< November 27	November 29 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice towards recreation should WP:ORG guidelines be met. henrik•talk 10:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford River Cruises[edit]

Not notable DimaG (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google search provides more than 1,000 results.--Avinesh Jose (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to be a legitimate, notable topic, but the article is written by a first-time author (possible COI?) and needs some work. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only a Weak keep - this looks like a company on the lower limits of notablility. If kept it needs a link to an external websiteat the vedry least. Peterkingiron 22:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's one press release regarding the claimed "green" award and a one-page feature in the Daily Mail that isn't about the cruise company but really about the places on the tour. That's it... I don't see multiple independent reliable sources asserting WP:ORG notability. — Scientizzle 03:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm in Oxford, and believe me they are not notable outside of Oxford and even in Oxford they're hardly well known. RMHED 19:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - if that "green award" is notable, should be kept. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Tourism. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) —Preceding comment was added at 01:16, 8 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's not often you see a deletion debate where (essentially) only the article creator wants the article deleted... — Scientizzle 03:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isidor Sauers[edit]

I, the author-- in good faith-- request deletion of this article. Winick88 (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G7 (author requests deletion), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably doesn't meet the criteria - there have been a considerable number of edits to the page by other editors. Having said that, I'll support a delete, since notability is probably below borderline for this one. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as Google Scholar shows multiple publications, but only one has as many as a couple dozen citations. Doesn't seem to meet WP:PROFTEST. --Dhartung | Talk 00:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inadequate article. But he';s notable. The article neglected to mention that he has 60 peer-reviewed publications over many years, on many related subjects, both theoretical and practical. The most cited was in Journal of Chemical Physics, 88 times. -- I've added it. A notable career. Obviously, if it were just the single patent, it wouldn't be notable. But even GS shows more than that--15 entries. DGG (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on material added by DGG. Hal peridol (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the article. Winick88 (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that one editor cannot vouch for the accuracy of the article is not grounds for deletion. It would help if you explained why you changed your mind on the necessity of this article; given the number of bad reasons to delete an article, it couldn't hurt.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep; DGG does seem to show some notability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He meets criterium 3 for academic notability. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BIO now based on recent changes to the article. RFerreira 07:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per DGG. The article production and citation rates would be rather modest if this were in the life sciences, but I guess it is different in this field. --Crusio 12:08, 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. — Scientizzle 03:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Sheker S.L.P.[edit]

Delete nn, the assertions of notability - weak as they may be - are unsourced and cannot be confirmed; "vincent sheker" gets 9 ghits, a few of which are wiki mirrors. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; also, retired at 22? Really? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 00:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - This article is a spam. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing worth keeping here. Tim Ross·^talk 01:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Peter Fleet (talk) 03:52, 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 per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error-correcting codes with feedback[edit]

Original research, not encyclopedic, reads like somebody's term paper Torc2 (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

week keep the article with a bit of work could be turned into a decent article or at least a stub. There is certainly an extensive literature on the subject from a variety of different authors.[1] --Salix alba (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you add any evidence of notability specifically for this topic? Torc2 (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ No opinion. Yes it's original reasearch, although possibly peer reviewed, and in any case related to the author's PhD thesis. It is a chapter of a Springer book: Coding with Feedback and Searching with Lies. User Cdeppe, probably the author Christian Deppe, copied original LaTeX source code for a few paragraphs from that chapter into Wikipedia. Very likely he had heard that LaTeX markup works in Wikipedia and gave up when it turned out to be slightly more complicated. If there had been an obvious way for him to delete the article I suppose he would have done it himself. Since it's from a survey paper it might in principle make sense to spend the effort needed to wikify it. But under the circumstances I wouldn't trust that the author actually had the right to publish this excerpt under GFDL. I am not sure about the usual procedures. It should not be deleted in a way that makes it harder to create the page again. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC) (I changed my recommendation. I thought that the best use of editing resources would be to remove this and start the article from scratch when another expert becomes interested. While most arguments for keeping don't really convince me, on second thought it makes some sense to attract experts by keeping this article and linking it from error correcting codes. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- It's NOT original research if it's been published in a peer-reviewed forum outside of Wikipedia first. "Original research", for the purposes of Wikipedia's policy forbidding it, is findings posted initially on Wikipedia that have not appeared first in refereed publications. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it is. WP:COS and WP:NOT#OR specifically say this. Torc2 (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. Those say that even published authors can't write on their own knowledge without citations, but this is from a peer-reviewed book and so specifically not OR. I can't recall if the book is explicitly cited (it probably should be), but that's an editing issue not an OR issue. As to the article, I have no opinion at this time. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - "If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge." - I think it's pretty clear that this is saying 'don't just copy and paste something you published, write about it,' and it's only permissible to cite the article. We can debate whether or not that meets the definition of the phrase "original research", but it's clear that it's the Wiki policy on original research is what covers this. Torc2 (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It says to publish it first before putting it on Wikipedia. Meaning wikipedia is not the primary venue for your research. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an author taking his own work and putting it up for GFDL. Everyone who clicks the "Save Page" button does precisely this. I hate to pull out this card, but you don't understand what original research means.
        
        You also seem to expect that a new article be perfect. Let me prove you absolutely wrong. Consider Richard III (1955 film). I started the article three years ago as a one-liner stub. It took 18 months but it achieved featured article status. By no means do you give up and delete an article just because it's not feature material. It's all the more reason to edit and improve it! Cburnett (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand what the WP:OR policy means, which is more relevant to this AfD. I also can comprehend unambiguous statements like the one I posted above; if you have an alternate interpretation of the rule I quoted that doesn't ignore the word "about" or interpret the word "cite" as "reprint", I'd be happy to hear it. And no, I don't expect a new article to be perfect, but I do expect one that's supposedly important and notable not to be totally orphaned and in the horrendous state this one was 75 days after it was created. As for Richard III (1955 film), ignoring the changes in policy and the amount of traffic Wikipedia has picked up since 2005, I would point out that your article effectively asserted its notability in a single line, was improved by others within a week, and was already linked to by another article before its creation. Comparing this topic to that article really don't really form a strong argument for keeping this. And I'm not giving up on this article because it's never going to be feature article material; I gave up because the article is unencyclopedic and doesn't assert or even seem to meet WP:N. It might be worth a line or two in another article, but it's not stand-alone material. Torc2 (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        May I suggest that you stop this discussion, which really leads nowhere, and that we try to get a consense on the other open questions instead? I hereby excuse for having started this distraction by my unfortunate choice of words. Perhaps I shouldn't post in the middle of the night. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (Actually, another article linked to it before it existed because I linked it as I was disambiguating.) What you quoted says is this: "If A, publish A, and then A can be on wikipedia." It makes no differentiation between "publish" and "write about it", only that you can't publish to wikipedia as your primary venue. Period. The prose style used in a thesis or book is rarely in-tune with how wikipedia articles are written, but like I said right below is that ((cleanup)) is the way to handle such articles, not deletion. Cburnett 14:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        (No, Laurence Olivier had a redlink for the movie long before; that's what I was referring to. It might not have been formatted exactly the same, but coverage of the topic was expected before the article's creation, which is the point of this.) I still think you're ignoring the actual text written to suit an interpretation of the rule that favors keeping this article. Torc2 21:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I hate repeating myself. It says "If A, publish A, and then A can be on wikipedia" but the details of the wording doesn't matter as the spirit is this: wikipedia is not the primary venue of publishing, which this is not such a case. Cburnett 21:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You're still ignoring the rest of the text. It does say Wikipedia is not the primary venue of publishing, but that's not all it says, and that is not the limit of the policy. With the number of eyes on any that policy, the wording is not haphazard and incidental: it means what the words say. WP:COS: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." This article doesn't have a single citation. Not one.Torc2 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The poster of the chapter is reasonably believed to be the author (cdeppe == Christian Deppe) and so posting the content means the author put it up for GFDL. This is not the place to determine if the author still retained copyright or not. AFD is a bad answer for poorly/non-encyclopedic writing, that's what ((cleanup)) and regular editing is for. Cburnett (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What in that article could you keep? The examples would have to go, and there's nothing notable about the concept in the article. The whole thing violates WP:NOT#GUIDE. I would have edited it if there was a single thing salvageable and notable for Wikipedia. Torc2 (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Why would the examples have to go? You need to answer that if you want us to take that assertion seriously. Nothing notable in the concept? "Guide"?? It doesn't read like a textbook or how-to manual, and it's at least as notable as most articles on information theory or mathematics generally. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It certainly doesn't assert notability. It has no sources or citations given and seemed to be, as has been established, just copied from elsewhere. "Alfréd Rényi reported the following story about the Jew Bar Kochba in 135 CE, who defended his fortress against the Romans" isn't any way to start off an encyclopedic example, and "Throughout this paper we shall call Carole and Paul the two players. This idea goes back to Spencer, who also explained: Paul corresponds to Paul Erd\"os, who always asked questions and Carole corresponds to an ORACLE, whose answers need to be wisely evaluated" isn't any way to end one. The first paragraph doesn't even tell the reader what the topic actually is. If it's so notable, why does "Error-correcting codes with feedback" and "Error-correcting codes with noiseless feedback" return a combined 25 Ghits? If it's so important, why is this article completely orphaned? Torc2 (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Lots of articles on notable topics are completely orphaned when they're first created. Many of mine certainly were. An experienced Wikipedian immediately asks himself "Which articles should link to the one I just created?", then creates those links. The particular newbie Wikipedian we're looking at doesn't yet know that that should be done. And I get 389 google hits with the title of the article in quotation marks. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So you're saying that in the two-and-a-half months after this article, not one experienced editor looked and this and saw a need to integrate it into Wiki as a whole, yet the topic is critically notable? Are there any secondary sources that assert notability? Can you add them to the article and cite them? Torc2 (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You do get the inherit catch with your position? You can't get experienced editors to look at it if it's not linked; it's not linked because no experienced users have looked at it. Personally, I won't touch it until this AFD is done with to avoid having my time "deleted". Cburnett 14:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No catch. If the topic was so critically important enough that it has to stay, an experienced editor would have run across it in a search in the 75 days since its creation, and would have at least linked to it from one outside source or added a reference. Your contributions could help save the article by addressing the citation, notability, and copyright issues raised here, but I guess you don't think it's important enough to warrant your efforts either. I'm perfectly willing to back off my AfD if somebody could establish notability beyond adding the words "it's notable" to the AfD, add the necessary references and citations, explain why the article couldn't be reduced to a few lines in another article such as Error detection and correction. I mean, it's entirely possible that this is a notable topic, but there's nothing in the article (or this AfD) that proves it, or indicates that it is notable enough for a separate article in Wikipedia. It might be mildly or moderately important within the world of information theory, but that doesn't necessarily make it notable enough for its own article in Wiki. Is it referred to by a more common name elsewhere? Why would a common Wiki user want to know about this subject? Torc2 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You are the only one asserting anything resembling "critical notability"...whatever that means so stopping stating it as that's my — or anyone but your's — assertion. "common wiki user" is meaningless. Just because music is your deal doesn't mean you have to understand why someone would want to read about ECC w/feedback or feedback vertex sets. Cburnett 21:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Asserting notability is one of the requirements of WP:N, not something I made up. The article has to do this; my background is irrelevant to the fact that the article simply does not. Please do not make this personal, since it certainly is not about that. Torc2 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. If Renyi, Shannon, and Ulam thought it was notable, then it's notable. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable, and the chances are that every one that posted here made use of technology that used this conecpt. The examples are valid in order to develop the concept, although I think the text needs a better introduction, since the reader is not necessarily committed to read the whole article, but may want a quick explaination up front. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it notable? What technologies require this concept? The article needs to address these questions if it's to assert notability. Torc2 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the concept is notable, why does searching for the article title on Google return almost no hits aside from the Wiki article itself? Is there anything about this that couldn't be summed up in one or two lines on the Error detection and correction or some other article? Torc2 (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article title in quotation marks (exact match) returns 389 google hits. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just double-checked the search and still got 15 results. That aside, 389 really isn't much better. Torc2 (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Take out "num=100" like this. 389. Cburnett (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I just did the search (using your link and opening Google from scratch) from a totally different computer in a different city and got 15 links. I don't know why. If I click to show duplicates I still only get 38. In any case 15 vs. 389 for links is a pretty trivial difference.Torc2 (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that the subject of the article is sufficiently notable that it can be included. I am not sure that I fully understand the notability criteria in their application to scientific topics (is there no extra guideline on this?), but in any case if this article doesn't meet them then they have to be changed. Otherwise a scientific encyclopedia would inevitably be forked off Wikipedia. I get the 389 Google hits for "Error correcting codes with feedback". (And without drastic measures like reducing search to the US I can't reproduce anything like Torc2's numbers.) Considering that the phrase "regular polytope" (a former featured article) gets 11,400 that's not at all bad. We can't expect Associated Press to have an article on "Error correcting codes with feedback" once a year. Even if journalists did write about the topic they would very likely not use the exact phrase, judging it unacceptable for a general audience. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I just did the search using google.co.uk and got 393 hits initially; however, when I went to the next page, the sites found reduced back to 15 total. I also return 277,000 Ghits for "regular polytope". Torc2 (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I see now. Yes, it's the same for me, except I get only 11 (2 don't count because they refer to the Wikipedia article). But it's the same for "regular polytope." First you have to use the quotes to make it comparable: 11,300 hits. Then you have to click several times to get to the last results. Once you are there the number of hits is reduced to 370. It's still approximately the same ratio, 35, i.e. 1 1/2 orders of magnitude. Which is not at all much. My points were: 1. Low Google counts alone are not sufficient to come to a conclusion in an area where all Google counts are relatively low. 2. Long phrases and technical terminology are often covered somewhere without being mentioned literally. – But since I am not particularly interested in the outcome for this article I will now unwatch this page and concentrate on adding some content to Wikipedia, instead of participating further in a long discussion about whether or not because someone spent five minutes adding a copy of an original source we now have to preserve and expand it. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Regardless, the search litmus test doesn't assert verifiability as there are plenty of sources not indexed by the masterful google. Cburnett 14:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You still get pretty good results by searching "Error-correcting codes" feedback or even "Error-correcting codes * feedback". CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but that begs the question of whether or not this topic could better be served by a section or mention in either error detection and correction or feedback. I'm really interested in whether or not "error-correcting codes with feedback" as a distinct concept is notable enough to warrant a separate article. Honestly, I can't tell if the title refers to an object (i.e. error-correcting codes that include feedback) or a technique (i.e. using feedback to error-correct codes). For that matter, "noiseless" seems to be a key component, so why isn't that in the article name? Torc2 21:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reasonable argument for deletion has been put forward. -- Dominus 14:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. R.e.b.'s point below about the copyright issue is important. The article content should be replaced with something unobjectionable. -- Dominus 17:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the book chapter by Deppe is a survey article, covering work by Spencer, Ulam, etc., this suggests the subject is notable. There are also other surveys on this and related subjects, such as Searching with lies by Ray Hill, published in Surveys in Combinatorics 1995 (ISBN 0-521-49797-3). The article does need rewriting, categorising, to be linked to, and possibly also a better title, but I'm not sure what to suggest for one. The comments about original research are irrelevent: even if it is largely following Deppe's paper, as that's a survey it's reporting the work of others, so wouldn't be OR in any case. The google hits are also not particularly relevent: lack of google hits does not mean something is not notable, especially if there is more than one search term related to the topic. (If anyone wants to, they could google "Renyi-Ulam game" or "Ulam's searching game" instead.) Finally, the fact that it's lain untouched for a while is probably because very little links to it, so no-one had found it to do anything with it. --RFBailey 16:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Why not ad that reference to the article itself instead of just mentioning it here? Once this AfD closes, that reference will be lost. Also, what search term or terms would most commonly be used for this topic? Would "Renyi-Ulam game" make a better article name? Torc2 21:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a well written introduction to an important and interesting topic, and is not OR. Unfortunately the copyright problem is more serious than people realize. It's a copy of a chapter in a book presumably contributed by the chapter's author. However according to the front of the book, the copyright is held not by the author, but by the Janos Bolyai mathematical society and Springer Verlag, so the author seems to have no right to post his own writing. (This is not a joke: in at least one legal case an author was sued by his publisher for posting his own book on the web.) I doubt the math society would object to its posting, but Springer might well do as they are trying to sell permission to view their own posted copy of the article. R.e.b. 17:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wonder if this problem can be solved by a suitable paraphrase. On many occasions people have posted material they've learned from a book and included a reference to the book. If it's deleted on copyright grounds then someone would have to replace it with another article of the same title covering more-or-less the same material. Michael Hardy 18:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, a paraphrase would obviously solve the problem. Geometry guy 12:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguement above about the applicability of "Original Research" distresses me; we're a Tower of Babel about editting philosophy. An author posting his own (published, peer-reviewed) work is no more evil than an artist contributing his own photographs to the public domain. On R.e.b.'s good point, the author quoting a small amount of his own marterial, citing the (copyright holding) source, can fall under Fair Use. The article can be improved with that in mind and does not need to be deleted IMO. Pete St.John 17:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but as a redirect for now. I agree with R.e.b.'s comment, but not with the conclusion. This should never have come to AfD. The current content of the article is almost certainly a copyright violation, and should be removed: the article is not a critical commentary of the book in question, so is unlikely to be fair use. However, this does not mean that the subject of the article is not notable. The simplest thing to do is replace the current content by a redirect to Error-correcting codes until someone has the time and energy to write a new version which is not a copyvio, and also demonstrates notability in a clear manner. This approach preserves useful information in the edit history for anyone to take this up. Deleting the article destroys this information. I have some sympathy with the nominator, as I have in the past made the same mistake myself, by prodding articles which should simply have been replaced by redirects. I encourage others to take on board this option, as it saves a lot of time discussing issues like this at AfD. Geometry guy 18:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per R.e.b., as copyright violation. Geometry guy: while a redirect would not be harmful, we HAVE to delete copyvio content because otherwise it could be used to make still-violating derivative works. The author does not have the sole ownership of copyright in a published work; I know Springer-Verlag's copyright agreement it uses with authors, and the author agrees in it to assign the copyright to Springer, and cannot publish the work otherwise. So yeah, this is a copyright violation. Mangojuice^talk 19:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Keep now that the article no longer violates copyright. Mango juice^talk 14:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide proof that this is true in this case. Otherwise it's speculation on your part. Cburnett 19:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. You provide proof that there is no copyright problem, not the other way around; we know this is based on text lifted directly from a copyrighted work. It might have been posted by the author, but (1) the author doesn't own the copyright and (2) we don't even know if it was the author who posted it. If there's a good reason to believe there's a copyright violation, we should delete it rather than expose the foundation to liability. Mango juice^talk 21:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy a "no you are wrong" pissing war! From WP:C#If you find a copyright infringement:

Some cases will be false alarms. For example, if the contributor was in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere under different terms, that does not affect their right to post it here under the GFDL.

It is you asserting that you KNOW FOR A FACT that the author has no rights. Very arrogant of you, kudos. Cburnett 22:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there is plenty of reason to believe that we don't have adequate permission for this material. You are assuming the author has the right to release under the GFDL, which is not normal for material from a book that isn't self-published. And while we're at it, you're assuming the user that posted the material was the author, which we don't know. The norm in this kind of situation is that we remove the material, and allow it only given an explicit release of the material under the GFDL, registered with WP:OTRS. If someone wants to try to write to author and to Springer and get that explicit release, we can always undelete. Mango juice^talk 04:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mangojuice here: we should assume that the material is copyrighted unless there is evidence to the contrary. However, as Michael Hardy points out, the copyvio can easily be fixed by paraphrasing the article. Geometry guy 12:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the author does not own the copyright. However, if you read WP:C#If you find a copyright infringement, we have to remove copyvio's, not delete the articles containing them. Wikipedia is full of copyvios in edit histories. This issue is probably too big to discuss at this AfD. At some point, Wikipedia could be sued for having copyvios in edit histories, but it hasn't happened yet. In my opinion, deletion solves nothing, because administrators can still view the copyvio. And adminstrators are people. Geometry guy 19:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the entire text and the entire history of an article is a copyright violation, it is better to just delete it and place a redirect there instead. The history can serve only a bad purpose in existing as long as we don't have an appropriate copyright release: the information in the edit history is not "useful" to those who would want to write a new article, because it would be derivative of a copyrighted work... and in the meantime, copyrighted material continues to be available from the Wikipedia web site. Mango juice^talk 21:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point would that it would prove the administrators took steps to address the problem. Or to put it another way, it would look especially bad if somebody got uppity and sued and proved that the administrators were aware of a copyright violation and ignored the problem. Torc2 21:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, last time I checked, almost all of Wikipedia's content should be a derivative of copyrighted work. The edit history is useful because it provides editors usernames as well as content. One editor has offered to paraphrase the material: having easy access to it would help.

However, as Dominus points out with admirable brevity "No reasonable argument for deletion has been put forward." First it was argued that the article is OR, which is demonstrably false. Then it was argued that it was not notable, but this was amply countered by subject experts. Now it is argued that it must be deleted because it probably contains copyrighted material. But WP:C does not require deletion of articles containing copyrighted material. If it did, it would say "If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then contact an administrator, who will delete the article and then selectively undelete all previous versions not containing the copyright infringement" instead of "If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, the infringing content should be removed".

Edit histories are full of copyright violations, and deleting them all would be an administrative nightmare. Comments about history serving only a bad purpose, and people getting uppity, are neither based on policy, nor on a knowledge of copyright law. This article could be deleted, but there is no case for doing so. Hence my comment that this AfD is a waste of editor's time, and we should simply close it and replace the content with a redirect, until someone has time to paraphrase or rewrite. Geometry guy 12:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you don't quite understand what I mean by "derivative." Yes, normal Wikipedia articles that are certainly not copyright violations derive their information from other sources: that's certainly okay, because no one can own the information. Even if they derive some of their text from other sources, that's okay as long as the work is substantially original. What's not necessarily okay is to take a significant chunk of copyrighted text and make some small changes to it: this can be viewed as not a newly created work, but a work directly derived from the previous one, and therefore possibly also a copyright violation. This is an extreme example, but imagine a novel with all the character names changed: clearly, this is a copyright violation. See derivative work; specifically, look at the second blockquote and you'll see the difficulty. Mango juice^talk 16:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Of course, I agree with that! Geometry guy 17:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have sent an email to Christian Deppe asking him to rewrite it to avoid the copyright problem. Michael Hardy 20:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On 2nd December MangoJuice replaced the page with a copyvio template which threatens to delete the page within one week if it is not changed. I doubt that will encourage anyone, least of all Christian Deppe, to repair the article.

This is really stupid. The article is simultaneously under AfD review and a threat to delete it on 9th December. MangoJuice is an admin who should know better than to make procedural alterations to an article under deletion review, however well intentioned those alterations may be. I hope another admin will be able to close the AfD before the threatened deadline, otherwise, we run the risk to waste yet more editor time with a DRV because of the procedural mess this creates. Geometry guy 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious solution is to rewrite it to remove the copyvio, which has not happened yet. I've been bold, removed 90% of the text creating a rather week stub. --Salix alba (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, and is close to my proposal to replace the article by a redirect for the time being, but I felt reluctant to do that while it was under discussion here. I've added a Wikilink anyway, and hope that your common sense will prevail. Geometry guy 00:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to what? (Don't read that as a snotty reply - I'm actually curious). The article in this form still faces the same problems as before. I mean, there's still nothing there to save it from an AfD - no citations, no assertion of notability, minimal integration into Wiki. I think it's also a bit too optimistic to think that Deppe is going to come back to this article. His entire Wikipedia presence has been one single edit: dumping his text into this article, and then left. He didn't even bother to correct some of the characters that didn't copy over correctly, and he hasn't responded to the question on his talk page. Torc2 (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error correcting codes. However, the stub solution is fine, and I've added the obvious reference. I agree it is optimistic to expect Deppe to come back. Indeed I hope he doesn't right now, to witness how unhelpful Wikipedia editors can be, and this unedifying AfD discussion. Your assertion that "there is nothing to save it from AfD" has been countered at every turn. Indeed the article asserts that the topic has been studied by three notable mathematicians, including the founder of information theory, and not including Christian Deppe, who provides a reliable secondary source for this assertion of notability. Geometry guy 09:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa whoa whoa, I've wouldn't call anything I've done in pointing out the article's shortcomings "unhelpful" and I kind of resent the implication. I didn't just dump an AfD and run away; I stayed and continued to discuss these issues and concerns and what was required to satisfy Wikipedia guidelines. Realistically I could have submitted this as a prod or copyright violation; the article would have vanished with little notice and nobody would have missed it. I couldn't add the reference myself because I don't have access to it and cannot prove its authenticity. You have to recognize that you come into this discussion with a lot more knowledge of the field than what is in the article. My criticisms have been exclusively of the content of the article itself, because that's all I have to go by. I've made entirely constructive suggestions about what the article is missing, what would be required to salvage it, and how it might be more appropriate to present the information in another article (such as Error detection and correction where the topic error correcting codes redirects - I'd still like to know why that wouldn't be appropriate), and I've gotten little in return besides indignation, certainly not any assumptions of good faith. At the time I voiced my notability concerns, the only thing the article did was state that these mathematicians considered problems related to the general field of error detection; it did not clearly state that they focused any non-trivial effort on this specific topic. Torc2 (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. Yes, I see you mentioned adding a few lines to Error detection and correction, but you did not suggest leaving a redirect instead of deletion, which would have solved the disagreement. Anyway, a redirect to Error detection and correction was what I had in mind (no point in a double redirect!). However, the stub solution seems much better now that both Salix Alba and MangoJuice have improved the content (many thanks to both of them). Since neither solution requires deleting the article, we seem to have reached agreement. As I mentioned earlier in this discussion, with articles like this, replacing by a redirect is often a better solution than AfD. It wastes less editor time. This is the reason I may have seemed irritated in some of my comments. Please consider that option in the future. Thank you. Geometry guy 21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, of course a redirect would remain. At the time I nominated this, I didn't know of a good article to merge or redirect to, and this also seemed like just another essay-copied-into-Wiki article (which, actually, it was), which get AfD'd without incident fairly regularly. I still think this might be better merged and redirected to the main error coding article, but I'll leave that up to you folks working on it. Thanks. Torc2 (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is now -- sheesh, this AfD is ridiculous. My view: the article as it was, was a candidate for deletion. The article as it is now is fine -- it's sourced, etc. Re: the argument over copyvios: Mangojuice is right, the author almost certainly did not have permission to post the original text under the GFDL (permission for use has to be given from Springer according to the front-matter notice, they usually take an author's copyright etc. etc.) I do not have the text in front of me, so can't see whether it's a direct copyvio or not, but perhaps we should figure that out and delete the offending diff if need be? The article itself, however, seems perfectly fine, and maybe we can get the original author to help out with sourcing etc. -- phoebe/(talk) 02:00, 6 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. James086^{Talk | Email} 06:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pliny the Elder conspiracy[edit]

Without independent references for this theory, it looks like a case of WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:OR. Prod removed by anonymous user without comment. Marasmusine (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. Especialy the fact that the only given source is the original text, makes it very ORlike. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I know I've seen speculation about this, but it doesn't seem especially notable as an article. If anything sourceable exists it should probably be mentioned in the Pliny the Elder article. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 04:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is totally unecyclopedic. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR conspiracism. --Folantin (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very entertaining, but could it not just have been prodded? --Paularblaster (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear case of original research. Cosmo0 (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Peter Fleet (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research and shakier than the average conspiracy theory. Edward321 02:38, 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 delete ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Thomas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Susie Thomas

The article gives no evidence that this person is more notable than many thousands of other academics in London. Prod notice removed by User:Enokblue, but no explantaion given as to why this person is notable. Dorange (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, no reliable sources to back up the article, nothing special here. Turgidson (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete, the page is a verbatim copyvio from here: [2]. --Crusio (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I reverted the page to a non-copyvio version. --WinHunter ^(talk) 13:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of academic notability. Cosmo0 (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while developing more research - The WP article is wholly deficient, but a quick search in Google Scholar reveals that Thomas is, among other things, a literary biographer of Willa Cather (Willa Cather, Rowman & Littlefield, 1990); that book has been cited a number of times ([3]) . Given that no one here has yet discovered this other major contribution, I suggest that we hold for a bit until people have a chance to check her out in the major relevant scholarly databases (e.g., MLA Bibliography). --Lquilter 20:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The 'citations' noted above are instances when Susie Thomas quoted passges of Willa Cather's texts in her book and other writers have also quoted these same passages. They're not citations of Susie Thomas by others. Most academics write books. I don't see that this makes Susie Thomas notable enough for Wikipedia. Dorange 23:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I see no caim of notability, and no evidence that she passes WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:18, 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 a7, going to need more than the vague and unsourced claim mentioned below. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Garrett Realty[edit]

No independent sources; notability arguably asserted by "It was ranked within the top one percent of all American real estate companies" but no third party coverage found. Maralia (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 00:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Garret[edit]

No independent coverage to verify notability; his company article (Greg Garrett Realty) also nominated. Maralia (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 00:11, 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 Merge and redirect to The Mysterious Stranger. Pastordavid (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doangivadam[edit]

Non-notable: a short snippet for a minor character from a minor Mark Twain novel. A character who isn't even in every version of the novel. Nedlum (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Mysterious Stranger. RMHED (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Mysterious Stranger. Put it as a section there.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above Carter | Talk to me 04:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Mysterious Stranger, unless sources can be found about how the character differed between Twain's drafts and how they changed as part of the executor's stitching together -- and even then, that can be adequately discussed as an aspect of how the novella as a whole changed. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:44, 6 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 blatant advertising. (CSD G11) Reso lute 04:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pangea day[edit]

Announcement/publicity for an event/conference that is yet to come, and which is not supported by reliable, secondary sources. If there is media attention for this even, the article does not discuss it. — Coren ^(talk) 22:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant advertising, I've found this exact text on forums and blogs and YouTube. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete spam, so tagged. Even if events aren't covered explicitly by G11 WP:SNOW applies. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per non-notable event. нмŵוτн τ 23:19, 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 Redirect to Chowder (TV series), content appears to have already been merged. Pastordavid (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Chowder[edit]

List of characters from Chowder (TV series), a cartoon which currently has a total of 8 episodes to it's back. This was recently spun out of Chowder (TV series), which held the characters quite nicely [4]. The fork was padded a little bit, but is still full of trivial, unverifiable claims backed by supposition. Yng varr 22:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content back into main Chowder article and trim cruft, a series with 8 episodes to date doesn't need its own character list on a separate page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim/Merge/Redirect as per above arguments. RMHED (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above statements. Ridernyc (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, even though that sounds lame because I'm adding no real comment of my own. What can I say, the points already been made Carter | Talk to me 04:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:09, 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. Lack of WP:RS and WP:V after being tagged for a year means it's not ready for prime time. Lack of WP:RS and WP:V after AfD is an even surer sign. If someone wants to recreate it with sources, more power to them. Pigman☿ 05:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upward feedback[edit]

Unsourced, tagged for a year. Almost orphaned. Seems like WP:OR. Article does not establish "Upward feedback" as a notable business concept. Torc2 (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There's no point deleting something just because it's crap. This subject is worthy of an article, though the current one is crap. It might be improved--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested AfD because it doesn't assert notability, has no sources, and has no reason to be here. The fact it's a crap article is just incidental. Torc2 (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Google says this is associated with University of British Columbia; sounds like there is some credibility. Good starting point is here. Secondary sources may be a problem. Cheers, --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 22:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a separate article for 360 degree feedback - should this maybe just be merged to that? Torc2 (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no valid deletion criteria presented. Need of cleanup and expansion are not valid reasons. Cburnett 21:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment WP:N is exceptionally clear about the requirement that an article provide citations that establish its subject's notability. WP:OR and WP:V are clear that a subject requires citations. The fact you have specifically tracked down my (and only my) AfDs and, within the span of one minute - (did you even read the articles?) - voted keep on all of them indicates you're treading WP:HAR: "Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, [...]". Torc2 22:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as not assertion of notability is even attempted. Will you rescue? Bearian (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article clearly does not meet the requirements of WP:VERIFY. — Satori Son 17:40, 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. James086^{Talk | Email} 06:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Science (Graphic Design Firm)[edit]

I speedied a related article and followed the author to this article. Wasn't happy about speedying this one as there is some claim to notability. However it doesn't look that notable to me. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A claim of sorts is made, but not substantiated, by the originating editor who has a clear conflict of interest to judge by the username. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 23:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic article. No source. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks liek it will turn into an advertisement. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 17:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Slideshow Bob (talk) 02:20, 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. Arguments concerning this article not meeting WP:EPISODE guidelines were persuasive. Lack of substantial WP:RS and WP:V were also factors. Pigman☿ 05:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slapsgiving[edit]

TV series episode with no claim to notability given. Does not deserve its own article, per WP:EPISODE. Nehwyn (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN tv episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs) 00:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral HIMYM has an entire category of episodes so those should be looked at in addition. Nate · (chatter) 02:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhmm... If these AfD pass, I see a mass deletion coming per WP:SNOW. --Nehwyn (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable episode. We cannot have articles for all TV episodes. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect to List of How I Met Your Mother episodes, or expand from reliable sources, such as Zap2it.com, or the New Jersey Star-Ledger, while trimming plot summary. Where does WP:EPISODE say anything about deleting articles? DHowell 05:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 07:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the other How I Met Your Mother episodes have well written episode pages and to delete some in between would break continuity. However, this article can be improved upon. Vellayappan 13:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Unfortunately, inclusion is not a reason for notability (in simpler words, the argument "if we keep that, then we must keep this" is not acceptable in this sort of debate). Each article is assessed on its own merits. If you believe that the WP:EPISODE guideline should not apply in this particular case, can you provide any reason why? --Nehwyn 14:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this your argument, why are all of the stub articles for episodes of other shows, see some Babylon 5 Season 5 episodes, not also up for deletion? If you want to make this argument, I would expect every superfluous article to also face the same consequence. If you want to follow the rules you choose to acknowledge as legitimate, they apply to all situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.223.19.3 (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the argument "if we keep that, then we must keep this" is not acceptable in this context. If you think other articles should be proposed for deletion, feel free to do so, but in this debate please stick to commenting the article in question. --Nehwyn 18:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into one large season article. Would having one article for each season be acceptable? Sailor Psychic 18:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:EPISODE, you first create an article for the List of Episodes; then if you have too much content, you split it into season articles. Having said that, your opinion is contradictory: would you rather keep the single-episode article, or approve the merge and redirect intention of this nomination? --Nehwyn 18:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sailor Psychic, you present two contradicting opinions here: are you for keep or for merge? They're mutually exclusive. --Nehwyn 18:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you were intending to propose a merge and redirect for this article, then why did you bring it to articles for deletion? Please see WP:MERGE for how to propose merges and redirects. DHowell 21:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - IMO article is obviously notable.--Peter Andersen (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Please keep in mind this is a debate, not a vote. If you have an opinion to voice, you need to justify it. Can you elaborate on why you think it is obvious that WP:EPISODE should not apply to this article? --Nehwyn (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well hello there... Article has several sources - even footnotes.--Peter Andersen (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it has links to episode recaps and reviews on review sites. What claim to notability would this episode have? Won any awards, raised attention over a contentious issue? Just having a plot is not enough to claim notability. --Nehwyn (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. From WP:NOTE: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This topic has received significant coverage in a reliable source that is independent of the subject. And is therefore notable. --Peter Andersen (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An episode recap can be used as a reliable source that the episode has a plot, yes. But other than that, what claim to notability would this external sources corroborate? And please mind - multiple external sources are required. --Nehwyn (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE. Maybe merge a severely cut down summary to the list of episodes. Collectonian (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there are many seperate episode articles for How I Met Your Mother and I don't think getting rid of this would be a good idea.--Stco23 (talk) 02:03, 8 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 Boldly and speedily redirected to Matt Morris (musician). Page even contained a note asking it to be redirected. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Burton Morris[edit]

Low quality article that has been replaced by Matt Morris (musician). Notability is not currently being questioned. This is simply a deletion proposal to remove an unneeded, low quality, redundant article. Leeannedy (talk) 21:13, 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 11:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Free Gilbertsville[edit]

Not notable, notability concerns raised over a year ago have not been addressed. This is not a licensed radio station and there is no evidence I can find that it's a notable non-licensed station. Rtphokie (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seemingly not notable, not sourced and a google search turned up no non-wikipedia sources. Dumelow (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, I can't find a meaningful referenced to it anywhere. Xymmax (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 04:06, 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. --Fang Aili ^talk 01:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The posture theory[edit]

Theory of health promulgated by one author in one book. Not recognised by health scientists in general. Limited support from authoritative sources (no results on PubMed beyond the 1980 paper. Delete. JFW | T@lk 21:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyright violation. Simple refactoring of this page. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research edited by single-purpose account. Speedy if copyvio is confirmed. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 21:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio per Hoekstra, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedy or slow. Non-notable in any case. Tim Ross·^talk 22:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:FRINGE, WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one guy's theory. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete This could help a lot of people!```

Do not delete Permission was given. The word hypochondrium means “upper abdomen” and I determined that the symptoms of hypochondria were caused by postural compression of the upper abdomen. Hippocrates made similar observations in “On Joints” XL1-XL2. which were consistent with the health problems of seventeenth century hunchback hypochondriac Alexander Pope - Collier’s Encyclopedia (1962) Vol.19 p.241-242. I am the author of the theory, fifteen essays in the Austrasian Nurses Journal between 1978 and 83, and since then 100 letters and items in Australian newspapers and magazines, and a 1000 page book. M.A.Banfield —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posturewriter (talk • contribs) 01:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did anyone who isn't you, and didn't collaborate with you, ever publish on this theory? The ideas of a single person typically don't merit a Wikipedia article, unless the ideas are notable, and that requires it be commented on in multiple reliable sources that you didn't author. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Edited to include dates: My medical theories have been independently reviewed; In The Scientific Australian "Does Glandular Damage Play a Role in those Psychosomatic Cases", by editor D.J.Cook, Dec. 1977 p.34-35. The Posture Theory was discussed in an illustrated feature article "Posture and Illness" by the editor of the South Australian 'Statewide' newspaper on 8-12-94 p.13. That theory was reviewed by David Raftery in the Adelaide University students newspaper “On Dit”, 27-3-95 p.33, and in The Skeptic (magazine) (Australian), Problems With Posture, by Laurie Eddy, Vol.20 no.1 Autumn 2000 p.60-63. http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/2000/2000.htm I added my comments in "Response to Posture" in the Forum section of The Skeptic (Australian) Vol.21 no.4 p.63-64. http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/2001/2001.htm There were others but I have no record of them. My research on the physical aspects of chronic fatigue at The South Australian Institute for Research and Training was prompted by the failure of all previous studies internationally with the comment “these patients would not, or could not train” because of their “fear of exercise”. Six volunteers completed six months of training in the programme that I designed, and one completed a six mile marathon. That study was reported in major Austalian newspapers including The Adelaide News, SA Study Matches Russian Results, 20-10-82 p.18, The West Australian, Cause of Mystery Disease Found, 22-8-83 p.34, The Bribane Courier Mail, Researchers Solve Mystery, 20-8-83 p.14l, and The Sydney Morning Herald, Illness Traced to Emotional Trauma, 20-8-83 p.3. That study was completed ten to fifteen years before the Australian Medical Association officially recognised Chronic fatigue syndrome as a real illness (in the mid 90's). At one stage I owned 300 medical books and had access to the Adelaide Univerity Barr Smith Medical Library and international research journals through Index Medicus, and my book on the theory is supported by 100 references. When Australia’s greatest scientist, Sir Mark Oliphant, was living in Adelaide, I asked him to get me an independent academic opinion on The Posture Theory and he told me that his medical colleagues, amongst the top in the country, thought it was interesting but they couldn't give an opinion on it because that whole area of medicine was a pandoras box of mystery and contradiction. The complexity makes it mysterious, and scrutiny makes it axiomatic. My protagonist has provided wikipedia with an excellent one page account of the primary aspect of DaCosta’s syndrome. ref: DaCosta J.M. (January 1871) “On Irritable Heart”, The American Journal of the Medical Sciences ref: Charles F. Wooley M.D. Where are the Diseases of Yesteryear, DaCosta’s Syndrome; Effort Syndrome; Neurocirculatory Asthenia: Circulation 1976: 53: 749-751 http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/vol53/issue5/ For the neurocirculatory effects of postural compression of the chest cavity consider this: Valsalva Maneuver For the consequences of compressing the waist refer to: Limner L. Esq. (1874) Madre Natura Versus the Moloch of Fashion, 4th edition Chatto and Windus, Picadilly, London, p.70-73. also see Hourglass corset, 1900s in fashion and History of corsets A fuller account can be readily accessed on line at http://users.chariot.net.au/~posture/index.html Posturewriter (talk)

Comments. We just need dates, titles (and most preferably links to online versions of all of this) so it can actually be verified that everything you said is true. I can only verify myself that which is available online. If these verifying materials are not available online, I suggest taking the same information I have just requested to either Wikipedi:WikiProject Medicine or Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia to request assistance. Someguy1221 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Dates and titles have been added as requested, and online links included where possible. Newspaper articles prior to 1984 are not available online but they can be verified, presumably by phoning or emailing the editors of the newspapers next Monday to Friday. For example, Sydney Morning Herald News inquiries:newsdesk@smh.com.au or phone +61 (02) 9282 2833. However that may not be possible, in which case the articles will be available in the respective State Library newspaper collections, by visiting those libraries. The South Australian reports were prepared by "News" jounalist Diane Beer who's articles assisted with the recruiting of volunteers for about 1 to 2 years? The interstate items were written by a Melbourne based freelance journalist whose name I haven't recorded and had no byline. The facts were verified with the Institute before publication as state newspapers require authoritative confirmation of sources as a prerequisite. If any further verification is required by wikipedia editors in relation to this matter please let me know. Posturewriter (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 06:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward ciderhands[edit]

Unremarkable drinking game Marwood (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sounds like something some of the blokes at school made up one day. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. -RiverHockey (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFT. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, again per WP:MADEUP. --Nehwyn (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP Carter | Talk to me 04:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: sounds suspiciously similar to Edward Fortyhands. Cosmo0 (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, just more WP:MADEUP nonsense. RFerreira 07:34, 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 keep per Davewild. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 20:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russell, Ontario (community)[edit]

Cites no sources, is very biased, full of bad English and bad grammar, is 1 line long. Harland1 (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The version nominated for deletion looks to have been the result of vandalism. I have reverted back to a previous version which while needing cleanup is a clear keep. Davewild (talk) 20:52, 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 Merge and Redirect to Coles Group. Pastordavid (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coles SuperCentres[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Not a company, not needed in Wikipedia Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let me get this straight. The article is about a group of stores that a company considered opening up, but didn't. Sounds likes WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL to me...Xymmax (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. Some of this content would be relevant in an appropriate section of the Coles Group article, but only if a proper context could be found. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 22:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Coles Group. A never-implemented proposal is rarely deserving of its own article, and this only requires a sentence or two of coverage. A redirect from Coles SuperCentre would make more sense, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort. --Dhartung | Talk 08:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The person who started this entry, Punk Boi 8 currently is banned from editing for one year. (Dunno what this means, am asking Ronja, but I think it means they cannot edit) Anyway, by the looks of the linked to page, this editor has done alot of troublemaking on Wikipedia. -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 18:54, 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. James086^{Talk | Email} 07:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guri (Star Wars)[edit]

Article makes no assertion of real-world notability for this character. An editor takes exception to redirecting to the single work in which this character appears, stating that the redirect target should include info. on this device -- however, seeing as how there is no real-world content for this background piece, there's really not anything worth integrating. --EEMIV (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates, WP:Plot, WP:WAF and several other policies and guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs) 00:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article ais entirely "in universe" and therefore has no critical or encyclopedic content. There is nothing here for any reader who is not interested solely in the trivial plot details of this novel. Fancruft, non-notable character, no critical attention to the role or import of the character to the literature it comes from. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others above, fancruft extraordinaire. RFerreira 07:34, 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 deleted by User:NawlinWiki (a7 nonnotable band...). Non admin closure. shoy (^words _words) 22:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Drop & Roll[edit]

Delete as per WP:BAND. Endless Dan 20:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 as non-notable band, so tagged. They do sound interesting though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stop, drop and roll 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable band; delete. Jmlk 1 7 21:40, 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 as A7 G4, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Butler[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable person. Very short stub. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is tagged on the page with an A7, but no AfD tag. Is related to a walled garden including Salt lines and others, that were recently G4'ed. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:43, 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 13:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hatch[edit]

Contested Prod. A backup (actually 3rd string) quarterback for LSU who has only played in three drives of a football game (see here and here). The only shred of notability asserted about him in the article is that he transferred from Harvard (many players transfer colleges this doesn't make them notable), he took a missionary trip to Chile for his Church (according to the article Missionary (LDS Church) there are over 50,000 missionaries in the Church, it doesn't make one notable), and that he was a National Merit Finalist (I only assume it is the National Merit Award scholarship, which, that article states, 15,000 high school seniors each year are finalists, and doesn't make one notable). He fails WP:N for now (if he becomes the starter before he leaves college he might deserve an article), but right now the article should be Deleted. Phydend (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly Strong Keep Should never have been nominated. Nominator says himself that this athlete has played in a game; therefore, he has competed at the highest level in amateur sports, and quite easily passes WP:BIO. Full disclosure: I did not create the article, though I did do just about all of the work on it. However I am not an LSU fan, nor had I ever heard of this kid before I rewrote the page. Still, he certainly passes our notability guidelines for athletes. Being a missionary and all the rest isn't a claim to notability, and isn't presented as such. He is notable for playing at the highest level of amateur sports. faithless (^speak) 20:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Does college level count as highest level of amateur sports? WP:SPORTS says: "Players who play in minor or semi-professional leagues (such as af2) are not considered notable unless they meet another criterion, such as notability arising from their college football days." so I'm guessing no. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It depends on the sport. If we're talking gymnastics, then the Olympics are probably the highest level. If we're talking American football, yes, college is the highest level of amateur football. faithless (^speak) 21:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The "amateur sports" clause is meant for sports that are not professional at all, like rowing and a lot of other Olympic sports. Sports that are first and foremost professional, such as football, soccer, basketball etc are covered by the professionalism clause and not the amateur clause. Punkmorten (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...I've thought more about these. WP:BIO says that athletes are generally notable if they have played in the highest level of amateur sports. However, it also says meeting the guideline doesn't merit inclusion. Common sense would say a person who played 3 drives is not notable...and - there is a higher non-amateur level than college football. I believe the intention of the policy is to cover olympic athletes, not third string college football players. --Smashville^BONK! 20:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I sort of agree with you that the guidelines are a little lenient for athletes. However, until they're changed, I can't see how anyone could argue that Hatch doesn't meet the requirements. Perhaps you're right about the intent behind the guideline, but it doesn't even come close to suggesting that it is meant for Olympic athletes rather than college athletes. faithless (^speak) 21:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the guideline specifically says that meeting it doesn't merit inclusion. We're talking about a quarterback who has completed one pass in the NCAA. Per this link in 2004-2005 alone, there were 384,742 NCAA athletes. In 1999-2000, there were 355,098. In 1994-5 there were 289,933. In 1985-1986, there were 288,629. In 1981-1982 there were 231,445. We're talking about a minimum (very minimum - I went in 5 year increments to factor in replacement...in fact, since the NCAA has been around for 101 years and I factored in none of the years in between, the number will be exponentially larger) of 1.5 million people who are notable enough for Wikipedia if competing int the NCAA is considered sufficient notability for inclusion. --Smashville^BONK! 21:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The guideline is (I believe intentionally) vague. In my opinion, it could definitely stand a revision. But until that happens, I don't see a good reason to delete this. The fact that a lot of people have played college sports is hardly a legitimate argument for deletion (no offense). Rather, that's a good argument for changing the guideline (perhaps change it to those who have started in an NCAA game?). I do believe the guideline needs to be changed so that it is more clear and restrictive, but we have to work with what we have. If it is changed, then perhaps my argument would change. But as it stands right now, he passes notability. faithless (^speak) 22:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The guideline specifically says that meeting it does not mean it should be included. If at least 1.5 million people (an extremely generously low estimate) meet the criteria, then, obviously this is one of those cases. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Just because there is a loophole in a policy that allows potentially millions upon millions of people to be notable. We shouldn't keep an article because of a loophole. That's why WP:IAR exists. --Smashville^BONK! 22:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd like to reiterate that I think the guideline ought to be amended to prevent these types of articles being created in the first place. I certainly don't think I deserve an article for playing soccer in college. That being said, no particularly compelling reason has been given for its deletion. Your main argument appears to be that not all NCAA athletes deserve articles; I agree with you there. However, the guideline currently allows just that, and since Wikipedia isn't paper, the sheer number of potential articles shouldn't affect our decision here. I'm all for a more stringent notability guideline for athletes (in fact this has me considering seeking a change), but until then... faithless (^speak) 00:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, you're correct. The number of potential articles isn't a delete reason. But the fact that at least 1.5 million exist means that it's not a valid claim to notability. --Smashville^BONK! 05:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't this a case of someone who fails the basic criteria for notability under WP:BIO who passes the additional criteria - in this case, competeing at the highest amateur level? Or worst comes to worst, do we ignore all rules? I mean, I certainly respect the skills of a major college quarterback, and I'm open to being persuaded, which is why I didn't record a vote, but is there an argument that, but for the overly-generous guidelines, he's notable? Xymmax (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless stronger evidence of notability emerges. faithless is quite incorrect that college football meets the "highest amateur level" test, and there is ample precedent to show otherwise. --Dhartung | Talk 00:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I? Please share with us, what is the highest amateur level for an American football player if not college? faithless (^speak) 01:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would be very interested to see evidence of the precedent. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely hate this provision of WP:BIO. I do think there is a strong argument for college being the highest level of amateur football, but thats neither here nor there. The guideline is in effect, and Wikipedia is awash with precedent that one only needs to step on to the field to qualify and what the player did while on the field is rarely brought into question. Which, when you think about it, is probably correct - "was he on the field" is an easy question to verify, "Did he do something useful" is somewhat less clear. That soccer player with the one international cap is welcome, regardless if he came in the 80th minute as an injury substitution and didn't even touch the ball. That football player is welcome even if he only played in garbage time. Do I think that either of these players are really notable? Absolutely, positively not. But luckily for all of us, I don't get to make any decisions around here. Keep for strongly meeting the WP:BIO provision and hopefully some day the community pendulum will shift enough so that we can revisit this. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LSU Tigers Football or delete. After thinking about it for a day, I still don't see that this person is notable. It appears to me that the consensus of those commenting or voting is that he is notable only because he meets, in the most technical sense, the additional criteria for athletes. The essence of WP:IAR is that you do not slavishly follow the rules to reach a result that you know is absurd, and we shouldn't do it here. I understand that there is precedent to the contrary, but in this case that amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The most notable thing that can be said about Mr. Hatch is that he was a member of a highly ranked football team, played in part of one game and threw 2 passes. That shouldn't put you into Wikipedia. Xymmax (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A couple of editors have invoked WP:IAR here, so I'd just like to toss in my two cents, as I disagree with the implementation of that policy in this instance. In my opinion, IAR is not something which should be bandied about (just to clarify, I'm not accusing anyone of doing this), but rather should be reserved for exceptional cases. IAR is there so that if something prevents us from improving the encyclopedia, we have a way around it; it's not a loophole to employ when we don't agree with established policies and guidelines. It seems that all of us find the current guideline for athletes unacceptable and should probably be changed. I have already said that I am for a more stringent guideline, one which would result in the uncontested deletion of this article. But we ought not ignore a guideline simply because we disagree with it. faithless (^speak) 17:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is necessarily arguing WP:IAR. The fact is that WP:BIO states that meeting the criteria does not guarantee inclusion. In this case, I believe we should invoke WP:COMMON. There are currently over 300,000 NCAA athletes. All-time there is closer to 15-20 million college athletes. It's not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. My argument is that if there are 15-20 million of something, then the criteria isn't notable. Based on the census of 2000, there were approximately 27 million people between 18-24. That same year there were 355,098 college athletes. That's over one percent of the population - for one year. And that's just for one year. Using replacement, virtually all of the 375,851 athletes from 2003-2004 and all of the 331,635 from 1995-1996 are unique from those. That's almost 1.1 million former college athletes from the last 10 years alone. That's more than the population of 8 states. The sheer numbers alone show you that being one is not notable. --Smashville^BONK! 19:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Enough with the numbers! :-) I've said it repeatedly, I agree with you that he ought not to be notable. But going by Wikipedia's guidelines, he is. This needs to be changed. Until it is, the article shouldn't be deleted. faithless (^speak) 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Going by the guidelines, he is not. He has not been the subject of any secondary publications. --Smashville^BONK! 22:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. --Brewcrewer (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per the NCAA, more than 3.5 million people have participated in the NCAA. You cannot logically argue that all 3.5 million of those people are notable for Wikipedia inclusion. Once again, it's not an ignore all rules argument. It's a "read the entire policy and use common sense" argument. Nothing in WP:BIO says that meeting this criteria guarantees inclusion. And - as I have pointed out numerous times - the policy states "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." In addition, the policy also says, "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)". I don't see anywhere that he meets the secondary source criteria. Everything is either trivial mentions or in the context of something else. All of the keep arguments seem to be ignoring the last part of the policy. --Smashville^BONK! 19:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He plays NCAA Division 1 FBS football, the most notable sport it sanctions and the highest amateur level for his sport, on a highly notable team, in the most notable position. It is the sum of those which make him notable, not the mere fact that he is a college athlete. Consuelo D'Guiche (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any secondary sources? I can't find any. And notability is not inherited. --Smashville^BONK! 21:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going after sources is a better argument, I think. I have one article [5] about Hatch himself, and a number of articles about Hatch moving up to backup for the last game, and then of course, the box scores for the game, which validate that he played. Meager pickings indeed. The problem is, that all this really does is validate that he is a football player for a Division 1 team which re-enforces the original point that he is notable under WP:BIO. The reason I stick with keep is mainly because I can't muster a good enough argument to delete it, given the guidelines, available information and the body of articles that came before it. And if I was an admin, I probably couldn't delete it, and if somebody else deleted it, I would probably vote to re-instate it at deletion review. I just can't get past the WP:BIO guideline. He stepped on the field, we have the sources to prove it, and Wikipedia has proven time and time again that "stepped on the field" is all we need. I'm sorry. I wish you luck in any efforts to fix WP:BIO, but you are headed for a steel wall of college football fans who will fight tooth and nail for the right to keep the entire roster of any player that has ever played for their school, and no matter what arbitrary notability standards you try to apply, I'm afraid that you'll end up just sliding right back to where we are now. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to delete would be he doesn't meet secondary source specifications. He hasn't been the subject of any secondary sources. As a former Harvard student, you would expect Harvard's school paper to report on him. There has been no good reason to keep him. He doesn't meet WP:BIO. Again, WP:BIO says that meeting those standards are not a reason to delete. But - he doesn't meet those standards. He has not been the subject of any nontrivial secondary sources that are not pertaining to an event in which he was a participant. The Harvard article is a primary source. --Smashville^BONK! 01:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per faithless. Notincredible strong", but keep. Andrew Hatch is not Tom Brady, but he is certainly notable. Tiptopper 14:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Again, where are the secondary sources? Why is everyone only reading part of WP:BIO and ignoring the other parts? --Smashville^BONK! 20:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete common sense. The rules are intended to be flexible, and this much participation in what is technically an amateur game is not notable.DGG (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect. Including this is just begging to have every D-I athlete in America use the Other Stuff Exists argument. Pandora's Box, anyone?--CastAStone /^/(talk) 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of College Football articles in need of attention. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:54, 8 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 speedily deleted as a recreation of content deleted from an AFD from two weeks ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megalithic geometry —Random832 20:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Lines[edit]

Although the idea of Salt Lines is known, this article is in the relm of WP:FRINGE. The article is not up to wiki standards and the author of the article is under review as a Sock Puppet. Pmedema (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Alan Butler has been recreated by this author after having been deleted as well. If not a delete then this article is in serious need of a re-write to bring it up to Wiki standards. --Pmedema (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Appears to be well sourced and meet wikipedia's guidelines and policies on WP:V and WP:CITE. It's all good for me. If this is in the realm of fringe then find another source that says this and start collaborating as we did at Water fuel cell. --CyclePat (talk) 19:57, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justice as Fairness[edit]

This article is a content fork of Equity (law) and for the most part covered by the Equity (law) article. As written, the material is not independent of the topic since the Wikipedia information about the book comes from the book. Delete and redirect to Equity (law). -- Jreferee t/c 19:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. —Anarchia (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then create redirect to Equity (law) per the nom. Realistically, anything in here should go in the originating article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a content fork of that article; it is a major philosophical meme in the works of one of the 20th centuries most important political philosophers. The edit history for this article goes back to 2003. There is a significant secondary literature on Rawls' philosophical publications. GRBerry 20:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, which is what I'd assume most people who type in "Justice as Fairness" would be looking for. (Is it really a fork of Equity (law)? I wouldn't have guessed... my first impression, as someone familiar with Rawls's book, was that it must be a spinoff of the article about the book.) - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 02:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a famous essay of Rawls which is important in its own right. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement is also important, but this is not a minor piece, and it has had a significant impact on theories of justice to this day. Huadpe (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The idea of justice as fairness has been very influential. Rawls wrote a book and several articles with "Justice as Fairness" in the title and, I'm sure, gave many talks on this topic. The John Rawls article links to Justice as Fairness as one of "the ideas from Rawls's work that have received wide attention", not as an article. There is, in fact, no mention of any article called "Justice as Fairness" except in the publication list at the bottom. (Also, the Justice as Fairness article claims to be about a phrase, not an article.) I would weakly support an article at (lowercase) Justice as fairness that clearly dealt with the idea and its development through Rawls's works and beyond, but I think it's reasonable to expect that (capital) Justice as Fairness redirect to Justice as Fairness: A Restatement; that's what I was trying to find when I typed it in. - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 23:52, 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. Hut 8.5 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7princess[edit]

non-notable band Against3 (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No press, no information, just some music videos and a web page. Bring some notability in or it goes away. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) -RiverHockey (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity page. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 17:41, 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 as lacking independent sourcing. WP:COI is not by itself a reason for deletion if the article otherwise meets the inclusion requirements, but if a self-authored article makes claims of accomplishments which are not investigated by independent sources the article fails WP:NPOV and, in a number of claims in the article, WP:V. This is not an injunction against restoration if independent sources are found. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas William Hamilton[edit]

Article is written entirely by the person himself, no claim of actual notablity and sources section is cramed with nonsense. The article was tagged with proposed deletion and tag was removed by author. --Joebengo (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to understand the field of astronomy and planetarium education to make the statement above. Furthermore, one might expect just about any political chair and former candidate for public offices to be of some significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tham153 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being the chair of a local interest group in response to a local issue hardly makes someone notable, nor does being the chair of a political party in a specific county of a state make someone notable, and furthermore by being a candidate in a local or state government and losing with only about 2% of the vote constitute as notable? Basically this article is an autobiography written almost entirely by the User himself, along with the fact that every article that links to this article was placed in by the user himself to promote himself. --Joebengo (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable person. Fails the biography requirements. Unsourced and filled with self-serving statements. In addition, this article appears to be an autobiography - users are strongly discouraged from writing articles about themselves. If you're notable, someone else will notice and write the article for you. This saves you a lot of work! : ) - Chardish (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as autobiography of a non-notable scientist. Keep per WP:PROF. ~~While~~ we appreciate your contributions in other Wikipedia articles, ~~I cannot find enough of a notability assertion in your own autobiography to justify an encyclopedia article on your career. Maybe in a more specialized publication, but not in a general-purpose one.~~ --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-serving autobio. Nothing obviously notable here. --Crusio (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the work in planetarium development is notable, and is supported by publications. WP:COI very specificially does not say it is a reason for exclusion, and neither does WP:AUTO. a great many articles in WP started out this way. Keep and develop further. DGG (talk)!~
Keep. Plenty of verifiable sources are listed in the article. Just because they are not online doesn't make them any less verifiable. If there are COI issues then they should be fixed by editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable for work in science education in informal settings (e.g., planetaria). ... And where are all the fan hordes who usually preserve every person who ever auditioned for some role that was only in the pilot of the TV series that was cancelled after 5 episodes? I guess they're not around for child actors before the 70s. --Lquilter 20:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a misguided application of WP:AUTO, which is not a criteria for deletion anyhow. RFerreira 07:35, 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 to Mario (series). Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starman (Nintendo)[edit]

Prod contested by anonymous IP without leaving a reason. Wikipedia is not a video game guide - this is completely in-universe information. Wikipedia does not need a guide offering the gameplay effects of a powerup. Chardish (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a couple sentences to Mario (series). As with the Mushroom, the Starman has a place in just about all the Mario games, but it doesn't deserve its own page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Its just a powerup, and the article can be split up into other Mario articles, such as Mario Kart, Mario Party, etc. 1yodsyo1 15:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1yodsyo1 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy merge - Good to have this redirect in place. Judgesurreal777 03:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It doesn't need its own article, especially since it can be covered in game articles. Kirby-oh 04:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mario (series) per TenPoundHammer. Fin©™ 17:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included on the talk page for WikiProject Nintendo. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:01, 8 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 11:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hirstaang Forest[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no references. —dv82matt 12:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and repetitive. --Stormbay 18:53, 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 Redirect to The Grey Fox. James086^{Talk | Email} 07:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gray Fox[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Slideshow Bob (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or redirect to Gray Fox maybe?? Slideshow Bob (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Falls outside of the constraints of WP:FICT. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable character, and redirect instead to The Grey Fox (film) as a plausible misspelling. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 17:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to The Grey Fox (film) , and move The Grey Fox (film) to The Grey Fox unnecessary dab page. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Character has no notability outside of the game universe. Redirect if necessary as per User: 132.205 --Scottie_theNerd 23:37, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corprus[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability outside of the game. Marasmusine 15:53, 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 11:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elder Council[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no references. —dv82matt 13:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.. not really so notable that it needs an article. Yzmo ^talk 13:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:51, 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, housekeeping. Pegasus «C¦T» 00:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HTP (disambiguation)[edit]

Disambiguation page with no real use. Three pages listed, High test peroxide, the most common usage of the term, HTTP Time Protocol - a redlink (should be removed per WP:DAB), and Hypertext Transfer Protocol, for which it is very rarely used (HTTP being the correct and most common term). Therefore this page, and the redirect HTP - Disambiguation should be deleted. The redirect HTP should be edited to point at High test peroxide. If it is really necessary, a ((dablink)) template could be added to High test peroxide for HTTP. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 21:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dn't think you need to bring this here for discussion - just put a note on the talkpage and do it. 134.58.127.72 (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All dablinks and redirects are in place now, and all that is needed now is to delete the page mentioned here. I'll tag it a CSD G6. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:05, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starsky and Cox[edit]

Spammy orphaned article on a couple whose sole claim to fame appears to be authorship of a book that ranks #21,980 on the Amazon.com sales list. Edit history of this article and (previously deleted) Sextrology article strongly suggests conflict of interest. bd2412 T 18:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. They get three paragraphs of mention in the NY Times in the article, the article is not just about them. Not really that notable. Change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and facts above. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom RMHED (talk) 22:50, 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 per consensus.(closed by non-admin) RMHED 19:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ericsson T66[edit]

Non-notable commercial product. Insufficient third-party resources exist to reference a sustainable wikipedia article. ((prod)) removed with the argument that the phone's size and weight make it notable. I don't see these criteria at WP:N. WP is not an Ericsson catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick search for "mobile phone notability" brought a number of AfD rulings on similar cases and they have all kinds of outcomes and arguments. Here's a few AfDs: Nokia 1100, Motorola C261, Nokia 6151, Motorola C139, LG CU500. I feel that a centralized discussion is in order to establish notability guidelines for cell phones. --Yury Petrachenko (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find a large amount of information on this phone when I look around. This article needs some editors to improve it in order to bring it up to standards. Still notable. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—appear to be sufficient references available. Spacepotato 19:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs some improvement --EJF 19:21, 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 No consensus --JForget 23:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assück[edit]

SPeedy delete. A7 IMHO would be fine, but they also assert the importance - they just don't deliver the goods. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Speedy was declined unfortunately. Scarian ^Talk 20:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because of that assertion. Ah, well. Still, my !vote stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can come up with better reliable sources than I was able to - a two-paragraph Rockdetector bio and a discography on Rollingstone.com. Unverifiable at present. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, present on Allmusic as well Aaronbrick (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that Allmusic is a sign of notability. It's kind of like calling a presence in the white pages a sign of notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, having a page on Allmusic does not guarantee or assert notability. Scarian ^Talk 22:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn subject. Fair Deal (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already stated above. Seal Clubber 01:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band is to important User:Crustbastard 5:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Poor article and unreferenced; still, they were a pretty big underground band with many releases, toured the country, and got non-trivial coverage in major zines like Maximumrocknroll. No, I don't have the references, but deleting this article would be exceedingly hasty, especially since the article was tagged for lack of references only 3 hours before this AfD started. Precious Roy (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep-based simply sparse mentions in a couple of notable media sources. Peter Fleet (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in Maximum RocknRoll and Allmusic is pretty good for a well-known underground grindcore band; the genre, despite having a loyal fanbase, doesn't get covered in Rolling Stone or Newsweek more than once a lifetime. Chubbles (talk) 14:39, 7 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 argument that the sources are about an isolated crime rather than being about the subject of the article is convincing and largely unrefuted.--Kubigula (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roxbury Mall[edit]

Non-notable strip mall in New Jersey. Granted, the sources are reliable third-party sources, but three of the four sources are about a robbery at a Funcoland store there, and Wikipedia is not the news. Beyond that, it's just an ordinary strip mall with nothing notable about it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a very large regional mall with reliable and verifiable sources provided. Alansohn (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But as I said, three of those four sources aren't about the mall, so much as they are about a robbery at a store there. Robberies (sadly) happen all the time, and they don't make this mall any more notable than millions of other strips across the world. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The size, scope, nature and characteristics, combined with reliable and verifiable sources do establish notability. I've read your nomination, and I heartily disagree with it (and most of the rest of your deletion crusade). Repeating your statement does nothing to change my opinion of notability. Alansohn (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This mall isn't notable; it's just another strip mall. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sign of notability. The only source not about the robbery is just a listing in a directory of malls. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable power centre which is supported by multiple reliable sources. While some of them are cursory, as a whole they support the verifiability of the subject. RFerreira 07:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of reliable sources about the mall, rather than events happening at it. Cumulus Clouds 18:21, 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 Merge to Abaddon the Despoiler. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Crusade[edit]

Merge to appropriate Warhammer article, or delete. Has only in-universe notability, and does not meet the minimum standards of WP:FICT. Pastordavid (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Abaddon the Despoiler - Information can be merged into parent article and redirected there. Has already been transwikied per WP:FICT so the logical choice is to redirect. --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Abaddon the Despoiler - insufficiently notable for a separate article. Addhoc 18:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion added to the list of Warhammer 40,000 articles being considered for deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:49, 8 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 g11 spam, advertising for someone's performance art project. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creative litter[edit]

Non-notable neologism, borderline speedy A7. Kesac (talk) 17:29, 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. Hut 8.5 07:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Beaujean[edit]

NN "hacktivist", not the primary author (or even WP:V contributor to) any of the projects listed on this page, cites no sources that reference the subject himself, the product of a WP:SPA account. No news hits. Very few G hits, none in reliable sources. Disputed prod. What's that, I say? Delete. --- tqbf 17:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete borderline speedy. Forum posts and blogs as "references" = bad sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources which attest to notability. Pastordavid (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some of the products he reportedly helped create might be notable, but he does not appear to be. Maralia (talk) 18:50, 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 11:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anasarca (band)[edit]

Clearly fails WP:MUSIC. No references to support claims. Doesn't assert notability in any case. Scarian ^Talk 17:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable band, possibly an A7. I would tag it for A7 if it weren't for their album page, which I'm also listing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional page being listed:

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lots of G hits (incl. This time around, the lyrics were written by various victims of terminal illnesses. --- nice!), but none in reliable sources. "Mighty Music" doesn't meet WP:MUSIC for labels. --- tqbf 17:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ja, they both fail WP:MUSIC either way. Scarian ^Talk 17:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Peter Fleet (talk) 03:56, 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 13:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Features of The Podge and Rodge Show[edit]

Unnotable, unsourced fan cruft with hints of original research. Collectonian (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep

True, but the info is being provided, it just needs to be cited. I've said it before but the main article would be too crowded for this. The information must at least be preserved, not deleted entirely but where can it be merged to without overcrowding another article? Some other articles relating to the topic were merged but they were smaller and less significant in content. For those reasons I believe things should be kept the way they are. --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 17:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft, original research, insignificant material. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or condense into a paragraph or two in The Podge and Rodge Show main article. The show itself is notable but this level of detail is extremely excessive. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete excessive detail needs to be edited out of articles not simply split off into a new article. Wikipedia is not the place for this type of minutia of detail. Ridernyc (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:01, 8 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 consensus. I trust nobody will have an issue with me closing even though I opined here as my close goes with consensus and not with my personal opinion. Even ignoring the sockpuppet !vote below, consensus is still fairly clear here.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woodburn Company Stores[edit]

An outlet mall in Oregon. Only assertion of notability is a seemingly gratuitous superlative cited to a company news release, which seems to be somewhat misleadingly cited anyway ("one of Oregon’s top destinations among individual and group travelers" does not imply "one of Oregon's most popular tourist attractions", it probably just means they get a lot of shoppers); the news release itself describes an award from a regional marketing organization they are members of. Given that the page has also been regularly used to post attacks against the company (see page history), I'm tempted to just remove the badly sourced assertion and then speedy the article under CSD A7. However, since that smacks of wikilawyering and since it would be nice to have a more binding decision (as I'd expect the user(s) posting the attacks will try to recreate it), I'm instead sending it here for evaluation. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable outlet mall, nothing special about it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient sources have been added to establish notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another outlet mall. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has received coverage from WP:RSs, but someone has been removing that coverage. One such source was Willamette Week, where an editor removed the coverage saying in their edit summary that the Willamette Week is not a reliable source. Sorry, but a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper meets my definition of WP:RS (now the editorial article also removed did not). As one of the top "malls" in the Portland metro area there are plenty of sources to use to demonstrate notability. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the biggest issue with that source wasn't reliability... it was the fact that it didn't actually say what it was supposed to be sourcing.--Isotope23 ^talk 21:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but the edit summary then needs to say that, not" "rm Williamette Week - NOT a reliable source". However, note that the remover removed a large chunk of info that included the article I have re-added that did back the claim (about the shuttle bus service). So I think the editor in that case did actually consider the source not to be reliable (that or they screwed up). Aboutmovies (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. —Katr67 (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while it can certainly be sourced that the mall exists, there is no evidence that this mall is in any way notable. All sources were local news sources about completely non-notable events (shoplifting & a "Black Friday" midnight sale). Show me one mall in North America where that doesn't happen.--Isotope23 ^talk 21:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commet - keep your vote as is, but notability is the substantial coverage in reliable sources. That's it. A person doesn't have to be the oldest, a building doesn't have to be the biggest/tallest, a company doesn't have to meet a revenue minimum or being the largest in its market segment. Notablity is not fame, it is "worthy of note" as in it has been noted, specifically in WP:RS, see WP:NOTE and read the lead to that guideline. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, even with the references, I see absolutely nothing notable here. Sorry. It's less a question about reliability of sources than it is that none of this matters.--Isotope23 ^talk 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess you don't comprehend notability on Wikipedia, here's some help: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with notability." First part of the lead from WP:NOTE.

Or: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.[1] Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.[2] First part of the first section.

So unless you understand the Wikipedia guidelines, you really should not talk about Wikipedia notability, since Wikipedia notability really is not about your opinion. As the notability guideline makes abundantly clear, it is about the references. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I absolutely understand the notability guideline and I'm completely aware what it says... and that is just what it is a guideline. It wasn't brought down from the Mount on 2 stone tablets by Jimbo: "Thou Shalt not Delete an Article with Non-Trivial Coverage in Multiple, Reliable Sources, verily". We don't have to delete or keep anything just because it fits, or doesn't as the case may be, into this neat little mold of words that we've created. Something can meet the letter of a guideline and still fall completely short of the spirit and intent. I could find at least a half dozen non-trivial, 3rd party, reliable sources about the specific McDonald's location down the street from where I live; that doesn't mean we need an article about it. It's still not notable, even if it meets the letter of the guideline (though personally I think only "local" coverage demonstrates that this place has no notability outside its community)... and wikilawyering the text of that guideline selectively doesn't change that. I stand by my opinion above. That said, if it gets kept, the version that exists now is infinitely better than the previous versions that existed, so at least the content is improved.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has your local McDonald's been mentioned on CNN.com or in the the AARP's travel magazine? I think both of those would be national in scope. However, notability is not national/international in scope. There is no requirement that everyone in the world needs to know about something to be notable. Further, local coverage for this mall would be the Woodburn newspaper or the Salem newspaper, The Oregonian is a large regional newspaper (top 30 circulation in the US) with a variety of Pultizer Prizes. And though this is orignal research, when I lived in Seattle many of my co-workers talked about the outlet and some even made semi-annual trips to shop there. No sales tax is a huge draw for people. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it has not been mentioned in those 2 specific publications, but it has been mentioned in at least 4 comparable national publications at various points in the past... If anything, it would exceed the "notability" of this particular place. I'd link the articles, but that would give away a bit more personal information about my whereabouts than I'd care to.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I guess - If any outlet mall in Oregon is notable, it's this one. Per its own promotional literature, it's the biggest such mall in the state (it's pretty big), and easily the most upscale. It's far bigger then several other (non-outlet) malls in Oregon which have articles categorized at Category:Shopping malls in Oregon. A garden-variety strip mall this ain't. OTOH, it isn't Mall of America either. Note that I am not terribly familiar with notability threshold for shopping centers, so am basing my opinion on what I know of other malls in the state which have articles (some of which, such as Cedar Hills Crossing, might also be AFD-fodder).--EngineerScotty (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that Aboutmovies has expanded the article with sources. As for local sources, I'm not sure where it says that local sources are not reliable, but the biggest statewide newspaper in the state (The Oregonian) and the biggest alternative newspaper in the state (Willamette Week) are used as reliable sources in hundreds of other articles. P.S. EngineerScotty, Cedar Hills Crossing survived an Afd with no consensus, though the closer didn't put the appropriate tag on the talk page... Katr67 (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's appropriately referenced now, and its size and status as a destination trip (because of the fact of no local sales taxes and the most stores of ~~their~~ that kind) does make it more than just a mall. Awotter (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And I don't understand why this link can't stay [6]. Anti-consumer (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)— Anti-consumer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: it is suspected that Anti-consumer is a sock puppet of (currently blocked) She Who Photographs, who also kept attempting to add that forum link.-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links to forums are almost never included in articles unless they provide some sort of overwhelmingly unique content critical to understanding the topic.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Delete: no second-sourve notability, per WP:CORP. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is now much better sourced than it was when it was nominated and I believe that enough notability has been shown, as much as is reasonably possible for a mall anyway. nancy ^(talk) 08:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most of the above arguments no longer pertain. Since being brought to the attention of the folks at WikiProject:Oregon it has improved considerably. Cacophony 07:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IF it can be shown that other malls its size generally do not have articles, and focus improving the quality of more pressing things. Otherwise I must say keep as it's a pretty big place and has already undergone an expansion/building of a second phase. Also, I do think its unusual for a mall to have its own transit service and think the part on the bus line should stay, especially if it failed and would become forgotten. Lastly, I think I remember it was in the news that their tree blew over last(?) year. Jason McHuff 11:16, 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. Spellcast (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punk community[edit]

Unreferenced and unlikely to be properly referenced. Looks like band-cruft. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:55, 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. DO11.10 (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ananeuzumab[edit]

Per discussion on WT:PHARM (see WT:PHARM#Tiratumumab and WT:PHARM#Assessment), this and the 62 articles below, all on therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, have been assessed by myself, Paul gene (talk · contribs), and StephP (talk · contribs), and found to be unverifiable by publicly-available sources. While compounds with these names may even exist, we were unable to find reliable sources which could be used to expand or cite them. Their creator, Blake3522 (talk · contribs), has not yet responded to a note left on his Talk asking about sources he may have used. Delete all. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I find it hard to believe that the articles are hoaxes, but at the same time, I would need to see evidence that the antibodies actually exist. Some articles on similar subjects have the CAS number - that's all I would need to see in order to change this opinion to "keep all". Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find it incredibly unusual that these antibodies, some claimed to be used in the treatment of illnesses such as asthma and cancer, have no reliable sources that I can find. Pubmed shows nothing for the ones I searched, and the only google hits I could find were Wikipedia, various mirrors, and lists of antibodies I suspect were copied from a chain that leads to Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. that's quite the elaborate pile of bogosity, and I'm amazed it lasted this long. I'd be inclined to speedy some of these for no content, as many of them seem to only have one sentence saying that it's some antibody. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. A really strange situation, but there doesn't seem to be anything verifiable in the bunch. Tim Ross·^talk 22:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. After reviewing the template, the user page, and his talk page, I can only conclude two things: (1) these might be hoaxes, or (2) these might be his own research. He appears to be on a long Wikibreak. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. This is a hoax. Blake3522 (talk · contribs) AKA BlakeCS (talk · contribs) actually wrote on his userpage (see History, now deleted) that he "made up" these names using the nomenclature of monoclonal antibodies. The monoclonal antibody names actually consist of the therapeutical target of the antibody and of the source (how the antibody was made) plus the suffix -mab. So the information for the stub can be derived from a fictional name of the antibody, and that is what BlakeCS did. And some of the names just happened to match the real compounds. Paul gene (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, he should get a job composing usans--or is that done by computer these days? I see there are apparently another 120 or so still being checked a the project--the ones that happen to have matched. This group are just the ones without any matches at all. I think that's clear enough for a speedy close.DGG (talk) 03:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Cricket (video game)[edit]

Article was created in October 2006 with a promise that this computer game was being released in "mid-2007". Its still not here, so this falls into crystal ballery, and there's no reliable secondary sources to explain why it would be notable even if it was here. Article is clearly promotional and the subject is unencyclopaedic. —Moondyne 16:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if reworded. There is a comment on the "official website" claiming that the project was delayed because the developers had "difficulties with his personal life." -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not for crystal ballery but as non-notable in light of absolutely no independent coverage. Maralia (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete must agree with Maralia - clearly non-notable. Tim Ross·^talk 22:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is nothing stopping anyone recreating the article if and when the game is released and some reliable sources are provided. —Moondyne 23:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable game with no secondary sources to speak of, googling the game's name along with windows (the platform) and the developer name (vengeance games) brings up 4 results, one is WP, one is the game's own website, the other two look to be WP mirrors. The article itself is soap-boxy and promotional, the list of features looks like a copy and paste job. Sails close to vanispamcruftvertisement.Someone another (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unsourced crystal ballery. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:10, 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 11:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

13 Winters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Creating proper 2nd nomination page for User:Undead warrior, who relisted the first nomination from March. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. No more notable than 20,000 other bands you can find on metal-archives.com -RiverHockey (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all of the individual band members have their own entries. They should definitely be proposed for deletion as well, thereby making this a group deletion. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsigned, no indication of good reliable sources to back up any indication of notability. Delete (And wow, they look like one of my old gaming groups...) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNon notable. No links other than myspace. No albums other than the one demo. This band has nothing. They don't even have a record label. The links from the band member's names only say that the people are members of 13 Winters. Once again, not notable.Metal Head (talk) 13:44, 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 11:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green economics[edit]

Green economics and ecological economics are essentially the same thing except that ecological economics is an actual field and green economics is not. Notice the similarities: Herman Daly as instrumental in both, both pushing the idea that sustainability is more than about externalities, ect. I suggest redirecting "green economics" to ecological economics to reduce confusion and redundancy. Essentially a couple people put up websites about "green economics" not realizing that the field ecological economics already exists. Plus, much of the Wikipedia page appears to be original research cobbled together from multiple sources -- the Wikipedia page has more information than the green economics websites. OptimistBen (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After some further investigation, I found that most of the article was lifted straight from here. The article it was lifted from says this:

Various subgroups of these economists avoid the label green or Green in part to avoid association ::with political Green Parties and their broader goals. Often these use the term

ecological economics. (Sidenote: why does this not indentation not work with bold?)

To avoid confusion, we ought to go with the standard term of ecological economics. This Green economics article that we are debating is copyrighted anyway.

While I generally support deletion and combining it as suggested, could you clarify what you mean that the article is copyrighted? If this applies to ecological economics, that should also be fixed.--Gregalton (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have just looked at that other site - content that's lifted from there should be deleted summarily, after which there is not much left.--Gregalton (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for multiple reasons. The article is largely a direct lift from this website. The article is also a kind of POV Fork from Ecological economics, and has POV issues. Best to eliminate duplication and keep (and improve) the Ecological economics article. Majoreditor (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though it was always my favorite type of economy. I agree it appears to be a POV fork, and parts are certainly written in a POV manner, possibly containing original research or personal opinion. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per above.--Gregalton 10:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if lifted from another website it is likely to be a copy-vio, which must be deleted. If the article is to go, substitute a redirect to ecological economics. Peterkingiron 22:45, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland gubernatorial election, 2010[edit]

per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Thomas.macmillan (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems notable and likely to take place. Gtstricky (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It may be "likely" to happen, but until any sources verify it, then it should be deleted as crystalballing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carnac the Magnificent says Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Little early for this I'd say. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not exactly crystal balling as it is a currently scheduled election. Some brief mentions in the press: [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1747642/posts], [7], [8]. Though it could also be merged into United States gubernatorial elections, 2010 until we have more to say about it.Kmusser (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Kmusser. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 17:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I know that American elections go on for ever. Yes, an election is due, but surely we do not need an article until autumn 2008 or even later, any morte than we need one for the 2012 prsidential election (I hope). Peterkingiron 22:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Kmusser. It could be merged until more happens. America69 (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as speculation per WP:CRYSTAL and because it fails WP:NOTE. This election probably is scheduled to take place, but there is little which can be verifiably said about it which could not also be said about the 2016 or 2022 elections. The article is currently unreferenced, and the subject will remain non-notable unless and until there is some substantive reporting of facts relating to the topic: declared candidates, electoral arrangements or whatever might do it, but al we have now is unsourced speculation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You need a citation that a gubernatorial election is the election of a governor? I added sources, even the silly ones. Kmusser (talk) 02:15, 7 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. Hut 8.5 07:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Dollar[edit]

The Millennium Dollar article is completely unreferenced, very short and unlikely to be enlarged. To me it seems like an insignificant, commercial gimmick by an insignificant, commercial company. A Google search for "Millennium Dollar" gives only 707 results (160 of them being the official site ("Millennium Dollar" -www.millenniumdollar.com)). - $\mathrm {S}$ . $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ . 17:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per Nom - Article is not encyclopedic. --Pmedema (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per Nom --Gtstricky (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and the hits get even worse when Wikipedia and its mirrors are removed. I get 274 hits, and not even all of those are related, some are referring to the Sacagewea dollar and other unrelated things. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to problems with notability and verifiabity. Capitalistroadster (talk) 18:43, 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 11:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clacker[edit]

Non-notable fictional character. Too few substantial third-party references exist to write a verifiable article about this subject. ((prod)) removed without comment, so listing at AfD. Mikeblas (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable character from a book - It also looks like User:82.38.220.45 vandalized it just before you put the prod tag on it.--Pmedema (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Vandalism is fixed. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, Log shows two prior deletions.Gtstricky (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article has neither primary or secondary sources to demonstrate real world notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:37, 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 as non-notable. Pastordavid (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny Business (musical)[edit]

Non-notable play. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are provided in compliance with verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:20, 16 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, Caknuck (talk) 20:07, 22 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, Spellcast (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Citations are not there. And the article/author failed to produce reliable sources, the links lead to MySpace and websites featuring photographs of actors. Very inappropriate. Delete if the author still does not come up with good sources. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep The citations don't conform to wiki standards agreed. But it is a noted play in Toronto with tickets available online from [9] and the main website is at [10]. There have been review of the play from a daily news paper and 2 weekly papers in the Toronto area. Although how much longer the play is going to last is unknown. --Pmedema (talk) 16:39, 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 11:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scissors (song)[edit]

It is a stub, needs cleanup, violates WP:NPOV and cites no references or sources. It also has orginal research. Thundermaster367^{Thundermaster's Talk} 13:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being a stub in need of cleanup is not necessarily a valid rationale to delete, I grant you. But, lacking sources and Neutrality is. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-It violates WP:VERIFY by not citing sources. No evidence for its information, most probably self-research. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable album track, dashed with WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, if they would like one can merge it onto the album page. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's totally unnecessary, unsourced, unverifiable... Zouavman Le Zouave 10:47, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 69 (U.K. series)[edit]

Apparent crystal ball on an album with no track listing, sources, confirmation of existence, etc. An anon replaced a prod with some rather colourful threats. tomasz. 12:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for contravening WP:CRYSTAL. --DAJF (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and DAJF--Rtphokie (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Doc Strange (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Release date added 79.75.130.69 (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's no source for that release date. it could have come from anywhere. tomasz. 18:32, 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. (Non-admin closure). Qst 11:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Joy Alukkas[edit]

Non-notable internet radio station Newport Backbay (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The reason is there in the article's talk page. Before leaving your comments, please see this history (about nominator) also. Is the intention about nominator is in accordance with WP:AGF. --Avinesh Jose (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep.it is new venture.so it will some time to improve on this article.Naveenpf (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep as bad faith nomination. User:Newport Backbay appears to be acting out of retribution for a nomination by this article's author because of a prior AfD nom. That being said, the article needs serious work to avoid being renominated. Keeper | 76 20:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re-edited, included more references. I have got a collection of proofs (leading news papers) also. --Avinesh Jose (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been improved with addition of references. More work is needed but the article is worth keeping now. --Richard 07:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad faith nomination. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 23:09, 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 per consensus. (closed by non-admin) RMHED 19:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Crab Cooker[edit]

Delete "The Crab Cooker" in google search provides some results. But I think this is a total spam article about a company (WP:ORG). Avinesh Jose (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than 500,000 google hits.The restaurant is a local landmark and is famous. This nomination was made in bad faith by an editor who didn't get what he wanted with a ((speedy)) tag. It was meant as a stub to give it a chance to grow. Newport Backbay (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Google test can be deceiving - see WP:GHITS. Add quotation marks and you get 658 google hits rather than 500.000. And most of them seem to be directory entries, blogs, restaurant guides, and the like. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And 355 without duplicates. They don't all seem to be about this "the crab cooker" although most seem to be. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ([by nominator]) A google search provides hardly 100 results, that too many from blog webpages, A google news search provides ZERO results. The article seems pure spam & ad (WP:SPAM). There is no reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:NOTE) (No need for separate article, may be just mention about this in Newport beach article --Avinesh Jose (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep provided notability can be established. The initial spammy version was tagged for speedy deletion within two minutes of its creation, but the tone has already been improved, so I think the "spam" argument is no longer valid. The author appears to be making sincere efforts to bring the article up to Wiki standards. --DAJF (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM Mayalld (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of a lack of notability. What makes this restaurant different or more special than any other restaurant? "It's known for its paper plates" seems a bit of a stretch. Joyous! | Talk 12:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like ad-spam to me for a nn restaurant. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise.. Marcus22 (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added two images from the commons. --evrik ^(talk) 19:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The restaurant is notable, and meets the google test. The AfD was premature. I think that if it had had more than an hour of existence before it was tagged for deletion it might have had a chance to grow and show notability. --evrik ^(talk) 14:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepOver zealous nomination, the article was just created. The business is over 50 years old and does seem to be a bit of a fixture on the So. Calif restaurant scene. Notability can probably be establish, but lets assume good faith and not be quick to 'delete' before editors are given a chance to make an article that can pass muster.Jacksinterweb (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep only because article is so new -- spam argument no longer valid since article's been improved. Seems to have a marginal amount of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete without prejudice~~, lacking independant reliable secondary sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two cites by the Register qualify as independant reliable secondary sources. --evrik ^(talk) 16:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or are they. Seeing that they are identical leads to believe they may be press releases. I couldn't find anything about that on the site. Not sure if it is actual editorial information, or that it is company supplied. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added several more references, linked it to local culture, expanded it and now I'm hungery. Can we speedy close this as a keep? --evrik ^(talk) 18:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those got me convinced, keep. Since there is still some opposition that is more than marginal, it seems not prudent to speedy keep now, even if I expect this AfD to fail. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As someone who's actually been there, it is a landmark establishment not only in Newport Beach but Orange County, CA. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This restaurant is notable because of its history in the city and because it is part of the culture of Newport Beach, unlike most restaurants. This article can grow, but needs time. Alanraywiki (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What's with the "spam" comments? Is the owner posting menus, coupons, and slogans? We have notability standards, might as well use them. The Orange County Register is a significant, reliable source - the major paper for a population of nearly 3 million, and the fourth largest circulation paper in California. Other references include the Oakland Tribune and some business publications. The restaurant is notable because it is famous, iconic, and historical. It gives context to the community. An understanding of the business, culture, and community of Newport Beach and Orange County more generally includes an understanding of the place. The sources [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22crab+cooker%22+%22newport+beach%22&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=1999&as_hdate=2002&lnav=d2&ldrange=1975,1991&hdrange=2003,2005. [11] call it "celebrated", "very successful", "famous", "an institution", "landmark", and "world famous". Wikidemo (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough sources that say this place is notable to justify the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks like a reasonable article. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 01:51, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Tryl[edit]

Per WP:BLP and the relevant essays WP:HARM and WP:COATRACK, there's no need for a separate biographical article on Luke Tryl. While he's well-known here at Oxford, his fame nationally stems solely from the Irving and Griffin incident, which can be adequately covered in the article on the Oxford Union; this article is basically a coatrack with very little information about the rest of his life. (Full disclosure: I do know him personally, but that has nothing to do with my belief that this page should be deleted.) A redirect might be acceptable as a compromise solution, but I'm putting this up for community input. Walton^One 11:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Oxford Union per nom. Local fame does not justify notability, and if this article stays it will remain a coatrack for the Irving/Griffin incident, which will be a POV nightmare... Cricketgirl (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Oxford Union is one of the major fora for debate in the UK, so I don't think that there should be any doubt that any president is notable. The article should be expanded to provide an NPOV, not deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The debates at the Union do not regularly warrant a mention in local Oxford media, let alone that of the UK. Union publicity still refers to a debate in 1933 as being ground breaking - The King and Country Debate. This is hardly a sign of a leading forum for debate in the UK. Question Time and Any Questions on the BBC are arguably considerably more major as debate forums in the UK.

Like I said, I know him personally, and I doubt we could draft a full biographical article; although I could certainly find out information by asking him, very little information about his life prior to the Presidency has been published in reliable sources. Furthermore, bear in mind that the Union has a new president each term - that's three presidents a year - and most don't attract the level of media attention that Luke has, so it's implausible to assert that all Union Presidents are notable. Walton^One 23:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - 10,000 articles online, interviewed live by BBC News, CNN International, ITV, and most importantly THE CHERWELL, his actions single-handedly resulting in a global debate, a mass protest, police scuffles etc... Iheartlongden 13:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete / Redirect if you must - At this point only relevant for Irving/Griffin story, which is suitably covered in the Oxford Union article. All other information on the page is of no particular interest to the wider public outside Oxford. Union presidency does not warrant an entry, as said before, there are three of them per year, most of whom will not have achieved anything particularly noteworthy in terms of wikipedia by that point in their life. - Charles M (sorry, don't have an account) 07 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.131.14 (talk)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matanuska tundra[edit]

Article does not assert notability -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 11:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it's not a hoax its WP:OR. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be found, although what would constitute reliable sources for this bit of drug lore is a bit mysterious. FYI, this article is about a strain or brand of marijuana, not about some bit of geography in the Arctic, as the title might suggest. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. You know, government documents identifying this strain of Cannibus (DEA, DOJ, FBI, or so on) might work as a reliable source. Court documents from a notable case would as well. I have to believe some agency has a list of different types of weed, if only for enforcement purposes such as tracking origins or growing operations. High Times might also work as an independent source, though that publication obviously has its own bias. The crux of the matter here is that the notability of this particular plant is not apparent. So, delete for lack of notability and reliable sources, though I think that some sources might exist for this sort of thing. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Do you really believe that any variety of this plant "grew and developed wild in the Alaskan Tundras", as was claimed in this article for a related variety? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well... no, not really. I was speaking in more of a general sense, as there are indeed strains of pot that might have sources that meet WP:RS. This one, obviously, is not. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 23:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. If anecdotal evidence from thousands of regular cannabis users isn't good enough for you, I suggest you do some serious research as "official" sources of information regarding cannabis strains are extremely hard to come by.

Do a Google search though. You'll find about 774 hits under "Alaskan Thunderfuck" with quotes and 9,600 without them. "Matanuska Thunderfuck" with quotes will get you 3,980 hits.

nowhere does it say it grew without human intervention though it is definitely possible. Cannabis is an extremely hardy plant. You can grow it anywhere. Alaska in the summertime is light jacket weather at worst and the sun stays out for a long time Soulpiercer7 (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)soulpiercer7[reply]

But it does say that a related variety "originally grew and developed wild in the Alaskan Tundras". Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the whole lot of these articles, most of them are fictional strains of marijuana which only exist in the smoker's own delusional minds. Coccyx Bloccyx 16:44, 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 11:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edgelake Plaza[edit]

Very non-notable mall in Wisconsin, totally fails WP:RS. Way too small of a mall to have ever been notable.

I am also listing its sister mall, right across the street, for the same reason.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:37, 22 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) 10:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom RMHED (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment- nomination is flawed, your basing notability upon size, read WP:BIG. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm basing it on WP:RS. The fact that they're two very small malls is immaterial -- I nominated the two malls since there aren't any reliable sources on them, and no assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my apologies, I must be misinterpreting "Way too small of a mall to have ever been notable." Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vegaswikian 06:20, 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 wasdelete as garbage. DS (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bevurllei willssonne[edit]

Probably hoax - Googling gives nothing (the Miro Art Gallery leads to an art college), and the name seems to be Beverly Wilson..! Stephenb (Talk) 09:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. The lack of a Google presence for a 17th century French painter does not necessarily damn it. The lack of a presence on Google Scholar is more concerning as is the lack of sources. The name and claimed alias adds weight to concerns of a hoax. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:59, 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. Prolog (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punk metal[edit]

It violates multiple Wikipedia policies and is a general mess. These policies include WP:NOR and WP:CITE. Thundermaster^TRUC 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 09:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you be a bit more specific of exactly which polices it violates? Lugnuts (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can see nothing about it that justifies a deletion. Definitely needs cleaning up, yes. But deletion seems excessive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.191.86.14 (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's been no reliable sources provided since its last deletion discussion (or ever), so this article may contain a fair amount of original research. CloudNine (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Punk metal is a legitimate musical genre. The article does need heavy clean-up though; the only source I've been able to come up with is [12]. Patzak (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NPOV is also blatently violated. DragonDance (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge or redirect to Crossover or Crossover-trash. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. While this article is unsourced, it has links to more detailled articles that are sourced, and most of those articles link to it. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made up umbrella term. All the geners on this already have there own articles no reason for this information to be repeated here. Ridernyc (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Based on the citation given above (and my admitedly limited knowledge), "punk metal" appears to be an historic term from the 80s that does not apply to contemporary genres. It further appears that this article contains not only original research but that this OR is based on a mistaken belief that anything with both punk and metal roots qualifies as "punk metal". Crossover or Crossover thrash does need to be kept in its own article, however. CAVincent (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment crossover thrash can simply be merged into the the thrash metal article. Ridernyc (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think Hardcore punk is quite enough. NSR77 ^T_C 21:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. The description given is largely the same as Hardcore punk and we already have an article for that. A1octopus (talk) 18:42, 6 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 Redirect to European Potato Famine... and then speedy deleted by User:Fram as an A3 (unlikely redirect). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English Potato Famine[edit]

Unverifiable. There are only 8 Google hits for this term, only two of which are independent of Wikipedia[13]. More damning, there are no Google Scholar hits for this term[14], nor Google Books[15]. Combined with the fact that the next article created by this author, Rijk Van Roog, is a clear hoax, I propose that we delete this article. Fram (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. This is either an inept bit of point-scoring or (more likely) simple trolling. --Folantin (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No hoax - Keep then merge with newly created article - "English Potato Famine" is no hoax (as neither is the Dutch Potato Famine of the same time). Potato famine struck throughout north-western Europe in the mid 1840's. However, in comparison to the Irish experience, the effects elsewhere were to create a food crisis, rarely verging on a true famine. An exception to ex-Ireland Europe are the Scottish Highlands, however, which deserve special treatment as they were particularly harshly struck, and the social/economics effects of the crisis were destroying for the Highlands. The topic would be better treated as three articles: Irish Potato Famine, Highland Potato Famine, and European Potato Famine. I had proposed to start the latter article before. I suggest that Cornish Potato Famine and English Potato Famine be merged into that, as they stand no realistic chance of becoming more than just stubs and would be better treated in the pan-European context. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There was famine everywhere, but do you have any evidence (reliable sources, that is) that the "English Potato Famine" is ever called thus? If not, can you point to some sources (historical books, scientific journals, ...) that discuss this potato famine in England? A it stands, it is unsourced and has a title that is unused elsewhere, so turning it into a redirect would still serve no purpose. Fram (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll not close this, as I may seem to be too involved in this by now, but the article should be deleted as a copyright violation of Cornish Potato Famine (thanks to Sony-Youth for bringing this indirectly to my attention). Fram (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible to copyvio a Wikipedia article given that WP articles are GFDL-tagged...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's perfectly possible to copyvio, since the GFDL requires attribution, and none has been given here. Please see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Fram (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close has already been rightly redirected to European Potato Famine. MLA (talk) 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CGI animal adventure movies[edit]

This article has had a notability tag sitting on it since May. A Google search turns up nothing but forum posts and Wikipedia mirrors. Simply put, the fact that CGI movies sometimes have animals in them is not part of human knowledge. szyslak 08:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but the fact that CGI movies sometimes have animals in them is part of human knowledge. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I really meant "part of encyclopedic human knowledge". szyslak 08:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep, it's a list and could use a little more text, but I don't see what the harm is in keeping it, many of the movies mentioned are noteable, and the list might prove useful for someone. --.Tom. (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL and WP:NOHARM are basically what your argument comes to. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I see little value in this list. It's just going to get out of date and get forgotten. --Rtphokie (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure of reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Seems like a recurring trend in recent movies, and I'd bet there are sources out there on the trend itself, but I can't find any. - Chardish (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:10, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bilingual worship songs[edit]

Pointless list from the point of view of an encyclopedia. Nothing notable about the subject. Wrong title as well (they aren't bilingual, they are translated), and there are thousands of translated worship songs (from any language to any language, no reason to restrict it from "English to Spanish".). If something is unethical or not is not our business, we deal with the noteworthy, encyclopedic things. Basically, this is just a directory, and WP:NOT a directory. Fram (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That a song is translated into Spanish, or any other language, doesn't set it apart in any way. szyslak 08:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list notes that these are "legally translated" then includes many old public domain songs as well as recent copyrighted songs. The list might be useful to someone wanting Spanish translations of English praise songs, but per the nomination seems to fail WP:NOT since it is an indiscriminate list. Edison (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A cleverly disguised catalog of songs recorded by Paul Wilbur, made by throwing in other pieces that might be bilingual worship songs Mandsford (talk) 23:08, 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 11:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Master Sword - Continued[edit]

Subject does not fulfil our notability guidelines (WP:N); the only coverage available seems to be ModDB news entries written by a member of the project. Marasmusine (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no substantiation of the claim that it's not noteable. Do you have any information on how many players and fans it has, how widely it is know, or if it has been mentioned anywhere that you don't necessarily know of? Google returns 190,000 hits, most of which seem to be about some other "master sword" in other games, but I don't have the time to scan them all - did you? --.Tom. (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A google search for "Master Sword Continued" returns a rather more modest 3280 hits; the first hundred or so hits are download pages, directory entries and other trivial mentions. The onus is on contributing editors to provide assertion of notability, particularly with mods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marasmusine (talk • contribs) 14:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of WP:N. JJL (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect - Not notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to redirect it to? Marasmusine (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a place to publicize your pet project. - Chardish (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Your creation might be cool, but Wikipedia is not a place to show off how good you are in modding. 1yodsyo1 16:16, 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 no consensus so the article is kept. The arguments on both sides make sense. Consensus seems fairly evenly split. The one change that seems to have some support and logical power is to rename the article to Next Australian federal election. I randomly picked a country (Germany) and found Next German federal election as an example. Not to compare Australia with Germany, but the context of future elections in both countries seems very similar. (This example is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument about keeping this article or the validity of the German article. It is only used here as a guideline to the renaming of the article to be in line with other articles of this type.) Pigman☿ 21:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian federal election, 2010[edit]

Australian federal elections are not held on fixed terms and there is no way of knowing when the next one will be held. There is nothnig that can be written on this topic at this stage that would not be pure crystalballery, including the date. This is a contested PROD, tag removed with the rationale - "removed PROD, have some sources about the next federal election" Needless to say, this does not address the fundamental issue of not knowing anything about the election and any sources will be only speculation as well. Mattinbgn\^talk 07:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Melburnian (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but change article title to Next Australian federal election to overcome misleading title as done for Next Bangladeshi presidential election, Next German federal election, Next Greek legislative election, Next Palestinian general election, Next United Kingdom general election, Next Serbian presidential election, Next Danish parliamentary election. Article now has some basic, but valid content. --Melburnian 11:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - LOVE that idea. Would fully support any change to that. Auroranorth (!) 12:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also article says nothing. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The next election could be anywhere from 2008 to early 2011. Serious crystalballism - Peripitus (Talk) 08:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't know anything about the election yet including the date. In fact, there has been an early election the first time after the election of a new Government every time since World War II (1949, 1951 - 1972, 1974 - 1975, 1977 - 1983, 1984 - 1996, 1998) Depending on how things go in the Senate, there may well be one again. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can it be speedied on total lack of meaningful content? Anyway, delete per above. Cricketgirl (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Chances are good that the next election will be a double-dissolution in 2008. Lankiveil (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I know everything about it is a bit crystal-ish, but the fact here is that there will be an election, and if it does happen in 2008, 2009 or 2010 the articles name can just be changed accordingly. There has been talk about how the libs can get back to power over in our local rag, and i think that information of that sort should be added to the article. Twenty Years 15:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carnac the Magnificent says Delete. 17:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastordavid (talk • contribs)
Delete. Nothing worthwhile to write in that article until the next election campaign is officially launched. Not to mention that we don't even know whether it will indeed be in 2010. As for Twenty Years's concern, whatever may be written until then would probably be easier to find in other articles. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 21:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a need for expansion, but there is enough potential information to justify keeping the page.Thewiikione (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And how exactly would the article expand if there are no reliable sources out there that can predict any of the happenings related to the 2010 election? Plus, the article doesn't provide much context on what the election is, rather, on that the election is to be scheduled for that year. Looks like a clear cut delete to me. Spebi 08:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That a federal election will happen within roughly 3 years is known, but nothing else is - not even the degree of swing that the opposition will require to unseat the government, as there's almost always a redistribution in between elections which changes margins around a bit. This will be a very useful article as the campaign draws closer, but it's beyond premature at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigHaz (talk • contribs) 09:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An article with no meaningful content. Additions to this article at this point would be purely speculative Even the article title is speculation - as Federal terms of office are not fixed there is no reason to assume the next election will be in 2010. A more accurate sentence would read
"Elections in Australia are held at the Prime Minister's discretion but may not occur significantly prior to the three-year mark unless approved by the Governor General following Senate rejection of a piece of legislation twice within the term. Otherwise, elections must be called within three years of the first meeting of parliament (Constitution, s28). The next Australian Federal election will therefore occur sometime after about mid-year 2008 and before January or February 2011 (depending on the date of the first Parliament following the 2007 election)."
Euryalus (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. WP:CRYSTAL states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." and cites the next US election as an example. The only difference I can see is that the year is uncertain. The election we just had could have been as late as 2008. This didn't stop the 2007 article from being created with the "2007" in the title, shortly after the 2004 election. There is currently no meaningful content in the article but a "election calendar" section, as in this revision of the 2007 election article, would be entirely useful, accurate, verifiable data. I'm not sure when parliament is due to sit again so I can't do the calendar myself. -- Chuq (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I understand the point you're making but future election articles are generally only valid where there is at the very least some useful data to add (for example, candidates or major policy themes). They should not be created so far in advance that there is nothing useful to say. Where they have been created this far in advance, they are usually deleted (see here for example). I would support an article on the next Australian election in say, 18 months when the date and likely leaders will be clearer. For the immediate future we have no useful information other than that there will be another Federal election one day and it might be at any time within the next three or so years. This doesn't notable enough to justify the article. Euryalus (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That exact article is used as an example in WP:CRYSTAL as to what should be deleted. It's equivalent would be Australian federal election, 2013 or something similar. This article is more similar to United States presidential election, 2008 (eg. "the next one".). So far as the Aus 2010 article goes, we do know by what date the election must legally be called. We do know the latest it can be held. We do know on what date the senate terms expire. Barring anything unusual, the election is going to happen. it's a textbook case of what is allowed under WP:CRYSTAL. People write these policies for a reason, so that we only need to have discussions like these once! -- Chuq (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's a considerable difference between the next US Presidential election and the next Australian federal one, though. In the US, they're already campaigning for the party nominations, so there's a wealth of content that can be added about who's running and whatever else. In Australia, they haven't even sworn the new PM and his cabinet into their positions yet, so the smoke hasn't really cleared from last Saturday. Except in the sense that all politics is election-driven, there's not anything approaching an election campaign on yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're correct about this exact example at WP:CRYSTAL. To clarify my point, the quote is: "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2016 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." Applying this to the next Australian election article - preparation is not in progress, speculation about it is not well documented and the article cannot be considered an appropriate topic because nothing can be said about it which is verifiable and not original research. Euryalus (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The point of my longwinded comment being - just being the next election is not notable. There needs to be some verifiable information to make the article more than an empty shell. This article has no such information and none will be available for a long time to come. Euryalus (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Great argument by Chuq - why should the US get its article so early and Australia can't? I would suggest that 2010 would be appropriate but 2013 (or whatever year it's held in) is not. Auroranorth (!) 09:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, because the US election is next year, and so is closer than 2010, and therefore there are more reliable sources out there and there is already discussion about candidates in the election, and other content related to the topic – nothing can be said about the 2010 election right now. Spebi 09:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 2008 U.S. presidential election article was created in 2003, nominated for deletion, and survived. We didn't even know who the sitting president would be at the time! Note that I don't have any particular affinity for this article, I'm just wondering why the inconsistent application of policy? If this article gets deleted, it will be recreated over and over by people even if they read the policy. I'm not a stickler for needless procedure/policy, I just don't see an obvious reason or precedent that indicates the article is inappropriate. -- Chuq (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have the ability to prevent pages from recreation for a reason, and I don't really see how keeping this article will do much more than please those who don't read policy, and save them from the effort of recreating the article. I'm not complaining that this is a "violation of WP:CRYSTAL", I'm complaining about the fact that the US election and the 2010 election are being compared to each other. It's quite obvious that there is content that one can use to make an article out of about the US 2008 election, but there's pretty much nothing out there about the upcoming 2010 election apart from the fact that it will occur in 2010 (unless Rudd or whoever is in government decides to delay it until early 2011, hypothetical, but meh), and so it serves pretty much as a fork for unsourced rumours that are obviously untrue. Should more information become available about the election, I'd be happy to have the page restored or support a complete rewrite of the page containing only the information that is sourced reliably. Spebi 09:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Comment - the point is not solely the amount of time to the next election. Its the facts that a) preparation is not in progress; b) any speculation about it is not well-documented and c) nothing, not even the year it will be held in, is verifiable. In 2003 preparations were already under way for 2008 Presidential campaigns. Sitting Presidents are rarely defeated after one term (four times in the last hundred years) and are never defeated in primaries, so serious Democratic and Republican candidates were already preparing for 2008 in 2003. The US campaign machinery and fundraising is also of a scale that requires many years of buildup, especially given that there is no such thing as uniform party support for any candidate (unlike Ausralia). So - a 2003 article on the 2008 Presidential campaign might be justified. This doesn;t of itslef justify an article on the 20?? Australian election campaign, for the reasons outlined above. Euryalus (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. As I said, as more reliable sources that verify new facts that are uncovered about the elections are found, I am happy to support the recreation of the article. As it is right now, as just a placeholder, assuming that the election will be held at all, and if it is, in 2010, I see no valid reason to keep the article. Spebi 09:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that's a worldwide view you're taking, there. We can safely assume that the election will be held. Auroranorth (!) 10:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. There you go again, "assumming" that the election will occur in 2010. That's all anyone can do, "assume" things about the election, but provide no reliable sources to verify these things that are being assumed. Who knows? Rudd (or whoever is in government) may decide to delay the election all the way until early 2011, and so the election won't be in 2010. You can't "safely assume" anything will occur in the future, hence why we have policies like WP:CRYSTAL in place, so articles like these aren't created. CRYSTAL says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." – terms go for three years, but I don't think that elections are scheduled as such, as said above by someone. I'll say this for the last time – there are no reliable sources to guarantee that the election will occur in 2010. Spebi 20:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Australian Federal parliamentary elections are not "held every three year" as the article claims - they're held within 3 years of the new parliament first sitting or any day before this if the PM wants an early election as the Federal parliament doesn't have a fixed term. As the parliament won't sit until early next year the election could be held as late as 2011 so the article is fundamentally wrong. More to the point, we have no way at all of knowing when the election will be held at this time, so any article which sets a date for the election is pure crystal-ball gazing. It's likely that the election will be in 2010, but there's no reason at all to assume this at the present. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The 2007 article was created before the election was called and at that point the election could have been held in early 2008. Auroranorth (!) 13:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I don't think that the 2007 article should have been created back in 2004. Looking at the early versions of that article (eg, [16], it was clearly cystal-ball gazing and wouldn't survive today. Just how wrong those predictions were (eg, Latham leading the ALP and Costello leading the Libs) highlights the fact that nothing at all can currently be accurately predicted about the next election at this stage. --Nick Dowling 22:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - How come the Phillipines gets a 2010 article: Philippine general election, 2010?? Auroranorth (!) 13:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I don't know anything about the Philippines electoral system, but I'd suggest that the existence of other stuff isn't a good reason to keep the article we are discussing here. The presence of a reasonably detailed Philippines article doesn't address any of the problems raised with the Australian article ovr the course of this debate. Euryalus 19:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree, please stop comparing this to elections of other countries with different systems of governments. They are not all the same, and I think we've established why this article shouldn't exist, anyway. Spebi 20:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Even though WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a valid point, I would ask that participants keep that in mind. Auroranorth (!) 01:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Moving to Australian federal election, 2011 after further research showed the most likely date would be in early 2011. Auroranorth (!) 03:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The reference you've added is the timeline for the election which we've just completed, and says nothing about when the next election will be. Australian federal elections are almost never held in the first few months of the year and the PM would be criticised if he waited much more than 3 years after the election to call the next election (as Howard was criticised in early October), so 2011 is highly unlikely. As noted above, new federal governments normally call an early election so 2010 isn't guaranteed either. Face it, this article is premature and is pure speculation. --Nick Dowling 04:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Fixing the reference now. Auroranorth (!) 04:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The Senate election part is definitely not speculation. Auroranorth (!) 04:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Those two references, when taken together, simply state that the election has to be held by early 2011. They don't say when the election will be held so don't support the use of 2011. The senate part is also speculation as there's no fixed date for the election either as it's ultimately going to be held on on whatever date the HoR election is held on. I'm no expert on the mechanics of Senate elections, but I believe that once the Senate rejects a bill three times Rudd also has the option of calling a double dissolution election in which the entire senate is up for election. Given that the Australian federal parliament doesn't operate on fixed terms, we simply cannot predict the year the next election will be held on seven days after the last election. Furthermore, in a parliamentary democracy it's not possible to predict who the candiates will be this early from the election either - both Rudd and Nelson can lose their jobs if they make bad mistakes before the election. It's probably not going to be feasible to create an article with reliable and properly sourced material on the next election until 2009. --Nick Dowling 04:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As soon as we know when the date the parliament next sits (which will be February, probably the 5th or 12th) then we will have verifiable details of the date at which the next election must be called, and latest possible date of the election itself. That would be verifiable, accurate information about the next election. -- Chuq (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        But all that would give us is a single sentance (eg, "the next federal election must be called by 1 February 2011, but will probably be called before this date"). That's not enough for an article. --Nick Dowling 09:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it is more detailed than that - I have already pointed out this revision above as an example. -- Chuq (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        With the exception of the final section of that revision (sourced to the constitution et al), which is not an overly long article and doesn't seem like the best advertisement for what to do with article space, everything else in the revision cited was unsourced speculation, which isn't a great look at all, particularly since the majority of it can only become more concrete around 2 years from now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As I noted above, the first version of the 2007 Election article which was created in 2004 demonstrates exactly why it's much too early to create an article on the next election. The 2004 article was nothing but unsourced crystal ball gazing, most of which turned out to be completetly wrong. As there are no reliable sources on anything concerning the next election other than the date on which the election must be held by (and even this isn't going to be the date, or probably even the year, the election is actually held on), the article simply can't be justified yet. --Nick Dowling 22:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I suggest we keep it as an estimate until the House meets. Auroranorth (!) 07:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and Australian federal election, 2011 - until it's been called (or until it's not possible to call it in 2010 or 2012), I think this is too crystal-ish. Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 07:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you would have agreed to not creating Australian federal election, 2007 until 17 October 2007 then? -- Chuq (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was set to say "delete", but this comment by Chuq gave me pause. Australian federal election, 2007 was created on October 11, 2004 ([17]), and that was pure crystal-ballery. The current version of Australian federal election, 2010 is already far superior, containing as it does properly referenced information about the latest possible date of the election, and also the list of senators up for re-election. Oh, furthermore, for precedence sake, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. presidential election, 2008. Deletion discussion held more than three and a half years prior to the election. The state of that article at that time was [18]. --Stormie 08:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been remarked upon before, the American electoral calendar and political system allows a considerably more detailed article at a much earlier point in the election cycle than many other systems do. Additionally, the fact that a different article was originally created several years ago by a user engaging in crystal ballery and wasn't nominated for deletion doesn't intrinsically explain why this article created quite recently by a user engaging in the same activity should be kept. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's also worth noting that Wikipedia's standards are much higher now than they were back in 2004, so just because an article survived in 2004 doesn't mean that it would survive today - the 2004-era election article wouldn't stand a chance of survival today. --Nick Dowling 09:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is nothing to be said about the upcoming election until later in time when there is some clarity. At this point, there's not even the hint of when the election will be called beyond legal bounds on dates. -- Whpq 17:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Even though the next election is expected to be in 2010, that is not yet certain at all. As above, anything that the article says now can only be speculation, as any sources about it. _Jame§^ugrono 06:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see that it matters all that much that we don't know the exact date: if that's an argument to delete does it also mean that we cannot have this article until (in the case of the 2007 elections) 6 weeks before and only after the PM has notified the GG. The article is a useful placeholder for templates and the like and contains useful information now. We're not talking about endless strings of future elections, just the next one only. —Moondyne 08:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too much Crystal-balling with the likely possibility that one or more senators will retire or leave. Leaving the page would mean that it requires constant updating. Policies or opinions are also likely to change during the course of Labor's term in office. PookeyMaster (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe Chuq is correct on this one. --Kieran Bennett (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Next Australian federal election as Melburnian has suggested. I do agree with the nom that it is a bit early for someone to have created this, but here it is, and already it is developing into an article worth reading. It will come as no surprise that there is already a growing pool of news about the next election, more will be released each day, and you can bet your last Australian dollar coin that there is planning going on. Deleting the article now will only cause this disrupt^H^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussion to occur again, and WP:SALTing the page only restricts the creation at the right time, whenever that is. John Vandenberg (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For better reading if this suggestion is implemented, I would use "43rd" instead of "Next". Note the Canadians have already done this (40th Canadian federal election) at least in part due to their presently unstable minority system in which a single vote of no confidence could bring on an election at a moment's notice. Orderinchaos 10:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure - I would think that most people will not know that the 43rd Australian Federal Election is the next one, and I'm not aware of any practice of numbering of Australian elections. --Melburnian (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Next Australian federal election. This is the next national election to be held in Australia adn there is verifiable information in the article on when the election must be held by and which Senators will be facing re-election. It therefore meets WP:CRYSTAL as an event almost certain to take place and with everything in the article being verifiable. Davewild (talk) 18:52, 8 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 11:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator Versus Scream[edit]

Non-notable. Does not meet WP:MOVIE. Google returns 0 result. Not even an Internet meme as it has less than 400 views on YouTube. Originally prod'd. Remove by article creator with "a real film, made by a real production company" summary. KTC (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JJL (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author also created a page for himself at Jon Craig. This should also be deleted for the same reason. 128.186.118.112 (talk) 14:12, 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 no consensus to delete. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Handbra

AfDs for this article:

This article was previously nominated for deletion and survived with several editors calling for further references and that the article was "well written and useful." After reviewing that debate and the article content over the past several weeks, I removed two unacceptable references (links to photo galleries of "woman using handbras") and removed the unsupported statements afterwards. I also tagged the section titled "Modern prevalence" as synthesis, since it relies not on the use of the term "handbra" in media but rather on the action of woman cupping their breasts in their own hands. This does not support a "modern prevalence" of the term in culture, but rather a loose association of incidents where women made the action described in the article. There are two sources cited wherein the term "handbra" is actually used, however only one of them described it with any real context (though poorly), quoting a photo editor describing what he calls a handbra. That same person is cited in a different source later in the article, though he doesn't provide any context for a handbra and only says "she was fired because she refused to do handbra." Again, this is synthesis. With all the extraneous material removed, this article is reduced to one sentence with a poor source that could be (but probably shouldn't be) transwikied to wiktionary. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this is the third nomination. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum I want to quote from a relevant section of WP:NEO: "Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)" I believe this article fails that protocol. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is one of those articles where something is quite possibly notable, but it is not always called the thing that is used for the article's title. Handbra is obviously a neologism and I didn't find any more sources worth adding in a search of Google Books or Google News Archive. On the other, er, hand, I think there's potentially something to be said about the all-too-common pose either using the palms or crossing the arms in front or even hiding the breasts with the knees. That might fit into glamour photography or (less appropriately) softcore but is also seen in commercial and fashion modeling. Just a thought that ther emay be an article here under a different name, or a merge/redirect if there's a more appropriate article I'm missing. --Dhartung | Talk 09:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cut down and Merge Seems to be a real, if not widely used, term, but Cumulus Clouds and Dhartung are right. Add a mention in glamour photography and/or Wikionary. Alberon (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I expected to be voting dl but a Google search convinced me it's a sufficiently widely used term (and was fun also). Could use more sources. JJL (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the returns in a Google search involve "So and so doing a handbra" or "Gallery of women using a handbra," or the occasional offcolor blog talking about how awesome handbras are. None of which is citeable material, no matter how much fun it is to look at. In addition, that same google search revealed that someone has already transwikied this material to Boobpedia. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant info to glamour photography or something, seeing as most of this has already been transwikied to Boobpedia. (*snicker* Boobpedia...) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As I said in the last AFD: The Sarah Michelle Gellar Saturday Night Live appearance was a memorable illustration of the technique, although I do not recall her using the term "hand bra" when she did the parody of a "Holding your own boobs magazine," even though she was in fact using her hands as a bra. That parody was in turn a reference to several then-recent magazine articles with female celebrities maintaining a shred of decency by using their hands as a bra. One of the references in the article uses the term explicitly to refer to a celeb doing the same thing in a photo shoot. The article should include the novelty bra which consists of a pair of plastic hands forming a provocative novelty bra. Edison (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The SNL citation violates WP:SYN, since it doesn't actually use the term "handbra" and is being used to promote the "prevalence" of the term when, in fact, it's never mentioned in the show. Also, the reference is to NBC's episode guide, which only talks about "Holding Your Own Boobs Magazine."

I've already addressed the other reference you're talking about, where Paul Merrill says "We call that shot 'Hand Bra'..." This is another very weak reference since it doesn't define the term, Merrill isn't notable enough to carry the entire article by himself and it looks like he was making a joke anyway.

Last, I strongly disagree about incorporating the "plastic hands" bra because A) there aren't any references for it B) it will encourage editors to insert copyrighted or unencyclopedic information and images into this article and C) it has nothing to do with the term as the article defines it. Cupping your own breasts and wearing a plastic bra are two entirely different things. Adding both would be confusing and, frankly, pointless. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "looks like he was making a joke anyway" I think you are now engaging in original research to disparage verifiable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. There's just not enough here for a non-stub, sourced article, and nothing it could be merged into. Add to that the fact that Wikipedia is not for articles about neologisms and this article should be gone. - Chardish (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, neologism. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notified the people at the last AfD--both those who argued to keep and to delete--including the nominator that time round. (Except the now banned Alkivar, who refused when asked to give a specific reason and just said "common sense"). I think this is the way to make a better informed decision. I did not comment that time, and am still unsure; I want to hear what they all have to say. DGG (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missed her because her !vote wasn't in bold. got it now. I notified everyone else, both sides. I'm not 100% accurate, but I'm not a total beginner at this. DGG (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alkivar is not banned and should be notified. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand holding your own boobs = handbra, just like Iraq War = Second Gulf War, and The Great War = World War I. Its about the concept, not the term. The article used to be about the word, but the other uses of the word have been deleted, now it is about the concept, which includes synonyms. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you reconcile that with the section of WP:NEO I've cited above? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 4 references seem fine to me, unless you don't trust the New York Times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times article doesn't mention "Handbra" at all and doesn't stray much further than the Janet Jackson story. This is synthesis and therefore cannot support the article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Multiple reliable and verifiable sources from across teh globe are used to define the term and to provide examples of its use. The usages couldn't be any more straightforward, so WP:SYN is a non-issue and WP:NEO is completely and totally irrelevant, given the sources provided in the article as it currently exists. I'd suggest that some of our delete voters ought to revisit the article as it actually exists now. Alansohn (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking at the same article I am? There's only one source and it's very poor. Did you read anything within the nomination post? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not: I see the following reliable and verifiable sources:

^ a b Turner, Janice (October 22, 2005). Dirty young men. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2007-04-10. “The cover model's breast is partially concealed by her cupped hand. 'We call that shot "hand-bra",' says Paul Merrill, launch editor of Zoo and now in charge of international editions, 'We use that a lot.' He flicks to a cover showing a model whose hair extensions cover her nipples: 'This is hair-bra,' he says.”
^ Rosenthal, Phil. "Cover story so bad, even FCC sees through it", Chicago Sun-Times, February 3, 2004. "Remember the handbra on the cover of Rolling Stone in 1993?"
^ "Capitalizing On Jackson Tempest", The New York Times, February 4, 2004. Retrieved on 2007-05-04. “In 1993 she posed topless for the cover of Rolling Stone. Then, her nipples were obscured by a pair of male hands, not a silver broach.”
^ "News from Paul Merrill - Editor, Zoo", Press Gazette. “The deal has fallen through over a suggestion she do 'hand bra'.”

I've placed the usages and definitions in bold, if that helps. I count more than one, all of them using the exact term described in the article. Which one is the poor source? This is neither a synthesis, nor a neologism. Alansohn (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that Paul Merrill was quoted twice, which I addressed in my opening post. In the fourth citation (Mr. Merrill's second appearance) he commented not on the term or its definition, but rather used it in referring to the termination of a model (something I also addressed in the first post). The New York Times article has one sentence about Janet Jackson on the cover of Rolling Stone, which does not make any mention of the word "handbra" and only refers to another person covering her breasts with her hands. Using this source in that article is unpublished synthesis. The Chicago Sun-Times article -though it uses the term "handbra"- does not define that term and only employs it in reference to Janet Jackson's appearance on the cover of Rolling Stone. Its usage in this article is unpublished synthesis. Mr. Merrill's first reference (and first reference of the article) is a very poor definition of the term for reasons that I have already addressed in my opening post. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I think this is a pure mathematical transitive relationship. The mainstay of every class in logic. Source A calls it a handbra, source B describes the same thing as covering the breasts with a hand. Therefore covering breasts with hands is a handbra, which is supported by the three other definitions. Its logic 101, or even High School LOgicunpublished synthesis is drawing novel, non logical conclusions from multiple texts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am greatly impressed by the circumlocutions and rhetorical somersaults you've used to ignore the clearest possible definition of the term and references to the word. That the same individual was quoted twice in two completely different contexts in two different publications -- including the most specific definition possible for a term you insist does not exist -- is irrelevant; these are two different, intellectually independent sources. Your excuse for discarding the Sun-Times reference to an iconic magazine cover using the handbra, claiming that it "does not define that term", takes the cake. Making the connection between handbra and Janet Jackson's Rolling Stone cover is not a synthesis, it's any reasonable person using their brain. Your demand that every reference to the word must provide a textbook definition goes beyond unreasonable. This is denial at its worst. Alansohn (talk) 06:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references to Janet Jackson's Rolling Stone cover are viable because they violate one of the central tenants of WP:NEO, which I've addressed in the opening to this nomination. It states very clearly that an article should not exist because a lot of different sources use the term, but instead that there are an abudance of references about the term. Please see WP:NEO for more information. I would also encourage you to read the first post in this nomination. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, once again, I've already covered why Paul Merrill's second reference is not a viable citation. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dance around in denial all you want, but the sources are there to demonstrate notability. Your unjustfiable synthesis of WP:NEO and WP:SYN goes nowhere. P.S. Unless you renting a place there, Wikipedia has "tenets", not "tenants". Alansohn (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NEO (again!), we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. Seems pretty clear. If there's ever a source that discusses the handbra and it's historical appearances throughout photography, great! Right now it's all use and no discussion. WLU (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems extremely clear that WP:NEO is a non-issue being abused here as an excuse for deletion. From The Guardian (again!), which you still refuse to comprehend, is a reliable secondary source from one of Britain's largest newspapers defining the term in the clearest possible manner (with the definition in bold, again!) quoting an individual who is a recognized expert in the field: Turner, Janice (October 22, 2005). Dirty young men. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2007-04-10. “The cover model's breast is partially concealed by her cupped hand. 'We call that shot "hand-bra",' says Paul Merrill, launch editor of Zoo and now in charge of international editions..." Please point to the Wikipedia policy that requires "historical appearances throughout photography." Making up and misinterpreting rules, and ignoring the clearest possible evidence of notability is simply unacceptable. Alansohn (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that article about lad's magazines, that mentions hand bra once? The article that's not a discussion of hand-bras per se, but does use the term (once)? The article is not about the hand bra, but it does use it. This is evidence that the term is used, not that it's notable. There's no discussion. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the page cites sources as primary sources, and synthesizes the information to make it's point. There's no significant coverage, it's all one-off mentions. Remove the OR/SYNTH and you've got a list of the times handbra is mentioned, maybe some links to pictures of handbras. There's no discussion, it's just mentioned. Wikitionary. WLU (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean an article in an independent nationwide newspaper. That's the source with the clearest possible definition of the term that you have chosen to ignore. At least a claim of non-notability relies on simple ignorance of the multiple reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article. The claim that the article is OR/SYNTH is a complete and total falsification. The excuses for deletion are only getting more desperate and more pathetic. Alansohn (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling that the "clearest possible definition" speaks volumes about the notability of the term. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki - no need for an actual article that I can see; transwiki keeps the content, allows it to be linked in the articles that currently use it, but we don't have to keep nominating it for deletion. WLU (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki - let's face it, there's no useful content that couldn't easily be placed elsewhere. This article is just an excuse for a titter. Deb (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article as written is encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - that doesn't addres it's notability, the primary criteria for it being kept on wikipedia. WLU (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Are we to expect other articles for Handjockstrap, Handblindfold or Handearmuffs? The only reason this article is here is that it gives editors an excuse to insert scandalous pictures of seminude women from flickr. See this edit where User:Backstab55 inserted a (copyvio and since deleted) picture of girls in a dorm shower, which they justified saying that it "represented a handbra." This is unencyclopedic and should not be kept on Wikipedia. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST is not a valid argument for deletion. There are no articles for Handjockstrap, Handblindfold or Handearmuffs because there are no sources to support the term. There are ample reliable and verifiable sources supporting "handbra" (no pun intended). While I fuly support your removal of a copyvio picture, your insistence on deleting these sources from the article does not negate the fact that there are ample sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to explain how those sources pass WP:V, or address any concerned raised by WP:NEO. The best you've done is called it "abusive interpretation" without explaining why. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All concerns have been addressed already. I like your "You have yet to explain how those sources pass WP:V". Easy: 1) Go to article. 2) Click on sources. 3) Verify that they exist. Try it. If the words are causing trouble, a picture is worth a thousand words. Alansohn (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That explanation does not address the concerns about the sources failing WP:V and WP:NEO. Please explain this disparity. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a disparity. WP:NEO has already been addressed, In addition to sources that use the term, multiple sources are provided that are about the term. Rather unambiguous directions have been provided as to how to confirm that the sources are verifiable. As stated at WP:V, "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." The material has been challenged, and your challenge was accepted. Go to the article and click on the sources. Confirm that each source matches the quotation identified. If it does not, you have successfully proven that the particular source is not verifiable. You have not done this for any of the sources. The disparity here is that you raise issues, they are addressed in full compliance with Wikipedia policy, the clear evidence is ignored, and the question is asked all over again. Alansohn (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A blog from a model does not pass WP:V. An article about a blog which uses the term "Three cheers for Handbra" fails WP:NEO because it employs, but not use the term the article is about. An article that uses the term (but does not discuss its meaning) as is seen in every citation concerning Janet Jackson, fails WP:NEO. A video about people concealing their breasts with their hands fails both WP:V and WP:NEO. Zoo magazine is hardly an authority (as has been mentioned earlier) in the field of photography. It is an Australian men's magazine publication. It is not an authoritative, scientific or academic citation. A website giving pointers on "nude photography" is not a source because it lacks editorial oversight and is not a published source. "Nuts sexiest pictures" is a thumbnail gallery of seminude women. This could never be considered a source because there is no citeable content on the page. The best source in this article is the editor of Zoo magazine making a passing comment about a photoshoot he had with one of his models. He does define the term there, but his definition is very weak. This is the only source in the article which passes WP:V and WP:NEO and even then it is exceptionally poor because it is one line and does not fully define it. In addition, since this is the only true source in this article, the only citeable statement is a dictionary definition of the term (attributable only to Merrill), which fails WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. All references included in the "modern prevalence" section are not about the term, but rather employ it in the body of the article. This fails WP:NEO. This also fails WP:SYN because that section is a collection of works which use the term, but never establish that it is "prevalent" in any sense. That material, therefore, fails WP:SYN because the claim of "modern prevalence" cannot be attributed to any of the sources, but is rather an attempt by editors to make that claim by way of its employment in those articles. That section could be renamed to "Handbra in popular culture," but this probably wouldn't help the case to keep it because then the article would be one sentence followed by a trivia section. If you would like any further explanation please let me know. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under the DMCA websites are published sources. Posting a photo to a website starts the clock ticking on copyright, and all websites are copyrighted by default. An article from the Associated Press, not carried by any newspaper and only appearing on their website, is still published, when posted on the Internet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Nowhere in Wikipedia does it say that definitions have to come from scholarly sources such as other encyclopedia and scientific journals. Lad magazines are legitimate sources, especially since they have an entry in Wikipedia. Please stop just pointing us to WP:V and WP:NEO without citing a specific sentence there. Also reread the point about synonyms, this article is about the concept, not the word. Any number of synonyms, or descriptions of the concept can be used per "Gulf War" vs "Iraq War". You wouldn't exclude coverage of the war using the alternate name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has improved a lot, if only for having references now using the word handbra. Garion96 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those references fail WP:V and this article fails WP:NEO. If you disagree, maybe you can explain why. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and Alansohn sum it up nicely. Garion96 (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My summary There are three very good references to what defines the term that establish notability from reliable surces. There are plenty of others to show the term is in use in Lad magazines that verify the usage. The entries called "blog" entries (above), are not user submitted. They are the headers to the blog forums, that are provided by the Internet site, and not readers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think the nominator has a good reason to question the sources since they are not reliable. But I do think that the article is notable and could be improved.Chris! _ct 00:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the concept is clearly notable, even if the term might not be, but unless someone can suggest a better name (Cupping one's breasts?) then it seems reasonable to ignore any rule against this. But it streches credulity for anyone to suggest that the words "“The cover model's breast is partially concealed by her cupped hand. 'We call that shot "hand-bra"'" do not define the term "hand-bra". DHowell 04:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki -- WP:NEO is quite clear. Passing usage, even if expressed in terms of a definition, is insufficient. "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." There aren't any books or papers about the term except Wikipedia and Boobpedia, and "wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose." Anyway, Boobpedia does this subject better than Wikipedia ever will. (Btw, I had to use "Edit this page" to insert this comment, rather than the section button. What's with that?) Andyvphil 18:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the Guardian? Toilet paper? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article is an example of "books and papers that use the term"; it is not about "hand-bra". As I said, WP:NEO is very clear about this. Andyvphil 11:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Handjockstrap I believe the term of art is called "rock out with your cock out", when used by the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Anyone find any references to other names for it? [19] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree strongly with Cumulus Clouds above that the only rationale for this article is that "it gives editors an excuse to insert scandalous pictures of seminude women". Incidentally, though this does not affect the vote itself, I would be very interested to know if there is a noticeable gender difference in voting patterns on this AfD. RolandR 12:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) the subject is sufficiently well verified and WP:SYN does not apply as there is no "new position" being advanced (since therm term clearly already exists. Remember just because an article is about scantily clad women and is humerous, doesn't mean it isn't encyclopedia type material.Earthdirt (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you address concerns that the bulk of this article is made up of statements referenced by sources which use the term, rather than sources about the term (per WP:NEO)? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you still don't understand the difference between notability and verifiability. We have links to three definitions posted from various sources to show the exact definition. The other links verify statements that the term is in use in various publications. All the links are for verifiability of the information in the article. Notability is when the term is used by reliable sources, which we see in the Guardian and Zoo Weekly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites a thumbnail gallery as a source. If this idea were that notable, we wouldn't have editors trying to cite statements with pictures from blogs. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does, and proudly so! Whats your beef with it? Its a perfect definition from the caption of a photo in Nuts (magazine). Since when did photo captions become worthless? The Associated Press, Getty Images, Corbis and UPI release tens of thousands of photos with captions, each year. All are reliable sources in their original form, in their archives. All are reliable sources when published in secondary and tertiary outlets in newspapers, books and magazines. If you think Zoo Weekly or Nuts (magazine) are not reliable sources, work toward having the articles on them deleted. Your also confused by blogs as a reliable source. Me writing a blog, is not reliable. Zoo Weekly creating a blog, and writing a header to that blog is reliable, the people adding comments under that header are not reliable. Blogs written by "experts in their field" are reliable. Even the New York Times has blogs from their writers. The blog by Dick Cavett at the New York Times site was used to rewrite the article on Jerome Irving Rodale. Remember, handbras existed long before the term was coined. Reread what I wrote about synonyms, and the differences between "The Great War" and World War I. The term WWI wasn't created till WWII. It would be foolish to exclude information created between 1914-1938, just because it used the older term for the same concept. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also cited funniestgadgets.com as a source which does not contain a caption and is not a reliable reference. This too demonstrates a lack of sources proving notability. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this article isn't about "synonyms of Handbra" or "people cupping their breasts with their hands" its about the term Handbra which has 1 source that actually describes the term and has the rest of the article dedicated to explaining all the times the term was used (and in what capacity). This is stupid. This also contradicts WP:NEO, and you have not yet been able to form a cohesive argument to counter that assertion. The blog citation that you are trying to defend uses -but does not describe- the term "Handbra" only once, in a quote that goes "three cheers for handbra." This is not a source. This does not demonstrate notability. This is cruft inserted to bolster the length of the article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- "three cheers for handbra." is a source for usage. It is not a source for the definition, do you understand the two types of things you can reference? There is a definition, and there is usage. Your making a poor attempt at the Straw Man attack. Your attacking the usage references, and saying they do not define the term. Your using the Straw Man to attack the definition by attacking that it comes from a caption to a photograph. All are invalid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for usage violate WP:NEO. Here is the relevant passage from that guideline: "Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)" In this case, books and papers aren't even cited, it's the tail end of a passing comment on a blog. This is why everything about Janet Jackson's Rolling Stone cover should be removed. I've cited that line several times in this AfD and you have not yet responded to it.

- Sorry, when I hear the word "cruft", I know the argument is hollow. You have run out of bullets and are now throwing the gun at me. Me making up a word is a neologism. A word clearly and uniformly defined by three sources, under editorial control, move the word from "made up in school one day" to the world of accepted, if not common, usage. An exact definition is used consistently by all three sources. The 6 other references show the usage in Lad culture. You are trying to attack the sources as unreliable, but still have not offered any evidence that they are unreliable sources, just your personal opinion. You say the sources are not under editorial control, but offer no evidence. Also, the article isn't about the word, its about the concept. The concept originated long before this word came into usage to describe it. I get the feeling your just arguing for the sake of a good entertaining argument. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be impossible to discover who is at the helm of funniestgadgets.com since their about us page does not contain any useful information. That website is also a blog which fails this relevant portion of WP:V: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Beyond that, the reference you have tried to make within the article is to a picture and not to any relevant text on the website, since there is none which contain the word "handbra." This is not a source. It should be removed, but isn't, since you and Alansohn have both camped the page and are aggressively reverting any edits that alter its current form. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep each time we look at it, there are more sources. One source that is unreliable among many does not mean we delete the article. The concept is certainly notable, the term is now the usual one. I fail to see the basis for the objections--over literal reading of not dictionary , it does not mean we delete an article that has a definition within it . DGG (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 1 source. The rest fail WP:NEO or the criterion at WP:RS calling for published or editorially reviewed sources. This article will never have that. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you are doing some original research. What evidence do you have that the sources listed are not under editorial control, and which sources? The Guardian, eHow, and Zoo Weekly are all well established entities, whats your beef with them? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For goodness’ sakes, the subject is notable, and the sources, though not great, are sufficient. Richard Arthur Norton has a point, whatever the article is called, there should be an article about this concept. This is the third nomination, let’s put some of this energy into expanding needy articles like this one, instead of trying to delete when they’re not perfect. --S.dedalus (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but cut Personally, I don't think Handbra actually merits a place on an enclopaedic site like Wikipedia. However, the article's photo has been on Wikipedia for 2 years already and this article has been in existence for at least 1 year. So, perhaps it can be 'grandfathered' but reduced in size? Just a suggestion Leoboudv (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:51, 8 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 11:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Third Batman Film[edit]

Article about film expected in 2011 that doesn't even have a title yet. WP:CRYSTAL. Dougie WII (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. JJL (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons that Star Wars sequel trilogy should have been deleted in the first place. - Chardish (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:10, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RSSOFX[edit]

The only uses of "RSSOFX" I can find on the Internet are this article and http://www.rssofx.com/, a blog site with three posts which takes much of its content from Wikipedia. The company which created the term and set up this blog, Jwaala, doesn't have its own article. I've improved the article a bit but there is still only the one source and no suggestion of importance or significance – Gurch 07:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability that I can detect. Tim Ross·^talk 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable at present. (Could be re-created if notability can be proved at a later date.) -- MightyWarrior 17:16, 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 Speedy Delete G1 as nonsense created by vandal. ELIMINATORJR 08:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sex n sweat[edit]

Hoax article, album doesn't seem to exist Dougie WII (talk) 07:17, 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. DS 18:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Burke[edit]

Article on former professional wrestler. I highly suspect this is a hoax. Google reveals a notable biker with this name (but no article, alas) and the one provided reference seems to pan out, which would suggest a wrestler by this name also exists, but some significant claims to notability are flat-out incorrect. For example, in the "Pro Wrestling" section it says

"Al won his first Professional Wrestling Championship Belt on December 7, 1990 in Denver, Colorado to become the IWA Intercontinental Heavyweight Champion."

However, the IWA Intercontinental Heavyweight Championship article says this title did not even exist until 2002! Another glaring inaccuracy:

"June, 1994 Al Burke was rated number 7 contender to the UWF Heavyweight Championship title that was held by Doctor Death Steve Williams as listed in Pro Wrestling Illustrated."

But the UWF Heavyweight Championship article says the title was no longer around after 1987. No references are provided for the above two claims and many others in the article, and my recommendation is strong delete unless very convincing sources to support this article are found. Pegasus «C¦T» 07:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I noticed this page earlier and was thinking about marking as speedy delete myself but didn't because it had a long history from multiple editors and I'm not an expert in wrestling and googling didn't return a high number of good hits. I did put a notability template on there but it looks as if it was removed. ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 08:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No good third party sources cited, inaccuracies are indeed glaring. This is definitely a hoax - Pro Wrestling Illustrated doesn't list contenders to any promotions title, and contenders all the way down to number 7 are definitely not announced, No.1 and MAYBE a No.2 contender for any given title are announced by the promotion themselves in accordance with the way they want their storylines to go. Bmg916^Speak 13:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the IMDb page checks out, so even if there's some incorrect content the individual seems to be WP:N. JJL (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - IMDb pages are not always reliable as they can be purchased. NN, vanity. --Endless Dan 14:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted a previous version of this person's article was deleted. Also, article claims he faced the Steiner Brothers in the WWF - despite their run beginning in 1992 one year after his supposed stint with the WWF. --Endless Dan 14:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, neither strong, weak, nor speedy - This does appear to be a real, potentially notable person. But the article is atrocious and there are no references. The factual inaccuracies posted above should give everyone serious pause. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Weakest possible keep The article is in considerably better shape than when I made that previous statement, and the references are coming in. I still don't know, however. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Endless Dan 16:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ~~as a hoax. Nikki311 17:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)~~ I never meant that this person didn't exist, just that some of his accomplishments were fabricated or embellished to make him look more notable than he is. However, I still believe he isn't notable. Winning a few non-notable wrestling championships and being a non-notable extra or having non-notable bit parts in movies doesn't make someone notable. Nikki311 14:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if this is a hoax, someone has gone to a LOT of trouble: Getting the IMDb page for him, getting him a website and MySpace page and then faking all these pictures [20], [21], [22] (note particularly the clip from The Wedding Singer), getting several photos with named captions of him on a UWF web site [23], an article in a legitimate newspaper [24], etc. There may be some bad info. in the article but the subject himself is surely notable. JJL (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to respond to at least a few concerns raised.

The Universal Wrestling Federation promotion as well as its heavyweight title User:Pegasus refers to is in reference to Bill Watts promotion (Universal Wrestling Federation (Bill Watts)), however the article clearly states Al Burke worked for Herb Abrams promotion (Universal Wrestling Federation (Herb Abrams)). Also the IWA promotion in question (there have been many promotions which have used the name over the years such as IWA Japan, IWA Mid South, etc.) is based in Denver according to the article although User:Pegasus refers to the Puerto Rican promotion. Wiether this particular IWA is itself notable or not is another story altogether.
As of 1999, PWI did list top ten rankings for five promotions not including international and independent rankings. I haven't read an Apter magazine in ages so I wouldn't know if they do this anymore.
There is an Al Blake who wrestled for the WWF during the 1980s, mostly as a preliminary wrestler, according to these websites ([25][26] [27] [28] [29]) although they do confirm the dates given by the article and certainly enough to establish this persons existance.

However, the picures provided do look a little odd at least to me. The facial expressions seem very similar in each photo and his build (ex. Image:MRO.jpg) certainly doesn't resemble this YouTube clip. There is also a Corona commercial he appears in here and his cameo appearance in the Wedding Singer. Just to clarify, I'm not making an argument to keep the article or not. I'm only trying to help establish weither this is indeed a hoax or not. 72.74.214.181 (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It appears he exists, but this article might have too many distortions of fact to be keepable. We could always do a factual, well-sourced one in replacement if/after this one gets trashed. Pegasus «C¦T» 02:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he may exist, and he may be a stuntman, but he is not notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear anyone is disuputing that this is a man with many accomplishments, but having bit rolls in movies and being in a commercial or two does not qualify someone for a Wikipedia page. --Endless Dan 14:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while a person of this name may or may not have done anything within the threshold of notability, from the above it seems that the article as a whole is predominantly hoax material. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:34, 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. Article inappropriate for wikipedia but has been transferred to wikia with edit history. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of RiverClan Cats[edit]

A list of non notable unsourced fictional cats. Clear fancruft and listcruft. The article is tagged as requiring cleanup, being too long, emulating a fan site, lacking citations, being unverified, and lacking notability. S.dedalus (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, though other "List of X Clan cats" lists should also be included. Collectonian (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional animals. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've worked extremely hard on these articles, on getting all the cats down and including the descriptions, and even took the time to organize and alphabetize these. "Non-notable fictional animals"? Have you read Warriors? "Non-notable" is a very large understatement. These cats are vital to the series of Warriors. If you think these are non-notable, you might as well delete every other article on fiction on Wikipedia. I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to delete this. Lakestorm (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please read WP:EFFORT. Unfortunate the amount of effort editors have put into an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia guidelines. I believe there are quit sufficient reasons why this article should be deleted; lack of notability, fancruft, and lack of available “out of universe” sources for example. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Going with what Lakestorm said, this is a contributing list of characters from the Warriors series. This can't be considered listcruft. There is vital information in this article, along with the other Clan character articles, and it shouldn't be rid of that easily. And being that, there are lots of other articles on fiction novels that aren't sourced or cited because the information is given through the books! This is why this is labeled as fiction. Going with that, since ALL of this information is given through the books, this is most definitely NOT fancruft. There is, truly, no reason to delete this article. §ροττεδςταr^{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As I said above, there is no stated notability for these fictional animals, and unless significant out of universe sources can be found, this page cannot be referenced. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)(edit to add) If there are significant external sources available, please feel free to add them. Articles that can only be referenced from the source text are usually considered incompatible with notability and verifiability standards. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The successful deletion of other “Warrior cat X” pages such as this one may be relevant to the current discussion. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:WAF, WP:Plot, WP:RS, and many other polices and guidelines. Be prepared for sockpuppets, last time we deleted a warriors article we were flooded with meat puppets from a warriors fan board. Ridernyc (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You don't have to keep bringing that up, you know. It's really quite insulting. Lakestorm (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment People giving our fandom such a terrible name is a shame to those of us who try and acquit ourselves as real members of this organization. When our articles fail to meet policies, we have to accept it and work to improve things (and do Deletion Reviews if things change) rather than attacking people for doing their job. I believe in my vote (see below) and hope that will help keep the meat-puppet response to a minimum. (edited to add my sig, sorry) Kitsufox^{(Fox's Den)} 18:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Warriors Wiki While it fails many Wikipedia policies, it could be worked into the articles that are already in place there. I see no reason why people's work should be completely disregarded, even though the article in it's current form is not suitable to WWiki, the information that's been accumulated should not be thrown aside. Kitsufox^{(Fox's Den)} 18:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or as Kitsufox said Transwiki This is not just fancruft, it is very useful information on the series. It is long only because of the many cats in the series, if you want it shorter we'll have to do individual charcter pages, and then I'm sure you'll go around deleting all of those too. Wikipedian users work hard to keep these warriors articles safe from vandalism and fanwork. You can tell by many of the discussions on the talk page. ClawClaw (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If individual character pages would be deleted as you say, why is any better if all these non notable correctors are on one page? They’re still not notable. Yes, some Wikipedians work hard on these pages. See WP:EFFORT. It doesn’t make the article notable. --S.dedalus (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination and Ridernyc's reasonings. I think that the other "List of ____Clan Cats" (see ((Warriors))) need to be considered too. Also, do not transwiki because, as far as I know the standards, we do not transwiki articles to Wikia wikis. (Can anyone confirm this?) Metros (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

think you have that backwards, the only wikis we transwiki to are wikia wikis. I was going to nominate the other articles, but I"m in the middle of cleaning up and nominating tons of TV episodes. It's only a mater of time until someone tries to get me banned again. Ridernyc (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I thought we only transwikied to Wikipedia-related wikis (Wiktionary, Wikisource, etc.) and not Wikia. Metros (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT clearly states to transwiki this type of stuff to an appropriate wikia project. in fact there is even a special wiki just for placing things until a home can be found for it Wikia Annex. Ridernyc (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is information that is valuable to the novels - it's more than just cruft in my eyes. This article seems to fall well within the realm of material that consensus among WIkipedia users finds acceptable/encyclopedic. Slideshow Bob (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page cannot be sourced other than from the novel. 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.” --S.dedalus (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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." there is no real world information or context in this article. Ridernyc (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been added to the WikiProject Warriors To-do list. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:12, 8 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 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who items[edit]

Fancruft. Purely in-universe list of non-existent items with barely any secondary sources to establish notability ~~or even interest to anyone other than a Dr Who fan~~. •97198 talk 06:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I struggle to understand the nominator's reasoning, it should be deleted because it will only interest people who are interested in it? On that basis we should delete everything on Wikipedia then. Things which don't exist outside fiction shouldn't be in an encyclopedia? Bye bye Sherlock Holmes, Martians and the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D). The items on this list appear in a host of books about Doctor Who, the fact they're unlikely to pop up in tomes about the Royal Navy (although there's a lot of Navy stuff in the Sea Devils) or Bach isn't really relevent. Nick mallory (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I worded that wrong. What I meant that it shouldn't be kept per WP:INTERESTING, not that it should be deleted per the same argument. •97198 talk 06:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. To answer your other point, here are some secondary sources discussing the things in this list. There are literally dozens of books like these, going into Dr Who 'fancruft' in great detail. Am I going to spend the next six hours sourcing everything in the list? No. Do a host of such sources clearly exist? Certainly. Also, if we're going to delete articles which are purely 'in universe' then are you going to nominate this There's the Rub (Gilmore Girls) because all it consists of is a plot summary? Nick mallory (talk) 06:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Doctor Who Technical Manual by Mark Harris Pub by J.M. Dent ISBN 0 86770 022 X

The TARDIS Inside Out by John Nathan-Turner Pub by Piccadilly ISBN 0 946826 71 4

(Dr Who) Special Effects by Mat Irvine Pub by Beaver ISBN 0 09 942630 7

The Time-Travellers' Guide by Peter Haining Pub by WH Allen ISBN 0 491 03497 0

The Programme Guide by Jean-Marc Lofficier Pub by Target ISBN 0 426 20342 9

Encyclopedia of the Worlds of Doctor Who: A-D by David Saunders Pub by Piccadilly ISBN 0 946826 54 4

Encyclopedia of the Worlds of Doctor Who: E-K by David Saunders Pub by Piccadilly ISBN 1 85340 036 X

Encyclopedia of the Worlds of Doctor Who: L-R by David Saunders Pub by Piccadilly ISBN 1 85340 081 5

Doctor Who: A Celebration by Peter Haining Pub by Virgin ISBN 0 86369 932 4

Doctor Who From A to Z by Gary Gillatt Pub by BBC Books ISBN 0 563 40589 9 etc etc.

Strong Keep. First of all, there is some out of universe material in this article about these in-universe items. See, for example, the listing under J for A Journal of Impossible Things, which mentions the provenance of the prop and the significance of the images in it, or the listing for "Scarf" which mentions the iconic status of the Fourth Doctor's scarf and the fact that there was more than one. More out of universe material is probably needed, but that's hardly a reason to delete the whole article. Second, most of the items are referenced in the text to the primary sources, namely the episodes. Nick has listed a bunch of secondary sources that mention most of these items (especially the pre-1989 ones); although merely listing the resources doesn't constitute citation, it would not be hard, given a bit of time and effort, to apply citations to many of the things listed, if not all of them. That makes much more sense than deleting it. For people who have some interest in the show, this list is usefully encyclopedic, and much of what is in it is highly notable. Let's establish this notability with real-world info and citations, rather than deleting it in the mistaken belief that nobody cares about the subject matter (or should). --Karen | Talk | contribs 06:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mostly per Karen. Will ^(talk) 09:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't agree with everything on this list, but this is a useful page and saves lots of minor articles about these subjects. Stuart DD _{contributions} 10:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, A tidy artical which in turn keeps other articals tidy.--Wiggstar69 (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a whole passes notability and public interest (several books published on this topic). Does indeed help keep other articles tidy, per Wiggstar. An established acceptable form of spin-out article for major fiction franchises. Jheald (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all of the above, this is not a fancruft list as there are several books on this subject as Nick mallory pointed out. Doc Strange (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as actually reduces fancruft; this list was created as a response to afds such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychic paper as a target for items which in themselves are barely notable. Tim! (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant yet admited keep: It can certainly use some "in line citations" and a second look at WP:LIST#List content... And maybe Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)--CyclePat (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC) p.s.: Maybe even speedy keep? --CyclePat (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:CRUFT2, fancruft is neologist abuse based on intellectual snobbery which is essentially I don't like it and so insufficient reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could probably use trimming up a little, but I really don't se any reason to delete it.Umbralcorax 17:27, 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 11:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herbie the Erbie[edit]

Author seems to be barely notable, via Google test VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 05:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Text of article seems to be taken directly from Amazon reader review. Marjaliisa 23:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the review is taken directly from the description on the Amazon page, so it's a copyright violation, too.... Marjaliisa 23:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Molimo1 (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC))It is a NEW book and a NEW character, that is why it is not that notable on Google. Try Yahoo, Try typing in the FULL book name. Look at Barnes and Noble.com, Target.com or Amazon.com. It is painfully obvious that this is just a documentation article of the book and the character. NOT an advertisment. PLEASE reconsider this deletion. (Molimo1 (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete for now, not yet notable. All books aren't automatically notable. -- Dougie WII (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BK. The only coverage I can find is the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article indicated in the article, which is a three sentence announcement, certainly failing the significant coverage criterion. The publisher is PublishAmerica, which has been "accused of being a vanity press". The company does seem to expect its authors to assume substantial marketing costs[30], which brings us here. --Dhartung | Talk 06:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)(24.209.129.179 (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC))The last time I visited an encyclopedic source, it contained information on things that could not always redily be found from other sources. This was the point of my article. Go ahead and delete my article, but I have met your criteria. An encyclopedic source should be conducted as such and not run requiring criteria that seems to be more fitting to entry prerequisites in the Guiness Book of World Records. I provided documentation on my article. You are unfairly judging it purely on the fact that you don't find the publisher worthy. My documenting source, although legitimate is not long enough for you, and you blame me for trying to market this book though your website. I have not used any influential text causing any readers to want to buy this product. I have however, provided information about the character and the authors. There are many things contained in an encyclopedia that are not incredible feats, not legendary; like rainfall amounts in india, or how cans are made for example. Delete at will and have a great day.[reply]
Delete this cover note material (or from wherever it was taken). --Stormbay 18:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and in fact might have qualified for a speedy as spam. In any case, there are no reliable sources to establish notability. Being published is insufficient. -- Whpq 17:48, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depository Bank of Zurich[edit]

Fancruft. An article about a nonexistent, non notable bank in the The Da Vinci Code. Doubtful notability even for a fans of the book. No secondary sources likely. S.dedalus (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this obviously non notable article. --Stormbay 19:42, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of the Death Note[edit]

Comment. Not sure what I think about this matter. My first thought, when I saw it pop up on my watchlist, almost ready for its deletion debate, was that it needs sourcing and some real-world impact, thus my "vote" was going to be Keep. Now, however, I want to see what others have to say about this article's fate before, or if, I cast my "vote". Flyer22 (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mostly on the basis that it is complete plot information, which is completely unsouced. If this is so important it should be merged into the main article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable part of a fictional universe and I doubt enough secondary sources could be found to satisfy WP:FICT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, main article already covers this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 09:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mostly fancruft and trivia type stuff that fails multiple guidelines as already noted. Collectonian (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FICT and is mostly original research and trivia as well. --Farix (Talk) 12:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The summary of the rules in the main Death Note article should be sufficient. KyuuA4 (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above, including WP:NOR, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:FANCRUFT and WP:TRIVIA. Greg Jones II 21:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Farix (Duane543 04:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:11, 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 all. - Mailer Diablo 11:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Tower B[edit]

Delete the entire complex is in process of being deleted here as not notable, surely the various buildings making it up are similarly not notable.

Also nominating:

The Aspect Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Executive Tower B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Executive Tower C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Executive Hotel Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Executive Tower E (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Executive Tower F (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Executive Tower G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Executive Tower H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Executive Tower J (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Executive Tower K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Executive Tower L (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Executive Tower M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All: Don't be misled by the "See Also: List of tallest buildings in Dubai" link, as none of these are actually on the list. None of these are notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe there is some limited notability for the complex as a whole due to its sheer size (US$650M) and some press coverage. This indicates a merge/redirect might be best. It does not appear at this time, however, that the Executive Towers article will be kept. --Dhartung | Talk 07:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no references, no notability claim. These separate articles should be merged into one, but it looks like that article ~~is up for deletion and non-notable as well.~~ Has been deleted already. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 21:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. No claim of notability; all of these buildings certainly do not warrant individual pages, especially when the article about the entire complex was deleted. Rai-me 14:26, 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. Secret ^account 22:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guiding Hand Social Club[edit]

Reason: Not notable to the general public, exagerated claims of real world fiscal value. Alatari (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Um, what is your reason? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
- ~~Reason was lost in back page editing cache. Alatari (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete, no real claims to notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable, not to mention poorly sourced. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Both the guild and its actions featured in articles in niche and mainstream printed publications, as well as a variety of online news sources. As for whether or not the real world value was exaggerated, that is a point for a criticisms subsection, not a reason for deletion. NTRabbit (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Griefer article. These are all the notable sources I could find (someone failed to do their homework): http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/worldsinmotion.biz/2007/11/the_gray_area_in_governance.php http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/joystiq.com/tag/TeamKillers http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/igniq.com/2005/12/16500-eve-online-heist.html http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_19/121-A-Deadly-Dollar.2 http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/pc.gamespy.com/pc/eve-online-the-path-to-kali/726643p1.html http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/jun/15/games.guardianweeklytechnologysection2 Alatari (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alatari, speaking of homework, although I can appreciate Alexa operating as a cache, none of those links show you anything but the standard traffic details page for the linked site. SOme kind of browser frame issue, I imagine. --Dhartung | Talk 07:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It can be confusing: Press the green link under the web site's name on the Alexa results page to see the original source page. I give them in Alexa format to rank the site's user base. This kind of sourcing is used in the Category:WikiProject Video games for evaluating the significance of an external link and source. Alatari (talk) 08:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but to EVE Online. It's both a widely known example of griefing and a significant historical event in the EVE universe, but ultimately more about the latter (since griefing takes different forms depending on game mechanics or loopholes). The Escapist article, for instance, is centrally about the GHSC event, but in bulk content more about griefing in general. And the griefer club really isn't notable beyond this; it's sort of a WP:ORG1E problem. But it's a valid search term and there are sources, so we can put that in an article where it's most appropriate. --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge to EVE Online. They're notable for a single heist out of thousands in the game's history; not worth a section--at most a single-sentence mention. A merge isn't necessary for a single sentence. They weren't the largest (EIB, most likely, or the recent BoB corptheft), or the first (Morbor's pyramid scheme), nor were they by much of a margin the most publicized. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 08:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the references in EVE Online is more than sufficent to highlight the event, as Dark Shikari stated scams happen in EVE every day, it is impractical and unencyclopaedic to list each and every scam as a seperate article. -- RichardSlater ^(About)/_(Talk) 13:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reluctantly: seems to be an entirely in-game event, and apparently the developers of that game consider this sort of play to be normative. The sources given seem generally not to be reliable within the meaning of our policy. (One more game to scratch off the list of things to try.) It isn't really a good example of griefing - "Serenity Now" disrupting an in-game funeral of a World of Warcraft character whose player died in real life strikes me as even more despicable and notorious - since apparently both the rules and atmosphere of the game in question allow this sort of thing. Belongs on the Eve Online wiki, if there is one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What they did, essentially, was to move all of the things which their corp had in a 'free for all members' inventory into their own personal inventories, then gank the corp leader, destroying her ship and causing her to respawn elsewhere. Every corp I have been a member of has suffered from the former and the latter... well I think he highest I've seen is around 200 times in one place in an hour.81.178.78.226 13:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: They are noteworthy IMO. There are a lot more obscure things on Wikipedia213.214.57.217 (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Hicham Vanborm[reply]
- comment Just because there are other bad pages is no argument for keeping another bad page. What's the WP link for this, I've forgotten. Alatari (talk) 04:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Ryanjunk (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Guiding Hand Social Club were featured in such publications as new scientist, when discussing emerging behavior in MMOs. Both noteworthy and important. Adqam (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Good note on the social interactions in MMOs as well as a part of 'net history that is still talked about today on MMO scenes, in addition to the publications provided. A merge, might be acceptable however, if it does not had more bloat to an article and is easily referenced by other articles as an example of MMO social dynamic. RogueTrick (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: This swarm of meatpuppets is coming from posts like this calling on people to spam keep votes. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 07:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Of the only three references, the first is a press release by the game producers; the other two are simply links to Wikipedia articles which, of course, are not reliable sources!! Other than that this is an unsourced in-universe page. TerriersFan (talk) 21:46, 8 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 Good Girl Gone Bad. There was a clear view that the main material should be retained in some form with merge being the consensus position, I an going to merge the lead paras, Recordings, and infobox material but not the Setlist or Tour Dates. However, the history will be intact so it is a matter of post-AfD talk page discussion whether more or less should be merged. TerriersFan (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Girl Gone Bad Tour[edit]

Why should this particular tour have an article? All musicians tour in support of their albums, why should we let Wikipedia be an ad service for Rihanna? Since the bulk of the tour has not even happened yet, isn't it reporting on the future in a weird way? Heavy Breather (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No further reasons why delete. Other artist like Beyonce had tour pages in Wikipedia months before the onset of the tour, see this. Also, its a matter how editors write the article. If it looks like an advertising, then request for clean-up. Thank you. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)}04:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I claim it is not-notable, to use the term I see here in this forum. How does saying the strange phrase "No further reasons why delete." address this claim? Heavy Breather (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Like non-notable tour. We usually nominate articles for deletion having no assertion (or could not be asserted as notable) articles. But you said already. This tour is notable, deletion is not the extremist solution, just have to find sources to support. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)}00:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Info about an international concert tour? Definite keep, and it is definitely notable. Needs more references (and I tagged it). - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major tour by a notable artist is likely to generate gobs of press in reliable sources, and by that reasoning is notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)*Delete The press is about the musician, not the tour. Notability is not inherited. The article as it stands is a list of concert dates and locations, and has no information that is encyclopedic. Also, where are these sources? AnteaterZot (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into the album or artist page. -RiverHockey (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tour has been covered in the press, and ample reliable and verifiable sources support notability for the tour. The level of details is appropriate for a major tour and would overwhlem the parent article if merged. Alansohn (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right now we only have your word for it, not one source showing notability is on the page. AnteaterZot (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the page has been there for months and deletion is not the solution. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Articles where sources clearly exist, even if not cited in the current version, do not require deletion. If sources clearly exist, but the article is not currently citing them, its a clean-up issue and not a deletion issue. For example, a google search turns up lots of stuff. Its mostly blogs and the like, but there are also reliable sources interlaced in there, such as [31] and [32] and [33] and [34]. The article does not need to be correctly written or even cited to be kept for notability reasons. It only needs to be demonstrated that the subject of the article meets the requirements or WP:N and in this case WP:MUSIC. Sources exist, they are reliable, it is notable.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 22:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those are some pretty lamé sources. 1 is about her photos, not the tour. 2 is a Wikipedia mirror and isn't "about" the tour. 3 is from Azerbijian and mentions the tour, and 4 is from celebrity-gossip.net and again is not about the tour, it's about an award she received. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fine you got me. I am worthless and stupid. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't take it that way, Rihanna's tour is what fails notability, not your efforts to save an article on Wikipedia. AnteaterZot 18:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Guys, we don't have to quarrel on this. Jayron got the point about sourcing and Ant too. Deletion is not the ultimate decision on this article: its about sourcing.

--βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge to Good Girl Gone Bad. Looking through the Google News hits, there are lots for "Good Girl Gone Bad" but very few that even mention the tour. When the tour is mentioned, very little is said about it: [35] is pretty typical, which limits it coverage to which continents she has performed on. Either we should just delete this outright, or at best we should make more mention of it at Good Girl Gone Bad, since this is a tour done to promote the album. Mango juice^talk 17:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rihanna or Good Girl Gone Bad, I highly doubt that Wikipedia is like Pollstar thus listing tour dates of artists or bands. Much better to summarize it in either one of the above mentionned two articles.JForget 23:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge struck out prior vote. Upon further consideration, a merge seems most appropriate. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:53, 8 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 11:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All About Craigslist[edit]

Delete unsourced fork of the sourced article at Craigslist. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think this separate article is necessary given the complete context in the main article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely redundant with the main article, no reason for it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, and because this has a distinct cut-and-paste feel to it. I'm not saying it's a copyvio; in fact, I did a Google test and it passed. szyslak 08:48, 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. W.marsh 04:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rocwater[edit]

Non-notable band. Q ^{T C} 04:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, already tagged (not by me), let the speedy run its course. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Given that there as absolutely no assertion of notability, this discussion probably could have been avoided. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:32, 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 11:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of global optimization[edit]

There appear to be several notable theories of global optimization. This isn't one of them. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads basically like an ad for a printing company. Not sure which one. JJL (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per JJL. Reads like an advertisement, and NN. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. TGO is all about the Global view of a Printing company and managing it from the Global view perspective.. WOW ! ! !, it's Global! This strikes me as patent nonsense, being so confused and unrelated to the named subject that it's irredeemable. (Then again, the phrase theory of global optimization just screams complete bollocks all by itself.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. The subject might be some minor, minor aspect of management theory, but it doesn't hold water on its own. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:51, 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 due to the improvements made during the discussion phase.--JForget 23:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire (Buffyverse)[edit]

Encountered this when closing an AFD on a duplicate article to this one. The article consists nearly entirely of in-universe language inferred from episodes of the show, and is almost completely unverified original research. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and Wikipedia is not a plot guide. Core desat 03:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom's reasons (every single one). - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This piece of fancrufty original research is not only unverified (not a reason to delete), it's largely unverifiable (which is a justification for deletion). I don't see how a sourced article on this topic is possible without synthesis, as I doubt any reliable sources deal with the topic of "the Buffyverse vampires". (BTW: The fan-derived term "Buffyverse" has no place on Wikipedia.) szyslak 09:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I suppose nobody has ever made a reference to the fact that the series deals with Vampires? And I suppose our rule is that any word originated by fans or fan fiction is unmentionable on WP. Just what universe are we in, or does in-universe mean excluding anything written in our own? DGG (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not honestly sure what to think of this. In it's current state, it is completely unnacceptable for Wikipedia, that I agree. However, I'm wondering whether an article on Buffyverse vampires could pass policies if it was rewritten. If it focused on what inspired Whedon during the creation process of the vampires... I remember him saying that he gave him vampy faces and had them turn to dust because he didn't want to show a teenage girl stabbing people on a weekly basis. I also know that viewer reaction to Spike affected the way vamps were treated in the show - they were originally intended to have no redeeming features at all. The Buffy companion book The Monster Book has some good info on Buffyverse vamps, comparing them against Stoker vamps and Nosferatu. That doesn't establish notability though, but there might be academic studies examining how vampires are used as a metaphor for real life or something. Obviously, all these need proper sources, which I don't have ATM, but if the article was rewritten, I could see it passing policies. That's a prettt big "if" though... Paul 730 22:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I was going to ask a similar question about re-writing this article so that it had more of a real-world perspective (for example, comparing Buffy vampires to folklore vampires). I also want to point out that there are articles for Watcher (Buffyverse), Slayer (Buffyverse) and Demon (Buffyverse). I think an article for Buffy the Vampire Slayer vampires could be notable. The Slayer article is also completely written in-universe, but if that isn't an AfD, then I don't feel this Vampire article should be deleted either. (I'm not saying the Slayer article is good, but I'm just trying to say that I feel that if that stays, so should this one.) • Supāsaru 01:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because those others exist does not mean that this should, or that they should. They have to abide by the same rules as every other article. The simple fact that no one has AfD'd them does not mean they meet the criteria, just that no one has either seen them, or care enough to say anything about it. If the Slayer, Demon, and Watcher articles look just like this one, then they probably do need to be AfD'd. Given that this one is currently the only one in an AfD, and you are seeing the reasons, I would quickly go over to those other articles and point out the problems so that they may be fixed before someone does put them up for deletion. Nip it in the bud, don't wait for someone to challenge it later. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There isn't a single secondary source, that I saw when looking over it, that indicates that "Vampires" in Buffy the Vampire Slayer are notable enough for their own article. If it's a certain character, we have character lists for Buffy. If you just want to talk about Vampires in the show, I suggest transwiking all that information to the Buffy Wikia. Unless someone can show that vampires in the show are notable, with significant coverage in third-party sources, then I don't think it should have its own page. Even with some sources, it may be something better suited to the general vampire, under film and television. Someone could probably write up a good paragraph on how scholars have seen vampires portrayed in the series--if they've even written about them. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 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." I would not oppose an article based on secondary sources about how vampires in the Buffyverse differ from vampires in other kinds of lore. Here, we have no real-world context about the relevance of such in-universe information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Buffyverse is the subject of academic studies: just look at this Google Scholar search and our own article on Buffy studies. I'm putting this up for rescue. DHowell 03:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to ask that you all give me a little time to try and fix up this article. I'm going to look through The Monster Book and watch a DVD featurette about the vamp prosthestics, as well as look through some of those Google Scholar links that DHowell was kind enough to put enough. I'm also going to delete all the fancruft that's currently there. I'm not saying it'll be great quality, or even that I'll be able to save the page from deletion, but I'd like a few days at least to try without having it deleted from under my feet. Paul 730 19:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the whole well-known show and movie focuses on vampires and also because an effort appears to be underway to save the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- the reasons for nomination are factually incorrect. This article contains no original research that I have noticed, although the references are in fact lacking. The term "Buffyverse" has been used by Joss Whedon. (Check the buffyverse article itself). This article does not contain any plot guide at all. CatherS 03:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, the nom's concerns were valid, but in trying to address them I have deleted much of the innappropiate material. Look at the history to see that it was just a big plot summary. The "Buffyverse" term is okay under certain circumstances I feel, but not the article title. That can be easily solved with a move though. Paul 730 03:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is still in an in-universe tone and uses mostly primary sources. I think the concerns are still valid. --Coredesat 06:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I asked the nom on his talk page if he was satisfied with the direction the article is going in, but I agree it needs some more work. However, I do think the concerns are in the process of being addressed, and the article is improving. Paul 730 06:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, vampires are the raison d'être of the movie & central to the series' plot. Some of the major characters of the show were vampires, so I find that this article provides a useful context. • Supāsaru 14:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Paul730 has greatly improved the article. It is no longer solely in-universe or a plot summary. Bláthnaid 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current article has sufficient real-world content to build on (good job). Further issues are for cleanup, not for AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After some deliberation, I've decided that I think this article should be Kept. The information that I've added seems valuable enough, if incomplete. My only concern is whether or not there are enough third-party sources to establish notability for an entire article on Buffyverse vampires. I've not had the time or the concentration to shift through those Google scholar sources to know if there's any useable info. If it can't establish enough notability for an individual article, then perhaps down the line this article should be merged into a "Vampires in TV/Pop culture" or "List of supernatural creatures in Buffy"-style page. However, the nominators' issues seem to have been addressed for the most part; the article has no OR that I can see, and is not a plot summary (the IU info which is there exists to provide context for the later info). Deleting this article would only result in a loss of encyclopedic information, info which was not in the article at the time of nomination. Paul 730 22:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per complete rewrite--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:20, 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 to delete. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greendale Mall[edit]

Non-notable mall, fails WP:RS and WP:V, only Google hits are directories and the like. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom (NN). - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - was a retailer/centre finalist for a MAXI award. where are you looking when you are searching? because it seems you use that statement for a lot of Malls that actually are listed in industry related publications. Please do share the places you search with WP:MALLS, we have a section listing several 'Resources' that could use expanding. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"MAXI award" should probably be given context. Even though the ICSC awards it, it doesn't sound notable at all, especially since the mall didn't win. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to assert any notability. Vegaswikian 06:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten, manages to assert notability now while attributing multiple reliable sources. RFerreira 07:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:37, 8 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 SkierRMH (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mozilla Firefox versus Internet Explorer[edit]

Deletion nom was PRODed, but that was removed without comment or fixes, so I am bringing it here. Article is entirely original research and redundant with Comparison of web browsers. No referencing, and since we already have a page that covers this, I see no reason for this second article. Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Total OR and lots of inaccurate NPOV violations. Collectonian (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:V might be satisfied, but it looks like a breach of WP:SOAP and WP:NOT Wisdom89 (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. redundant to the Comparison of web browsers article which is superior in quality--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research/possible soapboxing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the above (unnecessary duplicate content). - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 06:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAs everyone above. Alberon (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too POV. Thundermaster367^{Thundermaster's Talk} 13:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with my colleagues, above - too POV for me. I'd think it's a fork from Comparison of web browsers, but it might just be a soapbox. Either way, no. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:57, 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 11:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arcade Legends II[edit]

List of contents of video game compilation with no indication of notability. SEWilco (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough context, NN. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sufficient context, but no assertion of notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Someguy1221 said, no assertion of notability. Tim Ross·^talk 22:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 00:17, 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 delete and first editor indef blocked for this insidious hoax. Pegasus «C¦T» 07:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bromo Airlines[edit]

Hoax article. Google finds zero hits for the name and neither do any of the airports listed as destinations show any sign of its existence. Alleged hub, Roro Anteng Airport (by the same user), also appears to be a hoax. Jpatokal (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VERIFY. — Satori Son 03:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is a hoax. See Google news and Google search's both yield nothing. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quickly and block creator as they are continuing to link it to other articles. --Merbabu (talk) 06:23, 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 delete and indef block first editor. Pegasus «C¦T» 07:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roro Anteng Airport[edit]

Hoax article. Google finds zero hits for this "airport", none of the airlines listed appear to fly there, and above all, the supposed is a highly volcanic wasteland that certainly didn't have anything even close to an airport when I visited two years ago. Jpatokal (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - I've been to Mount Bromo and apart from your description of "wasteland" I whole-heartedly agree with a delete. Sounds like utter bs. --Merbabu (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another hoax created by User:Victor N. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:46, 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 Keep eh, per WP:SNOW. SkierRMH (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotteville Township, Ontario[edit]

Does not meet WP:N and article claims it is defunct and no longer exists, not sure it ever could be considered notable. Possibly a partial hoax. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This guy has added what seems to be a lot of junk to wikipedia,... but... there is a good chance this is legit. Maybe this should be brought to the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ontario? DMighton (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Assuming it is true. Avoiding the WP:WAX lecture, there are plenty of articles about defunct townships and consensus seems to steer toward the "keep" direction. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it existed into 2000 as the article implies, I'd think that there'd be more than 9 hits for it online. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, physical locations such as townships are generally notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 128 google hits for "Charlotteville, Ontario", many of them with that place listed as a birthplace or deathplace on genealogy records, but there is no WP article about a town or village of that name in Ontario, so this must be the place. Snocrates 08:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same place, Township of Charlotteville, Ontario. The government now calls it "geographic Township of Charlotteville". • Gene93k (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as a former town and notability does not expire. Gov't records confirm that it did exist. (Provincial archives [36] point here [37]). The township exists on an 1877 map [38]. More hits: [39] [40] (pdf) [41] • Gene93k (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historical place names are notable per se. Image:Norfolk1880.PNG looks genuine, and seems to confirm the existence of the township in question. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep places are inherently notable and sources listed above establish existence. Whether it currently exists or not (and if not, the details of its dissolution) is an appropriate subject for inclusion in the article, not for its deletion. Alansohn (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW? Bearian (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The snowball has left the building. RFerreira 07:40, 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 not as hoax, but per WP:NOTE & WP:V. SkierRMH (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simcoe Panorama[edit]

I suspect this whole article is a hoax, as the editor who created it has created numerous articles that are 99% false. Even if real, however, this is still an completely unnotable event. Collectonian (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. DMighton (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a hoax ([42]) but I cannot find any sources which would assert notability. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's real, but unable to find any independent coverage, so it appears non notable. Maralia (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per, well, everyone else here. RFerreira 07:41, 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. Secret ^account 22:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atrium Mall[edit]

Non-notable mall in Massachusetts, fails WP:RS Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What makes not notable? Although small in size this is a very successful shopping center consisting with 35 shops and 3 restaurants. It is a luxurious destination center in a very affluent bedroom community 3.5 miles outside of Boston, Managed by the world largest retail REIT. It's success, despite it's square footage, makes this mall not only notable it makes it a phenomenon.--Know_L Mall Guy (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another non notable mall. I wouldn't mind a redirect here though. Either way, it isn't notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anarchia (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One would think that the originator of this article would at least have bothered to mention the mall's anchor stores. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 21:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There being no anchors is caused by the design of the building, as I have now mentioned and linked to in the Article. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 2 RS Cites added. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 13:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply too small of a mall in the US to be notable. Vegaswikian 06:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have mentioned before in several (1,2) other AfD's - Your basing notability upon size is not a viable argument, see WP:BIG. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources are an improvement. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep based on the sources added to the article which seem to just about establish notability. Davewild (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - all the sources do is verify that the mall exists. How do they demonstrate notability? The only attempt is this "The Atrium is a Hotspot within the city" and I got interested when I saw this; a mall that is the hub of city's night life? No, it refers to having a WiFi hotspot!! Sorry, but that is a desperate attempt at notability and I have deleted it. TerriersFan (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After another closer look at the sources have stricken my above comment, had not realisedthis source was a blog and not a reliable source. Davewild (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks significant secondary sources so fails WP:N. Simply nothing notable about this mall and no evidence that anything notable ever happened here. TerriersFan (talk) 21:05, 8 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. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lansing-Dreiden[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Place[edit]

Vague article on a non-notable lifestyle center development in Massachusetts. Seems to fail WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another non notable shopping center. Although, a redirect to the city may be appropriate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to New England Patriots. This thing gets a ton of press in the Boston Herald (I'd cite some, but I have this bad habit of throwing my newspapers out), and some other papers around the area as well, so I'm sure reliable sources can be found. What I'm not sure of, however, if whether it's got enough notability separate from the Patriots...the mall is owned by the team, and there is a "Patriots hall of fame" planned for it as well. So, a merge seems OK to me too. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Just as a note in the main article, mainly because of the HOF. Pats1 ^T/C 01:47, 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 Merge to White Marsh Town Center. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Avenue at White Marsh[edit]

Non-notable strip mall in Maryland, none of the sources seem to be very good. Violates WP:NOT#DIR as it's mosty a street listing, also borderline advertising. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a well-known strip mall and an extension to White Marsh Mall and commerce area. People come from all over the Baltimore area and elsewhere to shop at The Avenue. The article can be improved by describing its history, impact, etc, and changed from its advertising style. The shops at The Avenue are nearly all well-known national and international chain stores like Staples, Barnes and Noble, Old Navy, etc. This is not just an ordinary neighborhood shopping center. Sebwite (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it sound like... well, just about every other strip mall in America. I have already tried to find reliable sources on this strip's history, impact, changes, etc., and have found nothing useful, which is why I've put it up for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you define strip mall, I don't consider The Avenue a strip mall.MDSL2005 (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, lifestyle center. Didn't notice that at first. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable, and Wikipedia is not a directory. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Merge into the White Marsh Mall article. Xyz7890 (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Avenue is adjacent to White Marsh Mall, but not owned by the same company. MDSL2005 (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete It's just another lifestyle center/strip mall, with no notability through reliable sources as said above. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then delete per my discussion below. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been there, it's a generic outdoor mall. The difference in ownership could be mentioned in White Marsh Mall. Kmusser (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before this article is deleted, whatever information in it that is possibly encyclopedic should be transferred to White Marsh Mall, and a small section can be added about it. After that, this title should be made into a redirect to that section of the White Marsh Mall article. After all, someone had suggested merging these articles. Look at the Owings Mills Town Center article to get some idea about how that can be done. Looking at White Marsh Mall and White Marsh Town Center, these are distinct articles about different properties. White Marsh Mall is about the indoor mall building itself. White Marsh Town Center is about the entire White Marsh business area. Currently, this article contains a section titled "The Avenue at White Marsh," and all it says below that is Main Article: The Avenue at White Marsh with no further description. At best, it would be appropriate to transfer the contents of this article there, and edit it as necessary. I would do it now, but first, I would like some comments. Sebwite (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't be opposed to moving the crux of this article to the article you mentioned Sebwite. Seems like the most logical place for it to go. I don't feel that The Avenue in itself meets WP:N, but inclusion in the White Marsh Town Center article would be the way to go. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: I have just pasted the text of this article into White Marsh Town Center, and deleted all but the best known stores so that it does not constitute a list. I have not made any changes to this article, but in the event it is deleted, the most notable information about The Avenue will be found in the Town Center article. If this article is deleted, it should then be changed into a redirect with "White Marsh Town Center#The Avenue at White Marsh". Sebwite (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great Sebwite, I took the liberty of removing the link to the redundant article, which is up for AfD here. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article makes more sense merged into White Marsh Town Center. I propose making The Avenue at White Marsh into a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:17, 6 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 per author's copyright claims, in addition to WP:SNOW. SkierRMH (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inland_admiralty[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Inland admiralty

I can hardly make heads or tails of this article, given its orotund style, but it seems to relate to the "inland admirality" conspiracy theory discussed at Tax_protester_conspiracy_arguments. Perhaps someone with more knowledge and experience of this field could help out. George (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as borderline nonsense, no context, take your pick. I have NO clue what the author is shooting for here, but he or she missed it by a mile. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay - it even says stuff like "But why ... ?". Contains original research.--Dacium (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I saw this when it was first listed and I'm sorry, but I admit that I couldn't finish reading it. This is an essay, comprised completely (100%) of original research, and honestly, I don't understand it. How did it last this long? - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - (c) claimed posting blanked - -

- Admins, please remove the above comment as its author claims copyright to it. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. If the entire comment is deleted as not licensed under GDFL, I note for the record that IP 67.165.182.210, the author of the material, vigorously opposed deletion. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete long-winded nonsense. The length of the comment above mine from the author is also rambling. complete essay. Clubmarx (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - fails WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. Nothing more than nonsense. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, crankcruft. An article about the conspiracy theory is potentially notable, but this presents a "fringe" theory as fact. Mr. Mandalis, a suggestion that may help you go far in life: Don't insult the people judging your work.--Dhartung | Talk 09:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It might be a notable conspiracy theory, but the article itself is hellishly badly written and just seems to trail off into ranting. It also contains a copyright tag like the author's comment above. If it is going to survive it needs to be rewritten from the ground up as it appears to be WP:OR at the moment. Alberon (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I'm somewhat embarassed to say that I recognize the term as a reference to the Stamp Act 1765, which has its own article. With all due respect to the author, I believe the Stamp Act article discusses this issue in greater detail, with less emotion and fervor, than this essay does. Wikipedia's goal is for all information presented to be Neutral and Verifiable. There may be sources that support some of the essay's assertions, but they are not listed in the article. But the critical issue is that this article is not neutral. Even if it discussed the subject from a neutral point of view, as required, the full text of the Star Spangled Banner isn't really relevant to the subject. So, to summarize, the article violates WP:RS, WP:NPOV, is an essay, and contains no encyclopedic material. In its current form, the article must be deleted with, perhaps, a redirect to Stamp Act 1765. I suggest to the author that, if it is his/her intent to post this material to the internet, that another site be found for that purpose. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A factual account of the variety of legal quackery that claims that a gold fringe on a flag magically turns a court into an admiralty court might be worth pursuing as a subsection to some other article, like tax protester, Posse Comitatus (organization), or Sovereign Citizen Movement. The common thread through all of these theories is that their advocates imagine that they have discovered some sort of magical document that relieves them from the duties of citizenship. Reliance on the alleged legal significance of flag fringes is more of the same thing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soapboxing, original research, etc, etc. Pastordavid (talk) 18:00, 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 No consensus --JForget 23:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. box office bombs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Subjective article that is primarily original research, subjective criteria for inclusion, and only one source. It also has no actual list anymore, as they were completely removed during a questioning of copyright issues. In the earlier version with the lists[43], however, you can see that the entire list is subjectively determined by whoever edited the list. I don't see that such an article, with or without the list, adds any value to Wikipedia at all, nor does it comply with WP:NPOV or WP:V. Collectonian (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Delete per WP:NPOV, "bomb" is a highy POV term. Add to the fact that the list is WP:OR and cites only one source... and you have a list that bombs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd disagree about the term "bomb". It is widely used across all media avenues. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I cannot figure out why the list was removed. If the list was there I would say keep, as it is fairly evident what would warrant inclusion on the list. Without the list itself, there isn't much here, and the title is grossly misleading, thus, delete. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at the talk page, it looks it was removed because it was believed to be lifted from BoxOfficeMojo. Collectonian (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because a "box office bomb" is not consistent or clear-cut. International distribution and DVD sales are factors, and not all films will have their budgets public. It'd be better to shape the prose of the article box office bomb to focus on notable examples and their impact. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate list with strong POV and OR. I'm also still suspicious about potential copyright problems with the single source. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Where is this "indiscriminate list"? You know it was removed, right? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I followed the Wikipedia policy on possible copyvio and asked for feedback. See Talk:List of U.S. box office bombs#RfC:Copyright and fair use. A copy of the tables are there per Wiki procedure. Personally, the two comments did not satisfy me and I haven't replaced the tables. Then again, no one else must have been convinced either. The lists are indiscriminate because there is no exclusion or inclusion criteria. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it into Box office bomb? It's certainly a notable and much discussed concept. Unfortunately this article seems to think film was invented as a medium in about 1992.Nick mallory (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as references mentioning box office bombs should be relatively easy to find and the topic is noteworthy enough that such a list is worth keeping and expanding. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While being named a "bomb" is certainly a bad thing, that doesn't make it unverifiable by a long shot, as both the industry and mainstream press is never shy about calling a bomb a bomb. Indeed one could even say being a bomb is a mark of notability in itself: films like Gigli and Ishtar are certainly more rembered and more widely-known than if they had quietly made modest profits for their creators. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term bomb is too subjective for a neutral article, and the criteria may vary wildly between one "expert" and another. Unmaintainable list, and quite apparently too, if one looks at its history. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 21:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you're wondering where the list is, one of the editors gutted the article out of fear of "copyright violations". It's hard to judge the beauty of a skeleton. Mandsford (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relatively very easy to verify this type of information with readily available WP:V/WP:RS sources. The article just needs a bit of restructuring and sourcing, but not deletion. Cirt 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Someone who would like to start over and try to build an article, feel free. But there is a major inherent problem here with the subjectiveness of this list and the fact that even before the wipe of the list there weren't any sources that properly describe any of the films as a "bomb." No one has addressed the concerns of the last AfD, and no one seems interested in doing so. A properly sourced re-creation would be appropriate IMO. Mango juice^talk 03:51, 6 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 but being bold and making it a section redirect to Doctor Zoidberg#The Decapodians as possible search criteria. SkierRMH (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decapodian[edit]

This article appears to have no notability that can be verified using reliable out of universe sources, and as such is an in-universe repetition of various plot points from the Futurama episode articles. As such, it is totally duplicative and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom's reason. Already covered when appropriate in individual show articles. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even though they are hilarious. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the section on the Dr Zoidberg page about the Decapodians is perfectly adequate. I don't think the race deserves a page of its own. Alberon (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 16:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already. Fails WP:FICT.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's reason. Can we delete this already? Seems to have consensus. - Chardish 19:13, 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/No consensus to delete but tagged as unreferenced. --JForget 23:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mat Irvine[edit]

The main claim to notability of this visual effects designer is the creation of K-9 (Doctor Who), but he is mentioned only once in a minor role in that article. No awards. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (NN). Fails BIO guideline. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete some low level notability Clubmarx (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Definitely notable - especially given some of the pop cultural cruft we allow to be kept round here. He was a stalwart of British TV sci-fi in the late 70s/early 80s and very well-known to a certain generation of the UK population. He was interviewed on BBC children's television virtually every other Saturday morning. An unsung genius who, with a budget of only £50 per episode, made the special effects on Blake's Seven look as though at least £100 had been spent on them. --Folantin (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I guess you've got to be from the UK and of a certain age to really know who Mat Irvine is. RMHED 19:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough for mine. 220.245.208.49 19:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgot to log in. Capitalistroadster 19:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful to have an article on supplier/designer of part 20C UK culture Victuallers (talk) 11:06, 6 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 SkierRMH (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rijk Van Roog[edit]

At first glance, this football player is easily notable enough for Wikipedia. Only problem is: he doesn't get a single google hit. Another problem: the surname Van Roog doesn't exist. And on a personal note: I'm Dutch, I'm a football lover and I live in the city of one of the clubs he allegedly played for. But I have never ever heard of him. The article's author, Gazh (talk · contribs), appears to be an established Wikipedian, but this article reeks of WP:HOAX. A ecis^Brievenbus 01:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions and the list of Netherlands-related deletions. A ecis^Brievenbus 01:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax, King of the North East 02:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously, and best check his other edits as well. There appear to be more problems... Fram (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious hoax. Sebisthlm (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hoax. Jonesy702 (talk) 20:15, 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 (no redirect) SkierRMH (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is lemony snicket?[edit]

Contains no information not found in existing articles Lemony Snicket or Daniel Handler, but this title does not warrant a redirect. —Caesura ^(t) 01:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant info, unlikely redirect candidate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Dupe info. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Jeopardy :) Maralia (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicative, misnamed. JJL (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Dupe info. Victuallers (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirect then tag the redirect ((db-redirmisnomer)). --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 21:16, 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:Hiberniantears, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Renaldo[edit]

Lack of notability per WP:NMG. The author of the article asserts notability, however, with no supporting evidence (as of yet). AWeenieMan (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: I've removed the only real assertion of notability (...is a "very important"...) because that is a POV statement. Now, it should once again qualify for speedy deletion. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 as non-notable per above, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:38, 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 No consensus --JForget 02:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Trade Centre Residence[edit]

Previously nominated for deletion last week, and incorrectly speedy deleted. Since recreated; a full AfD is required. ELIMINATORJR 01:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following page for precisely the same reason:

Delete Both: Like I said before, non notable. The Tamweel one isn't notable either. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the original author has been removing deletion tags and recreating deleted material. This ought to be salted as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, no sources/footnotes. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 05:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 18:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added an image and some information to World Trade Centre Residence page. Also, these pages are necessary to complete the List of tallest buildings in Dubai. Leitmanp (talk|contributions) 06:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent changes made by Leitmanp. Rai-me 14:34, 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. Completely lacks WP:RS and/or WP:V independent sources. WP:COI seems probable although that's not a reason to delete. However, lack of sources is. Pigman☿ 07:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

APM Terminals[edit]

This company is probably notable enough for Wikipedia. But the article reads like an advertisement, possibly written by the company's pr agency. See for instance the sentence "...APM Terminals will be at the forefront of environmental action, as we have been in the use of such innovations as..." in the original version. The author, Bertatmindcomet (talk · contribs), is probably related to marketing agency MindComet. One of the agency's clients is APM Terminals. It's better to delete the article and wait for someone to write a neutral article about the company, than to have this lingering around hoping someone will come along and fix it. A ecis^Brievenbus 01:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Google news search provides sufficient reliable, third party sources that can be included into the article, this meeting WP:CORP. Does read a bit like an ad, and I've tagged it as such, but needing work doesn't mean delete. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, the company is probably notable enough for Wikipedia. But do we really want to keep an ad written by a pr agency hired by the company around, hoping someone will come along and fix it? Aecis^Brievenbus 01:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - While it isn't the ideal situation, it isn't blatant advertising, and I (nor policy) see a reason to delete it, if it just needs work. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The condition of "blatant" advertising only applies to WP:CSD#G11, not to deletion in general. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion simply talks of "advertising"; it doesn't have to be blatant. A ecis^Brievenbus 01:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the policy. I don't believe there is any reason to delete this article. The ad context can be corrected, and it wasn't even tagged until I did it today. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without complete prejudice against recreation, but really, these articles on corporations by single-purpose accounts are tiring. They also violate policies on spam, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. So delete until a better variant is written. Biruitorul (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per subject's notability, but make sure the policy violation tags remain in place. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 21:13, 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 no consensus, default to keep. henrik•talk 00:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freetown Elementary School[edit]

Mention is made on the talk page that this article barely survived a VfD in 2005, although the history doesn't seem to verify that. Notability has not been established since that time. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable. Also, insufficiently sourced for the claims it is making, but those claims aren't good enough anyways. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. Lacks RS. School is unremarkable and besides perhaps a school website, I doubt much of the claims could be verified anyway. Wisdom89 (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. However, I take exception to the term claims. They are facts, whether they can be cited in a published work or not. If you lived here, you would know. Since you don't, you have to take the word of those who do. Otherwise, Wikipedia is a waste. Sahasrahla (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That certainly goes against a very important policy here, and thats Verifiability. The first line of that policy is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect to its entry at Freetown, Massachusetts. Since the editors of the locality article consider the school significant enough to describe it, not having a redirect is illogical. TerriersFan (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - following improvements that mean the page now meets WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and rjd. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Neither addressed why you would wish to delete a helpful redirect. TerriersFan (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct to Freetown, Massachusetts - Seems to be appropriate re-direct case to a article with a larger scope, full deletion is not necessary. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - The article has significantly changed so a speedy re-direct is no longer as appropriate. Elementary schools are usually not notable enough for their own article, but in this case some independent and reliable sources are used to reasonably justify keeping it. However, the article would benefit from further sources and expansion. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Freetown, Massachusetts which is the common-sense approach to these type of articles. RFerreira 07:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is now established with sourcing from The Boston Globe and the New Bedford Standard-Times. Closing admin, please discount previous notability comments which were not referring to the new WP:HEY sourcing. Verifiability is not a deletion issue and is dealt with through other means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noroton (talk • contribs) 03:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment local news on student storytelling, parking problems and building improvements are unencyclopedic. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Calling them "unencyclopedic" is thoroughly subjective. Massive building improvements to a small school quite obviously have a large impact on the education offered in that school, as the new paragraphs make clear. Educational programs that other schools may not have are also precisely the type of information most readers would want. Since the school is the major venue for local government meetings in that town, parking problems that particularly affect those meetings also qualify as important information. The school has received attention from news organizations outside of town on these topics. Noroton (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps the information should be merged to the towns page, then? What you are saying that this is notable information about the town. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why, because one of the three items I mention (parking) has to do with the fact that they hold town meetings there? The parking situation has a daily impact on the school, so it's even more important in relation to the school as an educational institution, although information on another use for the school building doesn't mean that the information can't be put in the article. And then there are the other two points which are directly related to the school's main function.Noroton (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, yes. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, then consider your objection refuted by the sentences just above that you haven't responded to. Noroton (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As the article stands now, it has sources indicating that the school is a part of a school district (unencyclopedic), has x number of students (unencyclopedic), an annual food drive (unencyclopedic), average scores (unencyclopedic), a parking shortage (unencyclopedic), some new classroom space (unencyclopedic), meeting space for the town (unencyclopedic), an expansion with computer labs (unencyclopedic), a principal with a flair for fundraising (unencyclopedic), some accounting irregularities (unencyclopedic), a story-telling festival (unencyclopedic), and a new special ed program (unencyclopedic). Perhaps an argument could be advanced that taken together, the school is barely notable. Or, it could be that many people worked really hard to find sources, and this is the best they could come up with. Certainly, the information could be moved to the district and town pages without wasting all the effort that was made to save this article. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources found doesn't indicate notabilty and are way too local This is a Secret ^account 04:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're operating on your own personal definition of notability, not Wikipedia's. I don't mind your doing that, but personal definitions have their limits. Wikipedia's definition of notability has nothing whatever to do with being local or not local. And the Boston Globe is something like 50 miles away from this community, so that source isn't very local. Noroton (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are millions of school buildings in the world. Many of them have been renovated. My concern is that these things are news, and Wikipedia is not news. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, having school renovations isn't a claim of notabilty This is a Secret ^account 00:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That there is overlap between news and encyclopedic content is obvious. Information from news stories added to this article is encyclopedic, since the information is either (a) what is descriptive in an enduring way or (b) is history relevant to understanding the school and its place in its community (and 95 percent of the information added falls under (a)). I saw other news stories that didn't provide this type of information and didn't use them. The added information would be significant even if this article attained featured status.
Weak Keep Article provides adequate reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Article would benefit greatly from further expansion. Alansohn (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a reasonable effort. DGG (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Freetown & Lakeville Public Schools this isn't notable enough for it's own article but would fit nicely as part of the public schools article. Arthurrh (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it would completely overbalance the district article. It merits its own page by virtue of multiple sources that meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are sources, but I have to disagree, I don't see anything that is really notable. Arthurrh (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another personal definition of notability. When an article meets the criteria of WP:N, we should keep it. No one here has argued that this article does not meet WP:N criteria. Noroton (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification, I am indeed arguing that this article does not meet WP:N. Arthurrh (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, you haven't argued it at all. You've only asserted it. For instance, argument would follow a phrase such as "This article does not meet Wikipedia notability standards because ..." An argument in favor of keeping the article would follow that phrase with "it meets the following criteria from WP:N: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. And "significant" has a specific meaning, according to WP:N." Incidentally, several editors have continued to add information to the article from significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Noroton (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parking problmes are not notable, they're common. An administrator coloring their hair isn't enough to include a school in an encyclopedia. School budget problems are apparently transitory, and arguably another not-uncommon issue. Students having a storytelling festival is not any long-term notability. A school having an openhouse isn't notable. Sorry, I just don't see anything that actually MEETS any guidelines in WP:N. Arthurrh (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't salami slice the article. The multiple sources need to be taken as a whole and it is the fact of multiple, independent secondary sources that meets WP:N. Trying to get a clean, sourced. informative page deleted is bizarre, frankly. TerriersFan (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asked for specifics, and when I give them I'm told to look at the whole instead. I don't know what to say. I've given my opinion - it just doesn't look notable to me, based on my reading of WP:NOTE. Multiple non-notable incidents does not equal notable in my book. Feel free to disagree and register your own choice. Arthurrh (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this article has sources, but fails to assert notability other than the holding of a storytime festival once a year. It may be notable to people in the town itself, but then perhaps mention of that festival (and the school) belongs on the town article, not here on an independent page.Epthorn (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — a good effort at establishing the notability of a local place. As stated above, "unencyclopedic" is not a clear discussion argument either way. --Haemo (talk) 21:07, 8 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 per VER & SNOW. SkierRMH (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marge Leyers[edit]

The article claims that Leyers has worked with Rem Koolhaas, taught at the Technical University of Berlin, had a guest professorship at the Harvard Graduate School of Design and the Hochschule für Bildende Künste and is a dean at the Staatliche Hochschule für Gestaltung. If this architect is this notable, how come he doesn't get a single Google hit? Unverifiable at best, but more likely a hoax. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletions and the list of Germany-related deletions. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: note that the author has previously written this article at Merge Layers, which was G7'ed. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It sure could be a hoax. Since I cannot check on the print ref's that are listed, I would depend on at lease some or any mention via a google search, but nothing! Unfortunately, unverifiable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thoroughly unverifiable. None of the sites for the institutions he reportedly worked for mention any permutation of this name, and I can't confirm even the existence of a single one of the print publications mentioned or the museums he supposedly designed in Munich. Given that and the previous article creation, sure smells like hoax. Maralia (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the books are on copac; subject not listed by institutions supposedly affiliated to. Paularblaster (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agathoclea (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to be found anywhere, unverifiable. --Crusio (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - per above comments -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:02, 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 deletion under criterion G7, author request, after author blanked article. Non-admin closing AfD. —Caesura ^(t) 03:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian aviators[edit]

An article with this title could be excellent in principle, but this article is just a duplication of the content at Farhad Rostampour. —Caesura ^(t) 00:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is duplicative, and the title doesn't even match the context all that much. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to something appropriate. Duplicative, practically article spam by User:Rostampour. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 00:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicate article. It would be inaccurate to have it redirect to Rostampour's article. If we had an article on Aviation in Iran, we could redirect to that but we don't. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 17:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE. Article has been blanked by original author, tagged for CSD blanked. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 19:17, 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 Merge with Power-up. Marasmusine (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure chest (video games)[edit]

Non-notable original research. Miremare 00:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly isn't sourced, but I'm not sure OR is appropriate. I created the article because I kept wanting to link "treasure chest" in game articles. The same could be said of "monsters". Whether it links to its own article or a section of an article doesn't matter to me. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 17:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN, too broad anyways. It is plain OR. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Miremare 02:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Deserves a mention under video game, not a whole article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Belongs with video game with WP:RS. Per Judgesurreal777, it does not warrants its own article. Wisdom89 (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not even sure it needs to be mentioned in video game. I don't know if there's a more specific article to hold it. Pagra shtak 15:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to video game. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 17:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Power-up, else delete. Not much more to be said than some video games have power-ups in treasure chests and some don't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power-up seems to be a more logical merger if there ever was one. Wisdom89 (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Starblind. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability - what's next, an article on houses in video games? Come on. - Chardish (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too broad; would be far too difficult to establish notability of any kind. --Scottie_theNerd 23:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Condense (to two or three sentences), and Merge to Power-up, would fit nicely into the "Attaining power-ups" section. Fin©™ 17:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. If consensus is to merge, this is how it should be done. Pagra shtak 19:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Treasure chests in fiction are a well-worn cliche, that nature of this can be documented at the treasure chest article. If a treasure chest is more than a box with stuff in to any particular videogame and is genuinely of interest then it can be covered in the game's article. I'm not quite getting this power-up merge/redirect, surely treasure chests are as likely to contain equipment or currency in an RPG as they are to contain power-ups in action games? Someone another (talk) 10:30, 6 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 04:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lock and Key[edit]

Completing unfinished nom by User:Hammer1980. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CBALL. Unsourced & unverified. Nothing to help out on the notability issue. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. No Reliable Sources (WP:ATT) - fails notability criteria. Wisdom89 (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. JJL (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I say where I got this info it will have less chance of being deleted, right? -> [44] (her blog, it's about a third down the entry) and the amazon page for this book. I just took bits from both. Carma91 03:32, 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 02:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Floreano[edit]

Apparently non-notable scientist; fails WP:PROF/WP:BIO due to a lack of substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources. See also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-notable EPFL robots. Sandstein (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn per David. Sandstein (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN. Google news only brings back articles with mentions of the name. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Academics can be notable for their appearance in the popular press, but more often are notable for their academic achievements. Floreano has quite a respectable publication and citation record. For some third-party publications specifically about Floreano's work, see e.g. Dorigo, Marco; Colombetti, Marco (1997), "Reply to Dario Floreano's Engineering Adaptive Behavior", Adaptive Behavior, 5 (3–4): 417–420; Lipson, H. (2001), "Uncontrolled Engineering: A review of Nolfi and Floreano's Evolutionary Robotics" (PDF), Artificial Life, 7 (4): 419–424; Di Paolo, E. A. (2002), "Review of "Evolutionary Robotics" by S. Nolfi and D. Floreano", Connection Science, 14: 88–91; Pham, D. T. (2002), "Book Reviews: Evolutionary Robotics", Robotica, 20: 569–571, doi:10.1017/S0263574702234232; Parsons, Simon (2004), "Book Review: Evolutionary Robotics", The Knowledge Engineering Review, 19: 381–383, doi:10.1017/S0269888905230357; Gomi, Takashi (2003), "Book Review: Evolutionary Robotics: the Biology, Intelligence, and Technology of Self-Organizing Machines", Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 4 (1): 95–98, doi:10.1023/A:1021829228076; Lipson, Hod (2001), "Book Review: Evolutionary Robotics: The Biology, Intelligence and Technology of Self-Organizing Machines", Artificial Life, 7 (4): 419–424, doi:10.1162/106454601317297031; Krichmar, Jeffrey L. (2001), "Book and Software Reviews: Evolutionary robotics: The biology, intelligence, and technology of self-organizing machines", Complexity, 6 (3): 51–53, doi:10.1002/cplx.1029; etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per David Eppstein. In addition, Floreano is on the Editorial Boards of 8 journals, a good indication that his peers find him notable in his field. Both Web of Science and Google Scholar list many publications, with reasonable (WoS) to very good (GS) citation rates. --Crusio (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per David Eppstein. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Featured in important journals. Rama (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per David Eppstein and Crusio. This looks like a serious academic to me, with solid publication record, employment at a top University, and with impact outside academia, to boot. Turgidson (talk) 00:29, 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 no consensus, leaning keep but the sourcing of the article needs to be improved. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Daniel Nicoud[edit]

Apparently non-notable scientist; fails WP:PROF/WP:BIO due to a lack of substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources. See also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-notable EPFL robots. Sandstein (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cannot find anything here to help with notability. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Has a surprisingly weak publication record in Google scholar for someone who's been active so long. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~. His record is equally weak in Web of Science. 15 publications, that have been cited a maximum of 7 times. This is weird, though, because he was director of a lab at the EPFL. Note that in Europe "lab" often has a very different meaning than in the US. In the US, almost every researcher at a university has an independent lab. In Europe, "lab" more often referes to something that in the US would be called "institute" or something like that and is a large lab with several (sometimes many) semi-independent researchers in it. I am surprised that a lab that supposedly was involved in important technological developments would put a researcher with such a weak record at its head. However, this is not unheard of, so even while recognizing the possibility that we may be missing something, ~~I vote delete~~. --Crusio (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inventor of the Smaky and on the modern computer mouse, no less. Rama (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is there a reference somewhere that this is the actual person who developed the computer mouse? --Crusio (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for Goodness' sake, can't you do a simple Google search ? [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], ... Rama (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for Goodness sake, so he's not "the" inventor of "the" computer mouse. Nevertheless, his involvement with the Logitech mouse seems to indicate enough notability. The article should be clarified and sourced, though. Oh, and Keep. --Crusio (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said modern computer mouse. I know what I'm writing. Nicoud invended the opto-electronic system which allows using the mouse without having to recalibrate the device when you've gone too far in one direction (yes it's been some time).

In any case, sorry for the display of impatience, and thanks for being gracious about this. Cheers ! Rama (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, we all become impatient at times :-) --Crusio (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: though one could reasonably argue that modern mice are not ball mice but optical mice, touchpads and clitopads. Rama (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whups, just wasted 1.5 minutes on planet earth trying to find out what the tanalisingly named "clitopad" is all about. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the tiny joystick-like thing that you find on laptop keyboards. It's a slangish term that stems in a somewhat logical way from "joystick" and "touchpad", if you come to think of it in a particular way. Rama (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jean-Daniel Nicoud, compared to recent scientific criterion, was perhaps more technics than science oriented. Yet Google scholar returns 126 publications. Beside scientific publications, JD Nicoud had an impact both at the level of the local engineering landscape, by developing the Smaky computer, and at the level of the history of computing, by developing a prototype mouse that would later be commercialised by Logitech (which led to the success we know). Furthermore, as a lab director, he managed successful scientific projects, one of them which led to Nature publications [51]. Albeit retired, he recently developed a micro airplane which led to a best publication award at IROS2007, of which he is co-author [52]. --nct (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as stated above, none of these publications have actually been cited much. Publishing is what scientists do, its part of their work, so that does not necessarily imply notability. And while Nature is a notable journal, many articles it publishes are never cited, so just the fact of having a Nature publication does not confer notability either. Is there any independent verifiable reference about him having developed the Smaky? --Crusio (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes [53], [54]. One of the reasons for the low number of citations is Nicoud published several books in french; I'm not sure that french citations are counted in bibliometry information available on the Internet. --nct (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WoS and GS include citations to French (or other language) publications and both cover French languaged sources. --Crusio (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --according to the references cited in Web of Science, it has a long-acknowledged major deficiency for non-english material. according to the refs. in the article on Google Scholar, its coverage is unknown altogether--they have never released any data at all for what gets included or why. DGG (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. For the simple reason, I guess, that journals not published in English will get much fewer citations than those published in English (this is one of the ISI criteria for inclusion that I know off). So they cover some French-languaged journals, but their coverage is much less complete than for journals in English. Still, something published in French will get counted if it is cited in an English language journal, even if it is a book, for example. An item published in French and heavily-cited only in French journals would fare badly in WoS, but I would expect that to happen mostly in humanities, for example, not in a heavily international field like we are concerned with here. --Crusio (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have known people who worked with Nicoud (I personally never did), and it seems that he was very focused on "hard result" (probably what nct is alluding to with his "perhaps more technics than science oriented". Nicoud would "publish" his results in the form of computers, robots, peripherals rather than publish articles.

In this respect, his record is indeed notable (though on a specialised topic of course):

the Smaky, a whole line of computers with home-made system (and a darn good one at that, with pseudo-windows at a time when everything was command-line)
cube-shaped robots which have become the baseline for robots education and experiments
the opto-electronic system found in ball computer mice. This made the mouse a common computer peripheral and was the product that basically launched Logitec. Rama (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep per Crusio. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:07, 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 11:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bonani[edit]

Apparently non-notable scientist; fails WP:PROF/WP:BIO due to a lack of substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources. See also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-notable EPFL robots. Sandstein (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable [55]. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Delete. Seems to be doing ok for his relatively junior level of academic seniority but not enough to stand out for his own works yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a promising grad student. We'll have to see how he does once he's on his own (years from now, after he's done a postdoc....) --Crusio (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per David Eppstein and Crusio, as a promising but not quite there academic. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 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 No consensus to delete following information supplied by Tyrenius. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Lee Price[edit]

Not notable. Most of the article is about his education. There are some regional minor prizes but that's it. No references. Almost an orphan page. Has weasel words to speculate how many pieces are in collections. The first creator appears to be Mr. Price's agent perhaps. Clubmarx (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —Clubmarx (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. freshacconcispeaktome 12:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Modernist (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Tyrenius's excellent research below. Although the article still needs a lot of work. Modernist 23:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The original creator appears to be a search engine optimization person. Also, the article doesn't really assert notability to my satisfaction. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably should have been a speedy delete. When the first sentence of an article tells you what grade school the subject went to, you can tell they're really really really desperate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

inclusion of nonimportant material like that is equally likely to just indicate coi that can be removed--and in some cases, one could even say, the more distinguished, the more likely it is for such details to be encyclopedia-worthy. DGG (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if the presence in major museums can be documented. That would be sufficient for notability, no matter who wrote he article. Delete otherwise.DGG (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject merits it, although the way the article is currently written doesn't. See Statue of Responsibility for which Gary Lee Price is the sculptor, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Responsibility. There's links to the press coverage for the statue on sorfoundation.org. See Daily Herald story. Art Business News[56] is a reference for "a successful, self-employed artist ... His works can be found in public and private collections in England, Hong Kong and throughout the United States. Price's pieces are also on display and for sale in 16 major galleries across the United States. He is a member of the National Sculpture Society and has taught classes at the Loveland Sculpture Academy and the Scottsdale Artist School. Awards include the Utah Governor's Mansion Artist Award, Eliza R. Snow Alumni Award for the Arts from Ricks College and Springville, Utah, Citizen of the Year ... Price established the Incredible Journey Arts Foundation". Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald features a public sculpture.[57] Daily Herald reports a Shakespeare statue at University of Central Oklahoma.[58] Here's a biog from Springville Museum of Art.[59] That's just a quick trawl, but meets notability and verification requirements. Tyrenius 18:26, 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. Consensus appears to cover the additional articles as well. Pigman☿ 07:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Combie[edit]

The article is at best an original synthesis of material. The editor who created the article is a single-purpose promoter of theories (quite possibly his own, see User talk:Athang1504), including the whole angle on this article, that have nowhere been embraced by reliable sources. This article cites only ancient sources, several of which, upon examination, do not in any way transparently support the original thesis. In Diodorus Siculus, e.g., κομβ does not occur within a dozen words of χαλκ anywhere. Even if the author had hit on some truth undiscovered by scholars, we'd have to see it embraced in reliable sources before including an article in the encyclopedia. Wareh (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are equally unattributed to reliable sources and expository of original Athanasios Angelopoulos ideas. I'd like to observe that Athang1504's method is to cite Athanasios Angelopoulos explicitly when expanding existing articles with original research, but to present totally new articles with only a list of ancient sources supposedly justifying the contents. Wareh (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all for the reasons set out by Wareh. However, I predict that there will be "keep and clean up" votes, because valid articles could be written for all of these--most of them would be three-line stubs and uninfomative, of course. But I'd prefer to just delete them to get rid of the fringyness. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I'm not ruling out the possibility that some of these topics merit articles, but the existing ones are misleading or OR-ish enough that they'd need to be entirely rewritten anyway. (Nobody except Athang1504 has made significant contributions to these articles.) EALacey (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. --Tikiwont 12:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up The page Basileia (Mythology) seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable summary of the myth given by Diodorus Siculus. I don't see the point of deleting the page just because some of the others are bad. Singinglemon (talk) 00:37, 7 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. — Scientizzle 03:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Byrne.[edit]

Vague claims of notability. No references, and edit summaries hint at original research/WP:COI. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barely escapes A7. Jonathan^T•@•C 23:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a few youtube videos, but no mainstream coverage that I can find. And the youtube user name might indeed suggest COI FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:48, 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 02:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slipknot's 4th Studio Album[edit]

failure of WP:CRYSTAL; only reliable source is the label company's website, and there is no direct link. Jonathan^T•@•C 23:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, there is an invisible message stating that it will be created again if it is deleted. Jonathan^T•@•C 23:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per crystal. As soon as there are independent reliable sources, im open for recreation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Keep'. Kerrang! magazine is a reliable source. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep We need to keep the album. What makes it so different from all of Wikipedia's other pages on future albums, huh? How official is word-of-mouth from the band itself? This thing is gonna happen. Dark Executioner (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]

Good question. The obvious answer is they should be kept only if there are reliable sources that already discuss the future album. The reality is that many should, in my oppinion, be deleted for the same reasons as this article should be deleted, as very few have reliable sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point being, that there ARE official sources! Multiple magazine interviews, the band's website, Roadrunner's website... all of these are official! I'm pretty sure that even their Myspace says something about the album! What you guys should realize is that all of the information on the page is already on the Internet on verious sites - I just put them on one place here on Wikipedia. A bunch of you think that I just "made up" the info, but the fact is that I didn't. Dark Executioner (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]

Reply on your talkpage, not relevant to this AfD. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm currently assisting User:Dark Executioner with sourcing. I have added a proper reference to Roadrunner's news on the album, at least. --Stormie (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Jasca Ducato (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have just updated the article with direct sources to many reliable sources including established websites, magazines and tv shows which include direct information from band members. Rezter 18:25, 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.