of real world notability Pak21 (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major character in well-known soap opera, like articles on characters from EastEnders or Coronation Street.--UpDown (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Other stuff exists is not a strong argument in deletion discussions; the problem with the article is not untidyness, but the fact that it in no way demonstrates its notability via citations from reliable secondary sources. --Pak21 (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per UpDown. Auroranorth (!) 12:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication that Ms Hunter herself is substantially the subject of published material. Yes she is a character in a TV show but what has been written about her ?Ga rr ie 04:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Garrie. Twenty Years 05:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable fictional character, or Merge, to Major characters from Home and Away. Drastically cut down and merge Template:Home and Away characters into the new page. --S.dedalus 23:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect→Home and Away#2008 Main cast members and tag with ((R to list entry)). I agree that this article has insufficient notability to stand on its own. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of soap opera articles nominated for deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable character on well known Australian soap [39]. Well developing article, watched over by WP:SOAPS and being improved. IrishLass 15:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a plot summary is not a well developed article. A verified one with citations showing how this is notable outside the soap itself would be. --Pak21 15:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to comment. The same could be said for WWE wrestlers, how are they notable outside of wrestling. I added a link to the official site showing her as a main cast member. IrishLass 16:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other articles do not have references does not mean that we should keep all articles that do not have references. --Pak21 16:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. You said she's not notable outside of soaps. I said the same can be said for wrestlers. That was the point. Don't make mountains out of molehills and try and start problems. Regardless, I've added sources. IrishLass 16:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N and WP:FICT: sources must be independent of the subject, and the official site for a soap is clearly not independent of characters in the soap. Unless sources can be found which show how Hunter is notable outside the soap, this is not a suitable article for Wikipedia. Professional wrestlers are commented on in many forums which are not directly connected with their organisation. Where are such sources for this character? --Pak21 16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't play the "read this" card like I'm an idiot that's never read anything. The source is the television site, not a show site. The same sources are used for Coronation Street, East Enders, and several American soaps. If you want to count "forums", well all soaps have forums but those aren't reliable sources. So that would negate the argument on wrestlers. Many people come to Wikipedia to get information on soap characters. This is an article with a good start. It should be allowed to be developed. Let the project work on it.IrishLass 16:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See for example Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Victor_Kahu for the established precedent here; character plot summaries do not belong on Wikipedia, as is acknowledged by WP:SOAPS: "Character articles should always be written from a "real world" perspective, and should definitely not consist simply of in-universe plot summary. [...] Remember that we are here to create an encyclopedia, not to provide a comprehensive guide to soap opera storylines." --Pak21 16:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's being worked on now. It's tagged start class and the WP:SOAPS project banner added. It deserves a chance for clean up and does meet the character criteria. The project had little to no notice about the above AfD, so I can't comment on things I didn't get a chance to assist on. Regardless, I've provided outside sources and this article is a good start to be rewritten correctly. I've stated my case, I'm done arguing with the likes of people like you who just won't ever understand. IrishLass 16:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - after looking around, this show is shown in not only Australia but also in the UK. The WP:SOAPS project is relatively new and should be allowed to develop this character as there is information out there outside of just the one official television station page. IrishLass 16:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with 'IrishLass', it is capable of being improved, and I dont agree with deleting articles if they have potential. There is a big effort by a small number of soap editors (like IrishLass and me) who are trying to cleanup soap character articles to make them comply with policy, but it's a huge job and more soap editors need to start helping out if they want these character pages to be kept. At the moment this is just unsourced plot summary, so in order to keep it, independent sources discussing the character and her storylines need to be found. But that shouldn't be too difficult. Soap characters and their actors are often featured in the press. If a storyline is controversial or has a big impact, then it's often reported on by the media. Info on casting, critical commentary, reception, criticism, popularity, popular culture, ratings, character development (from the view of writers, producers and the actor) are all things that could be included to make this comply with policy. I don't watch this soap so I would not be the best person to do the editing, but if any home and away editors are interested in keeping this page, then they need to start searching for sources. Try Australian newspapers, news archives, magazines etc.Gung adin ♦ 16:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A main character on a programme that is top-rated in Australia, Ireland, and the UK. A person with a stack of magazines about soaps would be able to source this. I remember reading an interview with the actress where she spoke about the character. AfD is about an article's potential, and looking at the excellent work that editors have done on other fictional soap opera characters like this and this, I'm sure the same can be done here. Bláthnaid 23:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking back, I think the interview was in a teen magazine where the actress Indiana Evans talked about how her character changed over the years, and there was a "how to dress like Mattie" spread also. That was last year I think, I'm afraid I can't remember the name of the magazine, it was just something I was flicking through. Bláthnaid 23:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. This WikiProject must get WP:RS or face mass deletions. Sorry. 17:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)

The result was keep. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furyondy[edit]

Stock location for a role-playing game that fails WP:FICT for lack of reliable secondary sources. It is not normally advisable to split out a separate article on a location from the game, as each split lowers the level of notability. Gavin Collins (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into an appropriate sub-article of Greyhawk. — A notable state within the context of a notable setting. 21,300 ghits. — RJH (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RJH. Gavin, can you lay off a little? This is getting relentless and annoying. You're proposing these so fast that it's requiring interested parties to check Wikipedia every day just to keep up with your rampant deletionism. Iquander (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RJH.--Robbstrd (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RJH and Iquander. BOZ (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being completely in-universe and failing to show how this is culturally relevant or notable at all. Notability is not inherited. - Chardish (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is, regardless of how you interpret your silly guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innerroads (talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Innerroads is a blocked sockpuppet. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it's not. Notability of the parent does not imply notability of the child. This article must show that it is independently notable and not merely notable because the game itself is notable. - Chardish (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your argument is completely bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.247.31 (talk) 22:36, 29 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, BLACKKITE 17:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted after discussion; the first Keep vote claims notability and 21000 Ghits; there are in fact only around 300 unique hits on Google ([40]). The other Keep votes are per this vote. Without enough rationaled comments, a relisting is appropriate. BLACKKITE 17:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Greyhawk. --Nlu (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Only in-universe notability, but seems to have enough to back it up, if only just so. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Only in-universe notability is reason enough to delete on its own. — Coren ^(talk) 19:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator incocrrectly list this as a stock location. There are ample primary sources, the article just needs sourcing and a bit of cleanup. Edward321 23:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs to be cleaned up but there are references out there. There is more to research can running a Google search, sometimes you have to actually *work* and not slap a tag on something. Web Warlock 02:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you show us some of these sources then? I (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I had to get my kids to bed. Plus these are in stacks of old magazines I have so I have to go through them one at a time. Real research takes a while. Web Warlock 12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added four and will have more to add tonight. Still and going through physical stacks of magazine, journals and various books. Web Warlock 21:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft, no stated external notability. --S.dedalus 22:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:ITSCRUFT, "cruft" is not enough of a reason to delete. I am in the process of getting external sources to establish notability. Web Warlock 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IINFO, this article is clearly utterly non notable. --S.dedalus 23:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Splitting articles into sub-articles is perfectly acceptable. It prevents articles from becoming overly long. Rray 00:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refactor as split from Greyhawk—As currently written, this article does not qualify as a split-for-convenience from Greyhawk as it is not a cross-referenced sub-topic article. Rather, I would suggest this being refactored into a sub-topic article entitled Kingdoms and cities of Greyhawk with an appropriate Template:Main cross-reference from the Greyhawk#Political powers section. The sources provided at present are primary rather than secondary sources; it is my opinion that these would be sufficient for a sub-article of the type suggested here, but not for the current stand-alone article that this currently is. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would support this plan. (no time to do anymore digging for articles from 80's gaming journals) Web Warlock (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete as an obvious hoax. Vary | Talk 05:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Le Wiggles[edit]

Le Wiggles is an uncited franchise of the successful Austrailian children's group. The author of this page has yet to give a citation that the group exists, but I trust that it does as it is part of the Wiggle's marketting plan. The problem is that a franchise of a successful musical group is not notable. This isn't even the first such franchise, other groups exist in Latin America, China, and India---those groups do not meet the requirements for WP:Music thus the generic article Wiggles' franchises This page should be deleted (~~or at best redirected~~) to the franchise article.Balloonman (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Editors on The Wiggles main page have been notified of this debateBalloonman (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment:Also, I dispute the image that is being used for "le wiggles." This image is straight from The Wiggles main page, it is not unique to the French Franchise. Furthermore, the link provided as the French version of the Wiggles is a broken link.Balloonman (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC) EDIT: I am NO LONGER assuming good faith on the behalf of the person who created this page, but looking into this in more depth I cannot find anything that supports the notion that there is French version of the Wiggles. (This is why I propose the deletion.)Balloonman (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)EDIT: PURE hoax.Balloonman (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wiggles' franchises: No reason for a separate article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wiggles' franchises. Obvious! Snalwibma (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - opinion changed in the light of the obvious nonsense that the article is being padded out with, as in this edit. Snalwibma (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this nomination for deletion. It's likely a hoax. If you look at the author's contributions, you'll see examples of vandalism and clear misinformation. I keep up with news reports about The Wiggles, and there's simply nothing in the press about such a group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Figureskatingfan (talk • contribs) 20:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Figureskating fan is the primary editor/reviewer of the Wiggles pages.Balloonman (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious hoax from user deserving of a long block. ThuranX (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. If interested in transwiki (assuming compatible licensing) or merging, please contact me and I will userify the content accordingly. — Scientizzle 17:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locations in His Dark Materials series[edit]

Fancruft. An unsourced article about some nonexistent locations. This page is of no use to anybody other than a fan of His Dark Materials. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fancruft. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nobody but a fan would actually find use for this article. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete article content is all "in universe", there is no encyclopedic content, no literary analysis of the locations which might be of any interest to anyone other than a rabid fan of the books. This is not an encyclopedia article, it's just a very tangential collection of meaningless details from some novels without context or meaning. I don't even know what use a fan would put it to,.. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 14:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless listcruft. RMHED (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Strongly disagree with deletion. The only deletion criterion this could fall under is 'not suitable for an encyclopedia'. Clearly this is a matter of opinion. I would suggest that the popularity of His Dark Materials and the book's critical standing is great enough to make exposition of locations, characters etc from the book's universe notable within the context of Wikipedia (e.g. see list characters in Final Fantasy cited as an exemplar in the Manual of Style). The comment that it is unsourced is not relevant given that this information is about the locations within a book and the book is self-evidently the source. Wikipedia acts, by its own admission, as an almanac as well as an encyclopedia and consequently the inclusion of a list is appropriate. However, this article clearly does need to be rewritten to provide some real-world context. Given that some of these locations are real-world or have real-world cognates, this is eminently possible. To that end I have added an in-universe template. Inbetweener (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First things first. The book itself may be notable, but fictional locations like “Torre degli Angeli” surely are not. Secondly , Wikipedia policy and precedence requires reliable external sources in most cases. From WP:Plot: "Summary descriptions of plot, characters, and settings are appropriate when paired with such real-world information, but not when they are the sole content of an article." And from WP:IS, “It has been noticed, however, that some articles are sourcing their sole content from the topic itself, which creates a level of bias within an article. Where this primary source is the only source available on the topic, this bias is impossible to correct.” It seems clear that this article does not follow these criteria in any way. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of the book implies the notability of the locations. For examples see Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Padmé Amidala, both of which are articles written entirely about fictional characters in entirely fictional universes. They have both, however, been given real-world context and context within the wider realms of cinema / gaming / fiction by high-quality writing. Hence both of these articles have previously been Wikipedia featured articles. There is no substantive difference in the notability of the subjects of these articles and the article under discussion. The difference lies in the quality of the article itself. A poorly written article is not a criterion for deletion, it is a criterion for improvement of the article. Hence the appropriateness of an in universe template but NOT of deletion. I entirely agree with your points from the WP:IS and WP:Plot but they are further evidence of the need to improve the article, not to delete it.Inbetweener (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the contrary, I don’t think the notability of a book itself has any bearing whatsoever on the notability of locations in the novel. Perhaps locations in Star Wars or Harry Potter are notable enough because of the plethora exterior sources. However if I were to write an article about the planet Xathru from Timothy Zahn novel The Icarus Hunt it would be deleted as fancruft overnight. I don’t see why “The Clouded Mountain” is any more usfull to non fans of the book than would be Xathru, and I believe wiki-precedent supports this interpretation. --S.dedalus 00:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can see no possible empirical basis for the a priori assertion that Star Wars and Harry Potter possess a plethora of external sources which are unavailable for His Dark Materials. In the context of the 'controversy' regarding the religious themes of the trilogy, it has generated many newspaper column inches and a great deal of academic and lay discussion. The amount of literary criticism available on His Dark Materials is, in any case, certainly greater than that on the characters found in the computer game Final Fantasy VIII. The locations described, be they the University of Oxford as a bastion of rationalism, the allegorical "Clouded Mountain", or other real-life locations such as Svalbard and Novaya Zemlya are all part of that literary discussion. I can make no comment on Zahn other than to say that the sales of his novel, and the controversy generated by it, are probably significantly less. In any case, the fact that none of the authors of the present wikipedia article have availed themselves of the available literature on the subject does not imply that the article should be deleted. On that basis the vast majority of articles on molecular and cellular biology topics in Wikipedia should also be removed because, although there is usually a vast academic literature on any individual protein or gene, it is very rare for these to have been referenced on cited in the majority of these articles. Inbetweener 11:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s a compromise. How about if we transwiki this article to Srafopedia (the Dark Materials wiki)? If you think the article can be adequately sourced here, by all means go ahead. My primary concern is that this is non notable fancruft and there for should not be on Wikipedia. A quick Google search appears to support this position, because, although there are 5,000 some hits for “Cittàgazze” [41] nearly all appear to be passing mentions on fan sits or Wikipedia mirrors. --S.dedalus 20:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. This useful reference for anyone reading or researching Philip Pullman -- let alone for fans or proto-fans -- builds the web and has the potential to become more like the articles on Tolkien's Middle-earth. The interrelationships between Pullman's world and others -- suggested and documented by links rather than citations -- call for subtle treatment: preferably in this article, but alternatively within a more bloated His Dark Materials article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how a list of fictional locations from His Dark Materials would help anybody research Philip Pullman. That seems to like a huge non sequitur to me. Such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. I also don’t see why an alleged similarity between Dark Materials and Middle-earth justifies original research and lack of proven notability in the article. WP:BTW can in no way solely justify the inclusion of an article. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting (among other things) that a list of locations may help research an author constitutes nothing out of the ordinary. We research authors by examining their texts, and the names in those texts, in particular, often provide patterning and resonances. -- The similarities between His Dark Materials and the tales of Tolkien's Middle-earth seem equally apparent. Both, as works of fiction, set up and elaborate fictional settings. Readers become attracted to such settings, just as readers become involved in plot and in character, and transfer some of their in-depth interest to Wikipedia. See also List of Foundation universe planets. Some of the settings may eventually aspire to their own articles, but Torre degli Angeli has not yet reached this phase, unlike Jordan College, Oxford. -- One could make a good case for building the web providing the sole justification of including an article -- in the case of re-directs, for example -- but in this case "building the web" makes no claim to providing the sole reason for this article, but well illustrates the need for distinguishing the fictional from the actual (Svalbard) and the geographical from the biographical (Scoresby Sund vs Lee Scoresby). -- Pedant17 11:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. It is clear that there is consensus to keep the article, and that notability has been established through verifiable sourcing. However, there may be some outstanding content disputes. Please continue discussing making this article better on it's talk page.-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Wright[edit]

I have nominated this article for deletion based on the the PR nature of it, and the fact that there is nearly no sourced material. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Jkp212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete No quality sources to establish notability per WP:NOTE. Keep notability asserted and established. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. My concern is that the article was stripped bare by the nominator in this edit just before the AfD nomination, which I think distorts the condition of the article. I think the correct solution is to fix the article rather than delete it. Yes, it's sat a while, but it hasn't been tagged as being in need of sources. Based on the history, I just can't endorse deletion, at least not at this point in the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the current revision, the article is now verifiable (cites to reliable sources) and demonstrates notability. I have no qualms with suggesting the article be kept. —C.Fred (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Some of the content that the nom deleted can be restored. I agree with the deletion of a lot of it though. Anyways, after that, add some ref's and we've got a stub. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not asserted. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are some awards, but it's not clear that any are notable. There's only one record on a major label; the rest are self-published. I'm reviewing the material deleted by Jkp212, which I agree was a capricious way to approach the AFD. Deletions of this type should have a solid justification such as an urgent WP:BLP issue; allow the article to stand on its merits, and allow AFD commenters to use the material to find sources. In this case, there are a few, but I think he still fails WP:MUSIC at this time. --Dhartung | Talk 11:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I created the article and provided >90% of its content. I will abstain from voting. Thank you, C.Fred and Dhartung, for pointing out that the article was "stripped bare" before being nominated for deletion; I hope other voters will examine previous versions of the article and also the discussion on the talk page, where I defended the subject's notability at a previous time. This article was one of my earlier efforts, and the language may have been effusive at times. This is adjustable and should not require removal of the great majority of the text. I do feel that the inclusion of excerpts from reviews in major publications, however praise-filled and "PR-like," is appropriate, even necessary, to establish notability. I question suggestions that Wright has not satisfied notability status for musicians. He has won international competitions. He has performed as a soloist on multiple continents. He has been the primary subject of full articles in major newspapers and magazines in multiple countries. He has recorded for a major label; yes, his more recent recordings have been self-produced, but that is being done more and more by artists in recent times for reasons having little if anything to do with their legitimacy, ability, or notability. One more point that I consider very important: Wright may very well meet notability requirements based on his Scrabble achievements alone. He was a US national Scrabble champion. Following links from categories of Scrabble players, I found several articlesstubs, in some caseswhose subjects were described only in reference to their Scrabble playing and whose achievements in Scrabble were clearly less than Wright's; yet their notability had not been questioned. Should not Wright's achievements and major media attention in two such disparate pursuits be viewed as notable? Emoll (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On balance I think delete because I'm not convinced of his notability. For example: what, exactly, is a US Scrabble champion? Does that mean THE US Scrabble Champion or was he just one of many? The music side of his 'fame' doesnt convince me either. Maybe someone can? Marcus22 (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC) ** Keep It seems this guy was the US National Scrabble champion. That seems to be normally sufficient for an article on Wiki. Might be worth relegating his musical side to an aside however as, at the moment, Scrabble would appear to be what he is notable for. Marcus22 (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means THE US Scrabble champion for 2004 (note that every other winner since 1987 has a Wikipedia article). As for "the music side of his 'fame' " (why the quotation marksare you quoting something?), what do you need in the way of convincing? Reviews in major newspapers and magazines? There were several in the article, pre-pruning. I can supply many more, or you can look at his website. You already voted, Marcus22, but perhaps others willl take this information into account. Thanks. Emoll (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- No-one has used any "quotation marks". I put 'fame' like that because it is his fame which is in question. (I could have italicized it which would have been the same thing). Marcus22 (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to give a heads-up: I am going to try to restore the Roger Wright article to its pre-Jkp212 version. In doing so the AfD tag may disappear momentarily, but I have every intention of restoring it immediately. I am not trying to get away with anything. I do want voters, especially those for whom assertions of Wright's notability appear to be lacking in the article, to see what was originally there. . . By the way, might one consider it relevant that Jkp212's entire edit history, outside of edits to his own talk page, consists of removing about 75% of the Wright article, then almost immediately nominating it for deletion? Emoll (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All registered editors' comments are valid; however, it is worth noting that Jkp212 has not edited outside of this topic. Accordingly, I have tagged his nomination with ((spa)). —C.Fred (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Article is restored to old version. "PR" language can be toned down; inline citations can be provided, and I will be more than happy to work on these, given some time. Marcus22, thanks for changing your vote. I will continue to believe personally that Wright is more notable as a pianist than as a Scrabble player, but I guess beggars can't be choosers. Emoll (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete> not notable or sufficiently sourced. seems like a self-aggrandizing pr piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.109.175.35 (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

!vote placed in strikeout text to note that the comment was left by an unregistered user. —C.Fred (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-aggrandizing? I beg your pardon. I created the article, and I am not Roger Wright.Emoll (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, folks. I've redone the article. It has lots of citations. There are a lot of excerpts from reviews in independent sources regarding his piano playing . Probably too many. I'll gladly remove some of them if people will concede Wright is notable as a musician. By the way, thanks, C.Fred.Emoll (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to make a few things clear. I am not Roger Wright; I am not a member of his family; I am not involved socially, romantically, or in any other way with Mr. Wright. I have attended several of his recitals and have met him, and he's a very nice, soft-spoken, humble person. Of course he would like to be better known (as a pianist) by the public than he currently is (he said this to an audience during a Q&A at a recital; I'm not purporting to read his mind), but I'm quite sure he'd never resort to empty PR and certainly not to using Wikipedia for that purpose. He did not ask me to do the article. I did it totally on my own initiative. I am a huge fan of his playing, and I daresay my admiration has more than the usual legitimacy, as I am myself a professional musician. As an orchestral musician, I have played with pianists including Van Cliburn, Leon Fleisher, Alicia de Larrocha, Victor Borge, André Watts, Jorge Bolet, Philippe Entremont, Misha Dichter, Horacio Gutiérrez, Leonard Pennario, Christopher O'Riley, Richard Goode, Yefim Bronfman, and Abbey Simon; I've heard many of the other greats of the past 40 to 50 years, and Wright is in that echelon. My saying that does not in itself make him notable and qualify him for a Wikipedia article, but if you read the revamped article (here is the version I was referring to when I made that post) you'll see that I'm far from alone in that assessment. He's not a household name, but the world of classical musicians and music critics has taken note, and I have kind of resorted to overkill to make that point in the article (while attempting to be particularly careful of not injecting my own opinion). Anyway, I really resent accusations and insinuations that some kind of PR show is afoot and/or that I am Wright or am in cahoots with him. Just look at the article and judge it and its subject on its/his merits. If Wright is still judged non-notable, I guess I'll have to live with that, but frankly it would cause me to lose a lot of faith in the Wikipedia process.Emoll (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Ok, now you guys have taken this too far.. It doesn't bother me so much to have an article about this guy, but the way it is written now reads like promo material.. Be realistic about the notability of the subject; he went to a local university for piano, and has earned a couple of adjectives from very minor and obscure publications. Bottom line: he is not a notable figure in the music or scrabble world. How many concerts is Wright giving? Are they in notable venues? From Emoll's links, it seems as thought Wright is seeking out gigs on very mediocre internet forums. Also, user C. Fred -- who gives the authority to strike a comment from an editor, even if he/she is unregistered? Last I checked, in the community unregistered users are allowed to participate. If you feel it's a puppet, then do a check. But at least let everyone have their opinion, without striking the comment. --Jkp212 (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I have responded to Jkp212 on his/her talk page.) (now here) Emoll (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After considering emoll's thoughtful comments and input on my talk page, I have become convinced he is right, and now believe the article should stay. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. Sufficiently notable pianist. His recordings are respected interpretations, and the article is sufficiently sourced. More sources can be found. Dr. Wright is a touring soloist if not a star. --S.dedalus (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some more editing on the article, which is here. Believe me, I want it to be a good article, and I welcome constructive edits by others. I am gratified that more posters to this forum seem to be accepting the article and its subject as worthy of inclusion. Still, as this discussion is not officially closed and resolved, I will continue to be vigilant (and, I admit, nervous).

I would like to make what I think is a reasonable request: that this discussion stay civil and on topic.

Is Roger Wright notable as a pianist? Is he notable as a Scrabble player? Wikipedia policy on AfD seems to make it pretty clear that those should be the central questions addressed here. Wikipedia has a guideline page for what constitutes notability, and a supplementary one for what constitutes notability for musicians. My rationale for Wright's inclusion rests on presenting evidence that he has satisfied several of the criteria, even though the latter-cited page states: "A musician or ensemble . . . is notable if it meets any one of the . . . criteria." I maintain that he has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works in independent, reliable sources (criterion 1), that he has toured both nationally and internationally (criterion 4), that he has won two and placed in several other major music competitions (criterion 9, which requires only winning or placing in one such competition), and that he's been the subject of a half-hour or longer national radio broadcast (criterion 12 [he has done that, although the article as it stands doesn't really document this: I'd better get on it!] Done ). The case for his having satisfied criterion 5 ("has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels") is weaker: he's released only one recording as a performer on a major label and produced an additional one on an important indie label; for probably economic reasons his remaining performance releases, though popular and well received, have been self-produced. So discount criterion 5 if you will, but remember he has to satisfy only one criterion. . . . What about Scrabble? His case can rest on satisfying these criteria from Wikipedia:Notability (people) (again, only one required): "In depth, independent, coverage in multiple publications showing a widely recognized contribution to the enduring historical record in the person's specific field."; and "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." His 2004 U.S. national championship and the extensive media coverage Wright received during the tournament and afterwards should satisfy this. There is also what I consider to be a very important precedent to consider: every other U.S. Scrabble champion since 1987 has a Wikipedia article.

Some of the AfD discussion suggests the article is (or was) unsourced. My original version of the article had several quotes from critical reviews, which were individually cited and sourced, and I covered the rest of the article with a list of sources and external links at the bottom (admittedly not the ideal approach, but not totally unsourced either). The AfD submitter, immediately before submitting the article, had deleted all the review excerpts: a double whammy because not only did all of the article's individually sourced statements disappear, but with them went all evidence that Wright had been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works in independent, reliable sources. . . . Anyway, that's all been addressed. The article is completely footnoted now. . . . At any rate, Wikipedia guidelines suggest that inadequate sourcing is generally not a criterion for deletion. The article can be tagged as needing citations, and then hopefully some good editing can resolve the problem. Deletion may be appropriate if the article cannot be sourced (because there just aren't sources out there) but in this instance that was never the case.

Other posters have raised PR issues. The article was never intended to be PR, but perhaps previous versions came off sounding that way. I maintain that as long as the "goods" are there (the article asserts the subject's notability), the tone or style of the article can be adjusted by editing it, not deleting it. I've tried to do this. I think it's pretty prosaic-sounding now. Wright still comes off sounding like a good pianist and a good Scrabble player, but that's kind of the point, isn't it?

A sincere request: if you (anyone) wants to remove material from this, or any, article, that is your prerogative as an editor. But please consider the consequences. Please don't remove statements that contribute to the assertion of the subject's notability, then complain that notability is not adequately asserted, or expose it to others to pass such a judgment.

A subject need not have "fame." A previous post in this discussion included the statement: "I put 'fame' like that because it is [Wright's] fame which is in question." I insist it is not his fame which is in question. Wright is not particularly famous (at least for the moment), but I believe he is notable. Notability has extensive guidelines on Wikipedia (see above). The distinction between fame and notability is not trivial word-mincing. If it were, I don't imagine that

"The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. This concept is distinct from 'fame' "

would be the second sentence and the first part of the third in the "Wikipedia:Notability" article.

If a person is notable, which university he previously attended does not change that.

If a classical concert soloist is notable, whether or not he plays extra gigs does not change that.

If a musician's only media coverage is "a couple of adjectives from very minor and obscure publications," well, that is a concern. On the other hand, don't make that claim if it's patently and demonstrably untrue.

Civil and on topic. That's all I ask. Thanks. Emoll 03:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Winning prizes is a mark of notability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the least, his Scrabble career certainly warrants notability. Brianreading 07:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STIDS[edit]

Neologism. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism or protologism, no evidence in the article for widespread use. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN neo. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A redundant article. First line says "better known as a computer virus." Very Unnecessary ≈Alessandro ♫^{T • C} 07:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't sound like a neologism, more like something somebody made up one day. Etymology might lend itself to a jargon based definition of sex (in this case, "Software EXchange), but that sdefinition is archaic and out of use, as near as I can tell - and that I remember, "STID" never showed up anywhere near the File. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have never come across this term before in my life, and Google doesn't turn up anything either. This appears to be a neologism. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 14:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Portrayals in the Media[edit]

School project. Essay and original research. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just an essay. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for contravening WP:NOR. --DAJF (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is an essay. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice for recreation. This is a great subject for a Wikipedia article if it were properly sourced and Wikipediaic. Unfortunately this article isn’t. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ≈Alessandro ♫^{T • C} 07:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 14:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DJ Creamity (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per S.dedalus. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Majoreditor (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete without redirect (Risk Aversion & Management didn't specifically use 'accounting') SkierRMH (talk) 08:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting for risk[edit]

Seems to be an essay rather than anything encylopaedic; I am not sure wikipedia is the right place for this. Oopsadoodle (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing but an essay, not the right place for essays. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the above. It is an essay. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay, per above. Perhaps a redirect to Risk aversion might be worthwhile. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 09:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a rewrite for Risk management. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 14:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that the article should be deleted. The subject is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. The article is better researched than the norm. The Articles for Deletion page states "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." This article is a case for improvement, not deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.200.11 (talk • contribs)
Delete Looks like an essay. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned by one user above, this is an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article. Those who are unhappy with the content or structure of the article please leave constructive comments which will assist the author in improving the article rather than suggesting it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaireLunday (talk • contribs) 12:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete due to lack of references. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 10:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Songs from The Legend of Zelda series[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No notability outside the games themselves. Miremare 03:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Miremare 03:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Fancruft. If it is important to the game itself, merge in each games' article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Rjd0060. The songs do not need a separate article. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: searches of Google news and scholar prove otherwise: [42], and [43]. I realize that there are a fair few which are not usable as sources, but there are enough to provide evidence for notability.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 09:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rjd0060. Which is a pity, the games are so great, and so is the music. :) ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 10:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ While the theme of having songs in the Zelda series deserves mention, listing these songs will (IMO) always be Original Research or a game guide. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep, rename to Music in The Legend of Zelda and rewrite per Disavian. Amazon lists quite a few soundtrack (which I had been completely unaware of previously), but this article should then be centered around the (real-world) soundtracks, not mainly in-universe elements and plot. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea, especially the new name. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, feel free to post on another site but doesnt really fit into an encyclopedia. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per Rjd0060; the content isn't suitable by itself, but a more general article on Zelda music may be able to establish notability. Haipa Doragon (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Music plays a fairly important role in the Zelda series, and multiple Zelda soundtracks have been released as CDs over the years. Some more real world information is needed, but KrytenKoro's links provide some good leads for finding that kind of stuff. This article, for example, has a lengthy analysis of the music in Ocarina of Time. Zagalejo^^^ 20:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Needs to establish notability thorough referencing and appears unable to do so. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the multiple (probably notable) Zelda soundtracks released over the years. This is a less substantial claim, but when people hear one of the main Zelda tunes, they probably recognize it. some of these articles may be relevant. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This not significant enough for an article. Just merge and place info in various articles in the Zelda categories. Saria's song in the Saria article for example.YVNP (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yes, I admit creator bias, but hear me out. Music is central to several installments of the series. As others have said the music is recognizable, and has been released on several soundtracks. But, more important to consider may be the question of why we have articles about characters and enemies in the series( and no, this is not a Pokémon test argument). The answer: because they are important recurring aspects. In Zelda, so is the music. I would not make the same argument about the music in the Mario series, for example. It’s great music, and very recognizable, but the difference is that in the Zelda series, the songs are integrated into the core gameplay and puzzle solving of several titles. Well, I’m tired and it’s not the most eloquent argument I’ve ever made, but hopefully I got my point across. Oh, and, briefly, what exactly is the nominator’s point? Many subjects of articles( characters, locations, fictional histories) are not necessarily notable beyond their importance to the larger work. That doesn’t mean notability is assumed to be inherited, it just means that information about notable aspects does not necessarily fit in full in the main articles. --WikidSmaht (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically there are not references, so there is no verifiability, and to keep this article from being deleted, it needs development information and stuff like that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see why any of the relevant and notable material can't be merged into the article. Just because it can attain some sites on a Google search doesn't make it adequately notable either. It's like typing in "Gameplay of The Legend of Zelda", and making an article out of that if a few sites appear. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A crucial part of one of the biggest series out there, and - and this is important - works better as coverage of that series as its own article. If we sacrifice that to better uphold the rules, we are by definition wrong. Sources have been provided, the music has been played in numerous concerts and a half-time song or two. Several soundtracks have been released. I do support covering those. --Kizor (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, music is one of the most important parts of the Zelda series, and the main theme of the game is arguably one of the most recgonizable music tunes of all time. Knowitall (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment on some of the "keep" arguments: Firstly, music is "important" to many games, but without sources specifically discussing "Songs from Zelda" there's no justification for a seperate article, and anything that is important should be mentioned in the articles on the games themselves. Secondly, this article isn't about the Zelda soundtrack albums that have been released, it's about songs played by the character in-game to perform specific tasks (and is more than a bit WP:NOT#GUIDE). Articles on the soundtracks already exist, such as The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (soundtrack), The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker Soundtrack, The Legend of Zelda The Ocarina of Time Original Soundtrack. Miremare 15:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out, but it won't change my recommendation. I just found Music of Kingdom Hearts (a Good Article) yesterday, and I think the soundtracks and what's salvageable of this AfD'ed article should all be merged into one big Music article, which has the potential to become a GA one day. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Kingdom Hearts has more than proven notability, this article has proven none, despite claims that it is so important. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommended a renaming of this article and merge the other soundtrack articles there. Then the article has pretty much the same basis as the Kingdom Hearts music article, including an established notability. Independent of the outcome of this AfD, I'll probably do the merge myself. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless, should be moved to a gaming wiki at most.---E-Magination (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it passed as a keep before and is a discriminate and verifiable article of one of the all time most notable game series. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Consensus can change, so stop ignoring that fact. Being kept in one AFD, doesn't mean it should always be kept. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rjd0060 Solution ~~and transwiki to a gaming wiki if need be~~. Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 23:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already done when it was first nominated (A better version was transwikied) see here --Cs california 07:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- needs a ton of work, but I'm confident sources can be added in. I found one or two in passing just today, not even looking, including the Gametrailers LoZ retrospective, which discuss both the role in the games and the reaction and legacy. A bad article can become a Good Article. David Fuchs^(talk) 02:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That source seems to be a blog... Miremare 02:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then maybe you didn't follow the link to the main page, but Joystiq is still a source too... David Fuchs^(talk) 00:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I know it's Joystiq, but I still don't believe a single blog (or any number of blogs for that matter) proves notability. Miremare 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - We're not basing this on a single blog. Other sources have been presented, like this. Zagalejo^^^ 00:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That one talks about how the player must "play" music to accomplish specific tasks in Ocarina of Time. That could justify a section about this in the Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time article, but I don't see how it justifies anything more. There's little that can be said about that aspect of the game without venturing into game-guide territory, which is what this article already does. Miremare 01:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is completely useless for an encyclopedia. It is completely unreferenced and cannot ever be referenced either. .:Alex:. 17:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete, socks notwithstanding. Sandstein 07:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Sadness[edit]

Delete for lack of notability. Google search results in 34 pages, one of them a Wikipedia mirror and the rest irrelevant. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 03:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not everything is on the internet. This article is in accordance with two of the criteria laid out in the WP:MUSIC guidelines:

"7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city ... "9. Has won or placed in a major music competition." FeverDrum (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Which style is he representative of? Which competition has he placed in? ... discospinster _talk 04:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, fails MUSIC guidelines. FeverDrum, if you can verify those claims (above) with third-party, reliable sources, then I'll consider changing my !vote. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's this new genre, SPEW. It's become a bit of a weird movement here in these areas of Ontario (Ottawa and Sudbury at least). Underground thing, very strange stuff, but a lot of people know about it, talk about it, and there for a lot of people would like to know more. This is a good way of finding out. -Alsamisath (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Alsamisath (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Delete per WP:NN, WP:VERIFY, and possibly WP:HOAX. --DAJF (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to meet WP:N. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SPEW is rapidly gaining popularity in Southern Ontario, this is one of the few relevant articles. - Eenocks (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Eenocks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep Just because an artist makes records on an independent label, why should that mean according to wikipedia that they don't exist? Clean Sadness is a great SPEW artist and someone should make an article on the SPEW genre as, to, my surprise, apparently many people outside The United States aren't aware of. Definitely keep it. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr timebomb (talk • contribs) 23:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC) — Dr timebomb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Comment. Please note that WP has a vast amount of articles on artists on independent labels. They are all also able to be backed up with sources. tomasz. 17:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clean Sadness is definitely an artist many people want to find out more about, and even if there are only two sources, I don't think this is grounds to delete this page. - Chazzout! (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)— Chazzout! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Delete fails WP:V, WP:MUSIC unless reliable 3rd party sources are cited. dissolve ^talk 20:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:MUSIC, WP:RS. I don't think a guy who's had less than 100 listens on his Myspace page qualifies as a wildly popular and notable cult artist. Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. GJ (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 17:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. None of the claims in support of notability have been supported with reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for local musicians. --Skeezix1000 18:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. nn artist. Reso lute 16:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Spew" music is an unpopular neologism. There's nothing whatsoever new in the idea of spoken word over rock/electronic backing. This is a non-notable artist. tomasz. 17:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subject:CINEMA[edit]

Previously speedied per CSD A7 and prodded with the concern "The provided sources are insufficient to establish that this website meets WP:WEB." This website's claims to notability are passing mentions on MySpace pages, a quote on a movie flyer, and some forum posts. I believe these references are insufficient to establish the website's notability per WP:WEB's criteria. --Muchness (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 (no assertion of notability) and G11 (advertising). Note that this has also been speedily deleted under the name Subject:Cinema, and I deleted it previously under the present name. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: On A7 and G11, and I'm tagging it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Hello again, Thanks for at least taking sometime to go through some of the links on the page. In addition to the claims listed below, one that was probably not reviewed by you due to time constraints I am sure, is the review by Adam Curry on the podfinder review link listed on our page. Adam is regarded as "The Godfather" of podcasting and his word carries some weight in the podcasting world and as a previous star of TV via MTV. His shining review of our podcast has sent 1,000's of new listeners to our website/podcast, so I am proud to list it as a credible source as a book review in the New York Times. As for the the myspace pages, these are mostly indie-film makers with no other avenue to get their films publicized. They should not be simply panned over since they are Myspace pages, Myspace is one of the most popular sites and highly-valued sites on the Net with major corps., and movie studios using it almost as much as wikipedia. As for "and some forum posts", they are on iMDB.com which is a site most of our listeners/readers use on a daily basis for all things movies. I consider iMDB a little more than just some random internet forum. Subject:CINEMA is also accredited as indie-film reviewers as mentioned in our references, which we know is not the New York Times, but we take it very seriously and try to provide the indie-film community with a source to which we can inform the public about the great films these folks are providing. Once again, I mention since you have a category for the listing of podcasts and there are very few there, how are the users of wikipedia supposed to know they exist unless you allow our inclusion to wikipedia the same as filmspotting of which we based our wikipedia page as a very similar podcast to our own and probably as much notoriety and also the daily source code page. If after all of this we still don't meet your requirements, I thank you for taking the time to validate our sources before making your decision. Thanks and have a nice day! :) Subject:CINEMA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subjectcinema (talk • contribs) 04:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WP:WAX is not a persuasive argument to keep when the article suffers from a lack of sources and a serious WP:V/WP:NOR problem. Sandstein 07:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthas Menethil[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Another WoW character article that does not meet notability requirements, does not meet WP:Fiction, is mostly fancruft, and is completely unsourced (except for article previewing the game he appears in). This character is already covered in the List of Warcraft characters and does not need his own article. The game is notable, every character in it is not. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it's safe to say that this character is the single most notable of all those in the Warcraft universe. Not commenting on the article's status, hence not voting, but he is to Warcraft what Jean-Luc Picard is to Star Trek (my quote from Picard with the merge notice was reference to the fact that we have pages like Nog and friends, which also is not voting criteria but food for thought). Luatha (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete article content is all "in universe", there is no encyclopedic content, no analysis of the character which might be of value to anyone not a fan of the game. The sole "reference" for this putative encyclopedia article is a game review, not a secondary source treatment of the character "Arthas Menethil". I see no evidence at all of the "extensive coverage" in reliable secondary sources as required by WP:N. This is pure fan cruft. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable, and nothing of encyclopedic value here. Also, the article is no where near sufficiently sourced, and has the familiar tone of fancruft. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (after cutting down) into List of Warcraft characters#Arthas Menethil. Not notable enough for a separate article, but it seems he's important enough to the series to have more than one paragraph in the list. Pagra shtak 15:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 15:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - His notability my increase over time, so lets save the information and merge him into the characters list. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - wasn't this nominated 3 weeks ago? Surely nominations have a common sense cooldown, or do thing keeps getting nominated until they're removed, and thus can't be nominated again? Kirkburn (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the previous nomination until after I'd already renominated, though with the last nomination ending in no consensus, I don't think renomination is too bad in this case. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whereas dozens of other Warcraft characters are not notable, Arthas is one of them who actually is. One of the mainest characters in the series (if that's a word). Axem Titanium (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true, there's no way that those of us who don't play Warcraft would know that. Could you provide some secondary sources to show this? Pagra shtak 15:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If both Sarah Kerrigan and Jim Raynor of the Starcraft series deserve separate writeups, why not Arthas Menethil of the Warcraft series? He's essentially become its signature character and "poster boy." His face is on the cover of the Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne expansion pack, just like Kerrigan's face is on the StarCraft: Brood War expansion pack. He's even on the cover of the upcoming World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King, which would seemingly beat Kerrigan's box top exposure. I'd sooner delete Jim Raynor's writeup than Arthas's. That said, I agree that the article is badly written and somewhat unhelpful. Mynabird 07:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing against his character, but to keep the article, we must have notability established by references to verify the content. IN other words, stuff like, how did they come up with this character? What were their influences? What did video game reviewers say about his role in the games? If you don't have that, delete.Judgesurreal777 04:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete and redirect to Jeb Bush, the latter having been done already by Citicat (talk · contribs). I see no point in deleting the history at this stage unless someone tries to restore the article. Sandstein 07:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noelle Bush[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete and redirect to Bush family per WP:BLP and WP:NOT#NEWS which states: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news.[5] Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article." -Strothra (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jeb Bush. Unless she's done something notable since 2002, this is old news. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Her criminal record does not make her notable, and her name alone isn't sufficient for notability. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The news coverage is not enough to establish her as a notable person sufficient to overcome the BLP concerns. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have deleted a whole bunch of articles on people whose only claim to notability was to have been part of the Bush family, and this one fits the bill as well as the others. So she's the President's niece. Would Mrs. Bush have been notable had she been a regular Joe with the same kind of legal trouble? --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her father. JJL (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jeb_Bush#Noelle_Lucila_Bush. The majority of this material is already there, and that's where it belongs.--TexasDex ★ 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I would have redirected in this case, but the article already survived a previous AfD. Even though it was no consensus, I believe it would have been a bit too WP:BOLD. --Strothra (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Jeb article. Being the daughter of a Governor or the niece of a President is not an automatic entitlement to a Wikipedia article under any part of WP:BIO. Having a drug problem likewise does not satisfy WP:BIO. The conjunction of being related to a notable person and having a drug problem does not convey inherent notability. The news coverage was transient and per WP:NOT#NEWS this article need not remain in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a member of one of the two or three most powerful/notable political families in America and for making national news. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that family lineage is not a valid argument for inclusion per WP:NOTINHERITED. --Strothra (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ,just as with George P. Bush, their status are magnified because of the family lineage. Most objections would apply equally to George P. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that family lineage (WP:NOTINHERITED) and WP:WAX are not valid arguments for keeping an article. GPB is independently notable from his family and was kept for that reason in the 2006 AfD. If any comparison is to be made it is with the Pierce Bush AfD. That article was deleted. --Strothra (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above assertion as to what constitutes valid argument is only an assertion and seems to be based upon a self described "essay" which clearly describes itself as"..not a policy or guideline..", so maybe the nominator subscribes to that essay's pov but I consider that essay to be Instruction creep and of no usefulness. I'd also argue that GPB is not independently notable from his family based upon his article's description of his less than notable activities. Family lineage is,obviously,a valid consideration for keeping an article. Also, Pierce Bush is not close to Noelle in terms of advanced search hits; ratio 20,000 for Noelle to 2,000 for Pierce. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essays are still based in policy, in this case this is particularly true in terms of WP:BIO, WP:NN, and WP:NOT. This article also stands to easily violate WP:BLP on the only issue in which NB can claim independent notability. --Strothra (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree wholeheartedly, stand by my reference to Instruction creep and I also endorse theseBD2412 comments which were made during the previous AfD attempt. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that instructions are different from policy. In particular, policies like WP:BLP are put into place not to guide content, but to protect Wikipedia from legal liabilities which is why BLP must be strictly adhered to.--Strothra (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the case has been made that WP:BLP is offended with this article nor that Wikipedia needs to be protected from anything within this article. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually why I brought up WP:NOT#NEWS in the nom. That policy demonstrates the connection between WP:NOT and WP:BLP specifically in terms that relate to this article. --Strothra (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a better point but I still think the reasons for keeping the article as outlined in the original AfD are more weighty than the reasons here for deleting it. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough :). --Strothra (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jeb Bush. The slight amount of notability is strictly inherited. Tim Ross·^talk 00:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Jeb Bush. I agree that she hasn't done anything sufficiently notable to justify having an article: children of famous people are not automatically notable themselves (unless they're going to inherit a throne or something), and the sole news story about her cited on this page seems absurdly minor. Following the guidelines of WP:BLP, I think we should avoid harm and delete this article. Terraxos (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as an aside, it's worth mentioning that this article actually does, strictly speaking, pass our notability requirements. It has a sufficient amount of coverage from multiple reliable sources, and if it wasn't about a person, might well survive AfD. But articles about living people should always be treated differently when it comes to notability, and should be considered in a broader sense that weighs it against respecting their privacy; in other words, this article is the perfect demonstration of why WP:BLP exists. Terraxos (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an "answer" to royalty in the US. Utterly notable. Greswik 18:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Altaïr Ibn La-Ahad[edit]

Video game character with no apparent notability outside the game. Anything important from here should be merged to Assassin's Creed. Miremare 03:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Miremare 03:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete article content is all "in universe", there is no encyclopedic content, no analysis of the character which might be of value to anyone not a fan of the game. I see no evidence at all of the "extensive coverage" of Altaïr Ibn La-Ahad in reliable secondary sources as required by WP:N. Delete as cruft. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the noms reasoning. Merge any important info to the Assassin's Creed article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Per nom. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't warrant separate own page. Dan (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough for separate article. Pagra shtak 18:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obliterate* into oblivion. Not notable enough for own article. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 23:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge Make a small bio of Altair in the Assassin's Creed article. --Dekabreak101 (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I beleive it should be kept. The game just came out and not many may have it. As people beat the game such as i have they will be able to contribute more information on it for those who wish to contribute to the site as i have. This character will want to be viewed up with characters such as Master Chief of Halo and Solid Snake of Metal Gear Solid. He is a very popular character and more will be put in on him. Many with or without the game will want to know who he is. (I AM NOT A MEMBER AND ALSO DO NOT KNOW IF I AM ALLOWED TO POST HERE. IF NOT I APOLOGIZE I AM JUST EXPRESSING MY BELIEFS ON THE SUBJECT, thank you.)
Anon IP's are certainly welcome for deletion discussions. However, I will point out that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we cannot speculate if this character will be as popular as Master Chief or the others for notability purposes. If, for some reason, Altair is mentioned and critically commented on in reliable sources, we can come back and create this, but for the time being it should be deleted. --MASEM 00:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge Non-notable at this time, merging back to ACreed article is perfect solution. --MASEM 00:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Nomination withdrawn Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giant-penguin hoax[edit]

This article is an unsourced, unfocused, and rather bizarre discussion about some alleged sightings of a 15 foot penguin in Florida. There are no inline citations, and the only cited references are a tripod website and an article (not available online) from a magazine called Fortean Times, which is apparently a conspiracy-theory magazine. Horologium t-c 02:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay , can we get an admin to close this as a Keep, under WP:SNOW? I'm going to withdraw this nomination, since there are plenty of sources after all. They just need to be added to the article. Horologium t-c 12:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a hoax that meets notability, as a Google of florida+giant+penguin easily showed. [44][45][46] And while I will not directly dispute your characterization of the Fortean Times, it is possible to write objectively and authoritatively about conspiracies and hoaxes. --Dhartung | Talk 03:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was about to post some of the same links as Dhartung. And the 1988 St. Petersburg Times article by Jan Kirby is available on Newsbank, for anyone who's interested. Zagalejo^^^ 03:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable and sufficiently notable hoax. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Dhartung's sources, sufficiently notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the above. Notability does not expire. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable hoax. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No one here is trying to pass off a hoax as truth. The article clearly states that its subject is a hoax, and one that apparently deceived quite a few people, so the notability is not in question here. See Loch Ness Monster. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiella[edit]

Contested prod, apparent hoax. Miremare 02:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Miremare 02:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, nothing about it online. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN, probably a hoax anyways. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it's not a hoax, it's not notable. Pagra shtak 15:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and possible hoax. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. CitiCat^♫ 04:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Edward Tang (author)[edit]

Non notable author.Delete TheRingess (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hoax (clever one: isbns and everything, just that none of them link up to the titles given except the first, which was published under a different name from either given here). --Paularblaster (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although, it is one of the best hoax articles I've seen. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --Ichabod (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note This AfD is part of a series of AfDs made by the nominator that specifically targets lists of churches across the United States. The AfDs currently include this, this and this. • Freechild'sup? 15:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info, nor is it a directory, nor is it a travel guide. Useight (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contains no info beyond that found in a directory. CitiCat^♫ 05:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. We are not the yellow pages. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an arbitrary list that adds no encyclopedic content, as is this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. • Freechild'sup? 15:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sheesh. JJL (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Episcopal churches in Cincinnati, Ohio[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory nor an indiscriminate collection of information. --Ichabod (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contains no info beyond that of a directory. CitiCat^♫ 05:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SHEESH (why is there no Sheesh! page?). JJL (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep Dip whisky[edit]

Tagged for notability for 5 months, no further edits. A google search yielded very few hits (62) suggesting this is not a well-known brand.

Delete: Non notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tiny brand no notability. RMHED (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Same old Wikipedia Game. DS (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikigolf[edit]

I wanted to remove proposed deletion from this page to give a chance to debate before deleting it. Anshuk (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have stated my argument for the retention of this article in a newly created 'talk:wikigolf' page.Cleanfatback (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NFT and WP:N. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per G4, this is pretty much "Six Degrees of Wikipedia" (the concept of which has been deleted too many times to count) in different wrapping paper. shoy (^words _words) 02:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD A9, "clone of Six Degrees of Wikipedia in article space". Yes, things may have gotten that bad. =) =) =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't like it isn't a rationale (for me, at least), but WP:V and WP:RS are. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alice In Wonderland (Pantomime)[edit]

I prodded Alice In Wonderland: The Pantomime as an article about a non-notable local amateur theatre group, and their productions, which included a pantomime of Alice in Wonderland. The creator blanked that article and created the article I have nominated for deletion; another editor redirected the original to this version. Zero Google/GNews hits for the theatre. Of 33 possible hits for the production, three appear to be relevant and none are significant. The only assertion of notability I can see is in the original version of the article, which claimed a box-office record breaker. However, the theatre apparently seats 300, so I don't believe this is enough. Kateshort forbob 01:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable performance. Obviously, the subject of the performance is notable, but what does that have to do with this group? - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neat, yet ultimately non-notable local theatre production. --Dhartung | Talk 03:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely not notable. Deb (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy redirect. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madden NFL 08 en Espanol[edit]

Same as the rest of the world release Madden NFL 08, i wanst sure if it should just be redirected Salavat (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. CitiCat^♫ 04:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50 Entertainment[edit]

Advertisement. Not notable. Speedy declined. Hammer1980·^talk 00:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not really blatant advertising, but non notable nonetheless. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. PeaceNT 01:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaxson Barham[edit]

Non-notable Australian rules footballer, who does not meet WP:BIO for athletes. He has not yet played a competitive match in a fully professional league. Mattinbgn\^talk 00:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now until we see how their career in the AFL progresses. If they end up not playing in the seniors, we can reconsider then. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are suggesting hanging off for at least three more months, assuming that games from the NAB Cup are held as being part of a fully professional league (and that the first round will be in February, as it was in 2007). IMO, that's too long a review period: either delete them or keep them as a result of this debate.Ga rr ie 02:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are all players picked up in the 2007 AFL Draft. There is no guarantee that they will ever meet the WP:BIO criteria. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reason to delete them now and recreate them for their first game. A merge to an article on the 2007 AFL draft would also be appropriate. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: Being a part of the AFL (like the NFL) seems notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all there are really two options here: Delete all or change WP:BIO. Currently, none of these players meet notability criteria. Either get the notability criteria changed - or at least make a case for it at wikiproject AFL - or delete these articles.Ga rr ie 01:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'll add a third option: merge to AFL Draft, 2007 or similar. That way they are listed and easily recreated if they play a game.Ga rr ie 02:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: same reasoning as Rjd0060. As players on current AFL lists, it is reasonable to assume that people will seek to know the information listed about them: viz. position, junior experience, draft selection and then debut where applicable. If their careers tank, then delete them later. Aspirex (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: They are all on senior AFL lists they have made it to the top of their tree. All players on AFL lists should be included. There are many, many more players to delete than just the ones you have listed if you are going by this "theory" that you have created. While we are at it, sources have been added and they ARE verifiable sources. Plus if you want to re-create each of the players you deleted when they play their first game next year go ahead because I wont be....... Charedblack (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: There would possibly be more interest in some of these names than others with senior experience in the lead up to the next season, same every draft. 2 minutes research: NFL - Kevis Coley has not yet played a competitive match in a fully professional league but, along with everyone else on the Cincinnati roster, has a bio; Championship League (not even EPL) - Martin Riley ditto for Wolverhampton. Perhaps it is reasonable that if they are on a club list they may have an entry (i.e. same as happens in practice with NFL & EPL) and if they then never play a senior game they can then be deleted. Lintornterry (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: These people have received considerable media attention throughout the major media outlets in the past few weeks. There is a high chance that these people will all have significant careers within the AFL, and it will be within a day or so that each of their clubs will have pages dedicated to their biographies - in addition with the many articles already dedicated to them. Sure, they might be a bit bland at the moment, but the articles still have much room for improvement. If they are deleted now they'll just be re-posted within a few days/weeks. No point in stalling the inevitable. Dupz (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: As professional AFL players, they are notable. Supported by WikiProject AFL. And, like many others have mentioned, there are many 'non-notable' players (according to your definition) in other leagues/codes. Boomtish (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All, it seems likely that many if not all of these people will play sooner rather than later. If, after a year or so, they still haven't made it onto the field at the top tier, then get rid of them. Lankiveil (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete all for reason summarised above. These people are not notable ... they may become notable. Until they do then they cannot have the notability of an article. Notability is not temporary. Once you have it, then you have it. Victuallers (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So satisfying WP:N makes them non-notable? Twenty Years 10:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Whilst they may not have played a senior game to meet WP:AFL, it is more than likely that they will infact meet that criteria in the coming AFL season. In the mean-time, they clearly satisfy WP:N given the large number of reliable sources on each of these people who have been drafted by AFL clubs. Might be interesting to note the AfD debate on Matthew Kreuzer, who is also an AFL draftee, which was closed as a Keep. Twenty Years 10:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Matthew Kreuzer was the likely No. 1 draft pick who had significant media coverage about him not just listed as a potential draft pick. That is not the case with the others. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Junius P. Rodriguez[edit]

Based on history of the edits, this appears to be a self-biography (WP:BIO) by User:Mj0514dr also connecting as Special:Contributions/198.88.216.101. Some of the material may support notability. However, no reliable sources are cited (the article needs substantial modification to justify retaining it). Tedickey (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: For now. Needs sources (I've tagged it) and cleanup / expansion, and was just recently created. Give it some time to come up to par, but it is acceptable as a stub (assuming sources are found asap). - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems to have a reasonable amount of popular press: [47] [48]. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe - there's material there to develop (and weed through - perhaps one does a reasonable job of analysis/criticism, though sadly insightful reviewers are rare). Searching just on the author's name, it seemed that I was mostly seeing advertisements for the books - a few reviews scattered around. However, this page came to my notice since its editor added several entries to other articles reference list. Further reading lists are one matter, but references are the data used to build the article. There are other book-advertisers in the same category. Tedickey (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Look ok for now. But I would suggest deletion if it is not improved. Chris! _ct 02:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Editor of several major reference books by notable specialist publisher. Since there are apparently reviews, that's enough for notability. DGG (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reviews - as User:Mj0514dr continues editing, he's only supplied pointers to advertising material - no reviews cited, independent or otherwise (yet) Tedickey (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge most to List of Danny Phantom villains and ghosts. Some of these are, however, rather lengthy for merging (See Wikipedia:Summary style), and one or two "may" be developed enough for their own article (this being the disadvantage of a group nomination). Once I've completed the merging, no prejudice against (re-)nominating individually whichever ones remain unmerged, if that's deemed appropriate. (I'll note that here once I've finished the merging.) - jc37 09:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Danny, Ember McLain, Nicolai Technus, and Skulker (Danny Phantom) were the ones not merged. - jc37 14:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skulker (Danny Phantom)[edit]

These supporting characters do not satisfy the notability guideline for fiction and unlikely to do so at any point in time. All of them already have List of Danny Phantom villains and ghosts_{« ₣ullMetal ₣alcon »} 00:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless sources can be found, consolidation in the villains and ghosts article is appropriate. If sources can be found, a standalone article may be appropriate. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: As of now, per the above comment. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete article content is all "in universe", there is no encyclopedic content, no analysis of the characters which might be of value to anyone not a rabid fan of the TV show. I see no evidence at all of the "extensive coverage" in reliable secondary sources as required by WP:N. Delete as fan cruft. I don't see the merit of merging all these characters into List of Danny Phantom villains and ghosts unless there is extensive ocverage in reliable sources of these characters as characters. If the TV show itself is the only topic to be treated as a subject of critical attention by reliable secondary sources, then the article on the show itself should be the only article related to the show kept on WP. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. List of Danny Phantom villains and ghosts is already doing a great job. Especially for cartoon characters, significant secondary coverage rarely exists (with a few exceptions like Simpsons or the South Park characters). – sgeureka ^t•c 11:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Hiding T 13:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete as needed as stated above. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{ho ho ho • under the tree}} 01:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. A close call, but we may probably take into account that the article was created by the single purpose account Americanpatriot1976 (talk · contribs), who has also been repeatedly removing the AfD notices. This does not bode well for the development of the article. Let's give this guy a chance to write up his CV on his own website. Sandstein 06:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Bennett (Massachusetts politician)[edit]

Fails notability requirements. This person's claim to fame seems to be that he was a county selectman and lost an election for state senate. However, he does not seem to have received any attention from the media other than a couple of mentions in the local paper, certainly not "significant press coverage". Eatcacti (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article needs quite a bit of work, however does appear to be notable. Google News search brings back over 50 hits, and some of the articles, according to the headlines, appear to be specifically about the subject himself. Reliable sources include the Cape Cod Times and The Boston Globe. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless rewritten from reliable sources by end of AFD. At present this is a frankly hilarious hagiography wherein the selectman is compared with Cincinnatus and Abraham Lincoln in the same paragraph, padded out with tangential puffery such as working at an "historic" fishmarket in the "legendary" Faneuil Hall. (I guess that must have been some fishmarket job.) There are many unsupported characterizations such as a "shocked" electorate (they must not have thought their votes would count). It also tries to fold in biographies of his relatives. Thin gruel indeed with lots of brown sugar. Naturally, it is written by a single-purpose account. --Dhartung | Talk 03:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. I see the Globe did do a profile on him.[49] That certainly counts. Not sure if I give as much weight to the Nantucket paper which is doing more or less a local blurb about his announcement [50]. Problems: parts of the article are copied verbatim from his senate campaign page [51] or very heavily influenced by his campaign [52]. At this point, I would bet my last dollar that he or his campaign is engaging in wikispam. He may have done genuinely notable things. If more articles similar to the Globe surfaced and the article underwent a complete non-Bennett influenced re-write I could certainly be pursuaded otherwise. But appropriating money isn't notable, nor is passing a non-binding resolution. Its what politicians do. Montco (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing some of the changes, the campaign page copy was removed, however, they just make the article less copyvio but still spammy. I don't know how the article addresses notability. The source on his arrest for a racial attack that Sarcasticidealist brought up would certainly add to a case for notability but is not noted in the article. So far all I see is a county commissioner in Massachusetts who married well and has been defeated in races for higher offices with a unique campaign style. No sale.Montco (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - (link inserted into my commentary by Americanpatriot1976) [53]
    - OK, so there is nothing to the racial attack angle. I thought something there would add to notability but I guess not.
Delete I don't see anything here that makes him notable, the whole article reads like an ad. -- Dougie WII (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He obviously doesn't hold a position that's been deemed inherently notable, but, as User:Rjd0060 noted, he's been the subject of significant coverage ([54], [55], [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CT&p_theme=ct&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=10A6C56440662F44&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM). Based on that third link, he seems to have something of a reputation for quixotic election attempts. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep per WP:SNOW, WP:HEY, and after moving. I'm working on removing the cruft. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ithaca College People[edit]

Largely unsourced, and some inaccurate info. Many persons on the list lack notability, and the topic of the list (Ithaca College People) is vague and too open-ended. Weathermandan (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom's reasoning. A lot of people listed aren't notable. Add the actual notable ones to the list here, and delete the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Almost every college has an alumni and personnel list. Fix problems, don't delete the good with the bad. Did the nominator notice the category Category:Lists of people by university in the United States. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to List of Ithaca College alumni, with the faculty list on the college page itself, and trim out most of the non-wikilinked "notables" such as the random CEOs and news reporters. Although do note the school is known for its broadcast journalism program. Redlink any that seem promising. The use of "people" is basically a holdover from the standard category structure for colleges & universities that puts categories for faculty and alumni under a "people" intermediate category. With a little work most of the blue-linked articles coudl probably have sources imported and if you think something is inaccurate, remove it (if you're not sure, tag it). As for "open-ended", what other kinds of people do you think might end up in this article? --Dhartung | Talk 07:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since there's plenty of precedent for alumnus and faculty lists, but I support Dhartung's proposals above. EALacey (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is very standard on WP. JJL (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, precedent has shown that lists of alumni and faculty are acceptable. I have moved the page to List of Ithaca College alumni. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Non-notable people should be removed, sources should be provided,list expanded, etc. But the list itself (per usual practice in WP) should stay. Good idea to rename (by TenPoundHammer). --Yury Petrachenko (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete by User:Yamla, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. Walsh[edit]

Non-notable actor. He might become notable if and when he shows up in season 8 of Degrassi, but until then, he doesn't even show up in imdb. Corvus cornix_talk 00:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was I withdraw. -Good sh op ed 01:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi Te Huna[edit]

Non-notable person -Good sh op ed 00:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never heard of her, will withdraw if I can find five or more refs about her. -Good sh op ed 00:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, looks like she played at the highest level of her sport. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Here are some notability-establishing, reliable sources which can be added to the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might As Well, but how do you close an AfD debate? -Good sh op ed 01:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armistice (band)[edit]

Contested Speedy. Looks nn to me. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Contested speedies do not require AfDs, in fact, it's the responsibility of the person putting the "hangon" tag to explain on the article's Talk page why they feel the speedy is incorrect. This has not been done, therefore there's no need for the AfD. They fail WP:BAND. Corvus cornix_talk 00:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete just the same per Corvus. Nothing's been placed on the talk page yet, so let the speedy run its course. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Tyrenius 17:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Capone[edit]

This looks like a non-notable, although not to say unremarkable young artist. Nominating for delete, with regrets. Ambition and talent are not eneough to be included in this encyclopedia. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this: http://www.renecapone.com/biography.htm. Looks like there may well be enough writtent about this artist to warrant inclusion. I will retract my nom if others agree? —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid reliable source, but http://www.sfbaytimes.com/?sec=article&article_id=7053 and http://www.sfbaytimes.com/?sec=article&article_id=6839 may be notable enough. Corvus cornix_talk 00:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable; add the above sources to the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with the new refs, not notable yet. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Two mentions in a weekly paper are not enough. freshacconcispeaktome 03:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Modernist (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. These sources aren't enough yet, but a google search suggests that the artist is gaining popularity within the gay community, and may be reconsidered in the future. JNW (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The artist is just starting out - the SF Bay Times references don't amount to notability. Maybe sometime soon.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Towers[edit]

Delete This is nothing really: essentially this is not even an advert. Its just a brief description of a non-notable real estate development. Is there anything here of any use to an encyclopedia? I vote delete it and especially delete the individual articles on the individual towers. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. To me the project sounds like it has some potential to become notable someday, but we're not there yet. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 00:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Executive Towers only: Non notable, and the individual towers aren't notable either, but a formal AfD is needed for the others, preferably in a group AfD. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is not notable. Chris! _ct 02:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are a ton of Executive Towers. 21:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.99.122 (talk)
Delete as NN. There are lots of them. I lived in one in Albany. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreferenced, no infobox, no claim to notability. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 20:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to album by User:Dennisthe2, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Like Traffic Lights[edit]

Nothing notable about this song. P4k (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable song, with a dash of WP:OR thrown in. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album, logical choice for non-notable song. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monty Python's Contractual Obligation Album. Corvus cornix_talk 00:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to here: Non notable song, no reason for a separate article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per everyone. Maxa megalon 2000 07:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bold redirect, i.e., I have done just that, per the suggestion. Song's not notable and rather arduous to listen to. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy close, possibly WP:POINT nomination, user's only contribution was listing this article for AfD. Subject was a prime minster of Australia and is thus quite notable indeed. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Keating[edit]

Unnotable and small leveled- politician

User:Carrie Qiue 00:49 UTC Nov. 26, 2007

He was a Prime Minister of Australia FFS. Ridiculous idea to even consider deleting it. Why don't we delete JFKs page while we're at it. He didn't even serve a full term as President, obviously unnotable.

Scmods (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is someone's idea of a time-wasting joke. The deletion nominee should be reprimanded. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably against WP policy but I've removed the AFD notice. Stupid troll. Oh by the way Keep, duh. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Chan (Spiritual Teacher)[edit]

Vanity page. Lacks notability YCCHAN (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom. Non notable, and G-News search brings back nothing of relevance. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose if I googled Jason Chan, I would come up with about a million hits, few of them actually relating to this one. The article has to have references. This "has the highest selling Tai Chi video/DVD in Europe" is clearly the persons primary claim to notability. Unless its sourced by an independent and reliable party, I choose not to believe it. And without that claim, the person fails WP:BIO.Montco (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The original author has had more than enough time to source the subject's claim to notability. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Strothra 04:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia in culture[edit]

While the list is interesting, it's mostly original reasearch and loosely related items, and cultural references of the "Oh look, Sideshow Bob mentioned Wikipedia last night!" type (and yes, it was, and yes, it's there). The only good relevant part of the article is probably Wikiality, which could be merged into The Colbert Show. Will ^(talk) 17:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is simply a trivia collection. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Wikipedia is popping up in society and culture at large, as news. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - indiscriminate collection of non-associated items. The items on this list bear absolutely no relationship to each other past happening to have included the word "Wikipedia" in them. Otto4711 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And before anyone suggests it, oppose merger of any of this content into Wikipedia or any other article. Otto4711 (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO, indiscriminate list of Wikipedia pop culture mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible speedy keep due to being improperly formatted. I believe this discussion needs to acknowledge the earlier AfD that resulted in "keep" in the nomination and that this discussion should therefore have a "2" in the title. Probably an honest error, but I believe that is the format of these things and we do need to be consistent. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep does not apply here. Otto4711 (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, though, the article's talk page indicates that this discussion is technically the second one and I believe the typical format is to note the earlier discussion in the title of the AfD and in the nomination. Even if that doesn't make a speedy, then I still think we should follow the regular format and anyway, the topic is clearly notable enough and organized coherently enough to satisfy list and merit inclusion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, here's a thought, read the guideline. Wikipedia:Speedy keep specifies the circumstances under which an AFD may be closed speedily and none of them remotely apply to this AFD. The article has a different name than the last time it went through AFD and the nominator, clearly and obviously acting in good faith, did not notice it. You have now linked the previous AFD (although you should probably learn how to do direct links to other Wikipedia pages sometime soon) and there are no grounds for a speedy keep. It does not matter that this AFD doesn't say "(2nd nomination)" in its title. Did you have a comment on the substantive issues of the nomination or are you only interested in wikilawyering? Otto4711 (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, then still keep the article for meeting notability guidelines and following our requirements for lists. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, no comment on the substantive issues. OK then. Otto4711 (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no substantive problems with the article. It is a discriminate list of items with a common theme or element. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Someone said 'Wikipedia'" is not a theme. "Someone said 'Wikipedia'" is not an element. Otto4711 (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article demonstrates Wikipedia 's influence/affect on culture by referencing its various appearances in comics, on television, etc. in a relatively thorough manner. Anyone wondering what impact Wikipedia has had can look at this artilce, see its various mentions and have a decent idea of Wikipedia 's prominence. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it really doesn't. The fact that a word is merely mentioned or a concept merely referenced does not mean that the mere mention or reference itself demonstrates influence. One word out of a two-hour movie or 30 minute sitcom or even four-panel comic strip does not tie the movie or sitcom or comic strip to each other in any meaningful way. There is likely not one person on the face of the Earth who, if presented with any two items off this list, think to themselves "oh yes, X is so much like Y, they both included the word 'Wikipedia' once!" If this list were called what it actually is, List of times Wikipedia was said, then even the most hardcore inclusionists might be given pause. But instead it's dressed up in the "... in culture" label which causes so many people so much confusion from thinking that running to the computer to try to win the "spot the reference" game is a constructive use of time. Otto4711 22:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SNOWBALL - previous AfD and sources. --Strothra (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noting again that speedy keep is not an option. Otto4711 (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SNOWBALL. --Strothra 18:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article needs some attention; the content needs to be organized better and duplicate entries need to be removed, but it should be kept. It is a discriminate, associated list, limited to references of Wikipedia in different media. Since Wikipedia itself is the product of a cultural phenomenon, this page is important because it highlights the parallel of Wikipedia's growth in both general awareness and popularity. Cheers, --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 05:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section of the main article that actually discusses the cultural significance of Wikipedia serves that purpose and is sourced prose. This list remains nothing more than a list of times someone said "Wikipedia" on TV or in the comics. It is out-of-control trivia. Otto4711 (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You point to WP:TRIV like it is a policy about content, when in fact it is a manual of style guideline that deals with how to organize content. From the "What this guideline is not" section in WP:TRIV: This guideline does not suggest omitting unimportant material. It's fine if you don't believe this is useful content, I happen to disagree with you about that, but let's all make sure we are citing guidelines that actually support the points we are trying to make. Cheers, --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 13:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not pointing to WP:TRIVIA as if it is policy. I am pointing to WP:NOT as if it were policy, because it is, in fact, policy. If the only association between the things on this list is the presence of a single word, then the association between them is, to say the least, loose. If the items are included on this list because the word "Wikipedia" is mentioned no matter what the source or context, then the list is indiscriminate. Otto4711 (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of your previous response to me, it sounded like you believed WP:TRIV contained criteria for removal. I am glad that we are all clear that you never held that belief, and that we shouldn't misconstrue your words to think you believed that. With regards to your point about the policies at WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIR (which you only linked in your initial vote, not in the context of responding to me), I can only repeat my earlier point: this is a discriminate, associated list; the article is not just documenting every instance of the word "Wikipedia", it documents the social process through which Wikipedia went from unknown to known by the general public. You pointed to Wikipedia#Cultural_significance, which demonstrates the significance of this information, and readers can find further information about the cultural significance of Wikipedia in the dedicated article. Again, it needs some cleanup/restructuring, and but the content is valuable and it should not be deleted. Cheers, --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that a list of times someone said Wikipedia on TV documents anything about the social process is, frankly, nonsense. Otto4711 (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it sounds like we have conflicting opinions; I hope you are as pleased as I am to come to this understanding. And now that we have both clearly expressed our different view points, I think we can let others continue this discussion. Cheers, --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is some notable stuff here, such as Wikiality, but In pop culturitis is so rife here that the patient will never be healthy without radical amputations and very strict monitoring. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia: namespace, then clippingly merge whatever useful there is to History of Wikipedia and/or Criticism of Wikipedia, or some other relevant articles. We can document all minor little factoids in project space but only major things that are somehow relevant in grand scheme of things should end up in articles. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the above suggestion, that seems most sensible to me. This page is of interest primarily to Wikipedians; it would be more appropriate to choose a few major things for article space. -- Mithent (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support wwwwolf's suggestion; proper application of WP:NOT, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.- Just Phil 18:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is plainly neither "a directory" nor "an indiscriminate collection of information". Overly broad invocations of WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO such as these could be used to delete every single list article that exists on Wikipedia -- this is clearly not what those policies are intended for.--Father Goose (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they couldn't, because not every list article that exists on Wikipedia is an attempt to capture the appearance of a single word every time it appears in any popular medium the way this one is. Otto4711 (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a spurious characterization of the article.--Father Goose (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If by "spurious" you mean "accurate" then I agree. Look at the actual article. The vast bulk of it is "On this TV show a character said said 'blah blah Wikipedia blah blah." and "A character said 'Wikipedia blah blah blah' in this comic strip." The sole inclusion criterion for the list is "the word 'Wikipedia' is mentioned." Otto4711 (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above and the large amount of great sourcing. Cirt (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Move to Wikipedia: namespace nothing notable other than maybe "Wikality", but of interest to Wikipedians. Laïka 13:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I Agree with that. Very few non-Wikipedians would really care. After all, there is no "Encyclopædia Britannica in culture". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Considering the number of people who are interested enough in Wikipedia to have made the references documented by this article, I suspect non-Wikipedians do indeed care. The argument presented here is a variation of WP:WHOCARES either way.--Father Goose (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, well-sourced, useful per WP:LIST. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ISD (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, per above arguements. Kolindigo (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There are plenty of secondary sources in this article which prove the notability of the topic. Even if the list itself violated policy it would be a travesty to delete the entire article because of it. However, the list doesn't violate policy. Claims of policy violation are based on misinterpretations of no original research, which specifically allows citation of primary sources for making descriptive claims (and the fact that the nominator himself was able to verify the Sideshow Bob reference is proof alone that it is not original research); loosely associated topics, which requires entries that are "associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic", which in this case they plainly do (no policy requires list entries to be associated with each other, despite Otto4711's assertions); and indiscriminate information, which specifically lists various types of articles which consensus has determine are not appropriate for the encyclopedia—lists of cultural references being nowhere to be found on that list, nor is there any evident wide consensus that they do not belong in the encyclopedia. DHowell (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been fairly clearly established through countless AFDs that the list at WP:NOT#IINFO is not exhaustive and that even if a list doesn't match 100% one of the enumerated items the list can still be indiscriminate. The notion that the simple mention of the word "Wikipedia" is automatically "significant" is ludicrous. But clearly the idea of having a masturbatory "ooh-wee, somebody said wikipedia on the tee-vee" is so compelling that rational arguments make no difference. Oh well. Not like this is the only compilation of garbage that will persist on Wikipedia. Otto4711 (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That the policy heading is constantly abused in AfD discussions does not establish a consensus for its application to any type of material that is not specifically enumerated in that policy. See prior discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 11#Wikipedia is not clear (or at least one section isn't). Most things that get deleted with a nomination reason of "indiscriminate information" get deleted for other reasons, such as failing not a directory or notability (or because a bunch of "I don't like it"-type delete arguments were piled on and nobody seemed to care enough about the article at the time to argue to keep it). Saying "indiscriminate information" to mean anything outside the enumerated items is simply a statement of opinion, and is no better an argument for deletion than saying "unencyclopedic". Note that attempts to prohibit "trivia" in the WP:NOT#IINFO section have been soundly rejected by consensus. DHowell (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: This article itself was cited as a reference in an academic paper: "Creating, Destroying, and Restoring Value in Wikipedia". DHowell (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of a full disclosure, in the context this article is citied (Page 2, section 2.2.2, half way down on the right hand column), I think the author of that paper would have been better citing the Wikiality article. But your point is still made, this article has been cited in an academic work. EDIT Laf. I think the author of that paper was smarter than I am, because as you can see, my link to Wikiality is redirected to this article. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as above keeps. Valid topic. Perhaps a name change to Cultural impact of Wikipedia or Wikipedia in society. Think outside the box 13:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above arguements. Greswik 18:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Again for all the reasons the keepers gave above JayKeaton 00:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ pipes|drums