The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese bao[edit]

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

Unsourced one liner, basically a WP:DICDEF, with no indication why it's important/notable. Carlossuarez46 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to wiktionary as it is essentially a dictionary definition. TonyBallioni 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The syllable "bao" doesn't even appear in Japanese, no idea what this thing is talking about. If it were about a real object with a real name, it might be expandable from a dicdef (who invented it, what materials it requires, what are the major centres of manufacture), but this isn't. cab 00:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. cab 00:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless this is properly sourced. Right now it seems like a mistake or a hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 00:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per comment above, it is either a mistake or hoax, as it does not appear in dictionaries or Google as a hair accessory. --DAJF 01:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete apparent hoax --Polaron | Talk 03:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Misprint for "boa"? Fg2 21:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. LOL at the bit where it says "...is a strip cartoonist". Oooh, Matron. -Splash - tk 18:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Darenne[edit]

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

French cartoonist completly unknown, even in France Pymouss44 Causer 23:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The french article is about to be deleted (see fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/Charlie Darenne) Pymouss44 Causer 23:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nominator on the french wikipedia, gotta love babel fish translations ;-) TonyBallioni 23:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 17:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G10. GRBerry 15:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Geduld[edit]

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

This article is about a person whose notability is in question, and for whom there appears to be very little relevant information. His only claim to fame seems to be as a voice actor on The Skeletor Show, as well as some minor work for Blake's 7, but outside of this, there's very little. The article was nominated for speedy deletion as an attack page, and I originally deleted it under CSD A7, but restored it when an editor pointed out that it did satisfy basic requirements to avoid A7 deletion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article is clearly being maintained as an attack page for SomethingAwful Forums user FlyingSquid. I have cited some of the more egregious examples here. Cumulus Clouds 04:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Mr. Geduld's resume includes work done for the Sci-Fi Channel, Hanna-Barbera, and Radar Magazine. He has also been profiled by both the International Herald Tribune and National Public Radio. I believe these accomplishments have assured Mr. Geduld's notability. It is rather unfortunate that a few immature Wikipedians have taken to vandalizing the article and adding unverifiable facts, such as that Mr. Geduld is "known affectionately as Geodude by his close friends," but to delete the article outright would be, in my view, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. --Rubber cat 05:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer - I am the creator of the article is question. --Rubber cat 05:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Even with the edits you've made, anonymous ips continue to revert back controversial information into that article. It's always going to be used to attack FlyingSquid, in the same way that Brian Peppers was used to attack that man, despite whatever marginal notability he might have enjoyed as a disfigured sex offender. Furthermore, FlyingSquid's interviews on NPR and his work for Hanna Barbara do not make him any more notable than the army of animators they have in their studio or the thousands of people that NPR has interviewed over the years. In my view, callling Daniel Geduld notable would do substantial harm to the continued employment of that policy on this encyclopedia. Cumulus Clouds 05:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Really not notable enough for a page.Alberon 10:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per rubber cat. I agree, it would be a mistake to throw the baby out with the bathwater. --ForbiddenWord 15:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Compelling nomination; observation re GBW deleting the same is also pertinent. -Splash - tk 18:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Petrosino[edit]

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

The subject of the article is notable for one thing only: for breaking beer-drinking records when he was a young man, notably in 1977. He has a Wikipedia account himself (apparently), yet there is nothing else to suggest that he merits a full biography for any other reason (having a PhD, being a black belt in Tae Kwon Do, being a Mensa member, having been in the Marines and being married with two adult children just add up to nothing in terms of real notability). Fails WP:BLP1E. The external links in the article appear not to be reliable sources (blogs, mainly), there are no Google News or Google Scholar hits, and the only reliable sources for this biography appear to be documentation of his drinking records. I don't know, maybe we can have an article on him, but I'm not sure he passes WP:BIO right now. What do you think? h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Schumann (adventurer), a similar Guinness World Records holder who was notable for nothing else than being a record breaker, and that got deleted.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not possible to verify whether he was competing at the top level of his sport. I mean, if this were like the Nathan's hot dog contest.... --Dhartung | Talk 00:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Steven Petrosino's 1977 recorded entry is the last beer drinking record to be entered into the Guinness Book of World Records before they (Guinness World Records Limited) removed beer drinking related events from their scope. On this basis this information is of wide interest, more in relation to the history of Guinness Book of World Records, rather than any negative impacts it may have on the Dr Steven Petrosino of today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.26.225 (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete the Guinness Book of World Records saw fit to drop the category of beer drinking records from it's roster of tracked accomplishments, I don't think Wikipedia is obliged to pick up the slack. Even if WP were to decide that this is a record worth tracking, then it would deserve an article on the event listing this name. Per the spirit of WP:BLP1E, an biographical article of this otherwise non-notable individual isn't merited, at most his name ought to be listed in an article covering the putatively notable activity. Pete.Hurd 14:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"do not delete" This article is interesting and should not be deleted. I think that it's reasonable to have Wikipedia entries on Guinness record holders, and the fact that the title has been removed from the Guinness record book doesn't negate the fact that it was won. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.192.55 (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. There is no basis for redirecting a non-existent term to somewhere that does not mention it, and no basis for merging such poor content to anywhere. -Splash - tk 18:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Thug[edit]

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

Neologism unsupported by credible evidence ElKevbo 22:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP this is in the catagory of computer crimes and cyberbullying. it is notable and easily can be found on google. it is pretty much the same as a http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=internet+thug cyber gangsta http://www.google.com/search?q=cyber+gangsta&hl=en or cyber gangster http://www.google.com/search?q=cyber+gangster&hl=en or internet gangster http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=internet+gangster It is a developing article. UnclePaco 22:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Evidence suggests that this is a notable neologism for which a well-cited article could be written. This is not that article. For one thing, the very definition probably needs multiple citations - neologisms are highly susceptible to being interpreted differently by different people, and the last thing we want is to define the term according to one Wikipedian's OR. --Hyperbole 22:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - I'd also support a redirect to cyberbullying per Dennis The Tiger, although I think there may be legitimate content that could be merged into that article. --Hyperbole 01:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - With all due respect to Hyperbole, I disagree. I see little real notability here (although with the exponential growth of troll presence on Wikipedia, maybe a new definition is needed....) AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. No reliable sources. Fails WP:NEO, badly.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to cyberbullying. There's nothing to merge that isn't necessarily covered there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to cyberbullying. The subject isn't notable enough to justify having its own article, and no references are given. There's no reason to keep this article. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/mergeper above —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astroview120mm (talk • contribs) 03:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to cyberbullying and redirect. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, following editing. -Splash - tk 19:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

States Reorganisation Commission[edit]

States Reorganisation Commission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability; possible copyvio; primary source not suitable for Wikipedia. Contested PROD John 22:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - Since subjects on Indian politics are quite under-represented on Wikipedia, I would suggest that a) the direct cut-and-paste from the report be transwikied to Wikisource (given the date, I doubt if copyright is an issue, and I also doubt that the text is online), and b) that a stub, consisting of the lead and anything else reliable that can be found online, be kept. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Has the appearance of notability to me. Per WP:BOLD, I've cut out unencyclopedic content consisting of more than 90% of the article - what appeared to be a cut-and-paste from a Commission report. That leaves the article as a stub. I'd support keeping it in that form and seeing if it grows. Regarding Akradecki's suggestion, I have no objection to moving the source material to Wikisource, but I can't find it anywhere online, so it's difficult to verify. Is it a translation? Who translated it? --Hyperbole 22:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good idea Hyperbole. I nommed it here because I thought it didn't work as a complete document, and without that there is so little there, and without any verifiable references... it's better now, I suppose, but I still can't see it as a viable article unless we could get some kind of source there. Still, good work. --John 00:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Merge - I agree with moving the report text to Wikisource. As to the remainer. this page and States Reorganisation Act are about the same subject, with this page being the report that lead to the Act. A review of both article would be good, to determine if two separate articles would be better than one combined article. If two, then some material could be moved from the Act page to the report page. AAt this point, I honestly don't know the best approach to take, as it depends to some extend on how much more material exists that can be added to either page. - BillCJ 01:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Brand's Ponderland[edit]

Russell Brand's Ponderland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced one-line article, little context, and no reliable third party soucres showing us notability. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - I tend to think that programs aired for a national audience are inherently notable. I've fleshed out the article a bit - enough to where a reader can actually tell what s/he's reading about. --Hyperbole 23:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to pass WP:N. See the AfDs for House Auction and The KNTV Show (both of which I created the articles for and were kept).-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep is on one of the only five terrestrial channels in the UK, and is a notable departure for russell as it's more of his own stand up comedy rather than just presenting a show. [1] strong mention in the guardian, [2] review in 'time out', paragraph in the telegraph [3] [4] review by someone else at channel 4, now I know the Sun is not RS for gossip, but for discussion/review I think it contributes a bit [5] a very long article in the New Statesman lol [6] happy now?:) Might not seem like it to those in the US, but that means the show's been mentioned in most of the main papers in the UK, and discussed at length.Merkinsmum 00:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you're going to research all those references, it really wouldn't hurt to put them in the article :) --Hyperbole 01:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, please do so or let me know and I'll do it. Thanks for digging these up.--A. B. ^(talk) 03:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK -- here's the list; I added it to the article:
        • Cooke, Rachel (2007-10-27). "The really wild show: Russell Brand's "anarchic" comedy is as carefully coiffed as his hair". New Statesman. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
        • Blackburn, Jen (2007-10-24). "Russell Brand: the naked comic". The Sun. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
        • Davies, Patricia Wynn (2007-10-23). "Last night on television". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
        • Duggins, Alexi (2007-10-22). "Russell Brand's 'Ponderland'". Time Out London. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
        • Clark, Alex (2007-10-28). "Birth of the original good-time girl". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-11-06.

--A. B. ^(talk) 13:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Merkinsmum's good reference-checking. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Definitly deserves keeping as above.Alberon 10:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 13:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to A.B. for doing the work lol.:)Merkinsmum 19:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: broadcast on a major TV channel, performer is notable, plenty of press coverage. -- Karada 21:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 & redirect to Mallee Football League (South Australia) - I'm going to be bold and merge these. --Stormie 02:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Border Downs Tintinara Crows[edit]

Border Downs Tintinara Crows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced article about a team in a league where games are often forfeited because it's difficult to get the lads to away games - doesn't sound professional or notable to me. Also nominating the following teams in the same league, some one-liner articles, some "for more information see our website" sorts, nothing indicating notability in any of them.

Border Downs Tintinara Crows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Karoonda Magpies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lameroo Hawks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Murrayville Bulldogs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Peake Lions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pinnaroo Supa Roos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Carlossuarez46 18:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Google search has Australian newspaper reference for Border Downs Tintinara such as [7]. The club articles could either be merged into the main league article or (in the case of those that have no information) deleted. --Sesameball^Talk 18:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Coverage of individual football matches (ie: match reports) indicate notability of a LEAGUE not of either TEAM. Between seasons is the best time to see if the team is in fact notable: if people care about who the coach will be, then there will be a story about it meaning the team is notable.Ga rrie 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I suspect I like it is not a valid argument, but I will say that most of these clubs (with multiple teams) have been around for over 100 years in some form and are the predominant sporting and social group in their communities. The clubs will nearly all have had a least one player who has made their way to the Australian Football League or its predecessors and/or a former player from that competiton come and any play with them as a semi-professional after his pro career was finished. Do the articles need verification? Absolutely, but they can be verified; local sources are available. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Auroranorth (sign) 02:24, 3 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, ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all: per User:GarrieIrons and Carlossuarez46; they said it all. Ibid et al 22:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Personally, I support a merge into an article on the league. A mention in the article for the town would also be appropriate. Capitalistroadster 01:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all into Mallee Football League (South Australia) and redirect. Since we have that article on the League (and I see nobody proposing it for deletion), it would serve no purpose whatsoever to delete the club pages rather than merge their content to flesh out the list of clubs there. --Stormie 04:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Auroranorth. Twenty Years 15:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Russell Simmons. --Polaron | Talk 03:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atman (brand)[edit]

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

Delete unsourced article about a product line with no evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources per WP:N. Carlossuarez46 21:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Russell Simmons, and mention Atman in that article. (I'd suggest a merge, but there's no real content to merge.) If anyone agrees, they could just do this boldly and save the community some trouble. --Hyperbole 23:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tone-bender[edit]

Tone-bender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced one-line article about a nn product from a nn company, with virtually no context. Carlossuarez46 21:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I wonder if that Chapman, R. was Roger Chapman. Probably not, but still...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - possibly use title as a redirect to Tremolo arm? Grutness...wha? 01:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete faster - as totally nonnotable. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This has been active for the standard AfD period, as well as an additional re-list, yet no further arguments have been presented. Due to the lack of significant weight either way, rough consensus cannot be established. Anthøny 16:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Edge[edit]

Women's Edge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deletion nomination The group may do noble work, however in order to merit an article at Wikipedia, the article about the group needs to provide evidence of notability per WP:N and WP:ORG guidelines. This only only cites the organizations own website, which is not an independent reliable source. If independent sources can be provided, that would help, but as it stands now, this group seems to fail notability guidelines. Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, going on Google hits, and Google News and Google Scholar results, if anyone wants to source it.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. Just because something doesn't get many google hits doesn't mean it doesn't merit an article. The organization has won the Mildred Robbins Leet Award for the Advancement of Women, and was named one of 25 Best Small Companies by Working Mother magazine. Kingturtle 17:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i enjoy knowing about this org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.0.202.30 (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel 09:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instant Star (Season 4)[edit]

Instant Star (Season 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article about tv shows which haven't aired. WP:CRYSTAL & WP:OR. Carlossuarez46 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 00:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, crystal-ball-ism, and no content other than two alleged (unsourced) episode names. --Stormie 04:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold Me Down (Motion City Soundtrack song)[edit]

Hold Me Down (Motion City Soundtrack song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced articles about album tracks - apparently never released as singles and no added reliably sourced indicia of notability as should be present per WP:MUSIC.

I am also nominating two other unsourced "Airplay Only" releases from the same album:

• L.G. FUAD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Everything Is Alright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Carlossuarez46 21:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 00:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All. fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. dissolve^talk 21:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 dissenting view's assertion isn't very persuasive. Daniel 09:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Samra-Mathers[edit]

Nathan Samra-Mathers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability is not inherited. Having been in a number of his brother's videos is not grounds of notability. Corvus cornix 21:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination.Ibid et al 21:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Above arguments are valid, but imo this kid is notable. Tiptopper 14:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, still unsourced. Daniel 09:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FormulaTech[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources to support notability. I think it may assert notability however so I bring it here for the community to decide. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 21:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article was also created by the author, so it may violate WP:SPAM Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:N. Doctorfluffy 03:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 articles with no great claims to notability and no independent sources. GRBerry 02:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Networks[edit]

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

Deletion nomination Non-notable corporation. Contains no reliable sources which indicate notability as required by WP:N and WP:CORP guidelines. Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling with this nomination is MOVEit Freely, a non-notable product produced by this non-notable corporation. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, though we really need to get on with cleaning this up.--Kubigula (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars creatures[edit]

List of Star Wars creatures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOT#DIR). Additionally, this is very long list of fictional characters with no real world context. Pilotbob 21:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 21:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:DELETION#Merging and WP:LIST, lists are a proper method of collecting information like this rather than as individual articles. Now, this particular list is bloated and needs serious clean-up and sourcing, but as there are SOME notable Star Wars creatures, there is no need to delete the list, instead it should be cleaned up and reduced down to those that have reliable sources. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wikipedia is not paper. Wikipedia has many lists very similar to this one; it seems to be consensus that sourced facts about notable fiction are encyclopedic, regardless of how trivial they may seem. And, as Jayron32 points out, it's certainly better that this information exist in a list than in separate articles. --Hyperbole 23:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Kepp per Hyperbole – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:NOT#DIR where is says "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic" and per WP:SAL. Viperix 03:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article is just a giant plot summary (see WP:NOT#PLOT) with no analysis and nothing to indicate real world notability. It is just info about characters with no real world context at all. It has been tagged for a while and shows no signs of improvement. It does not cite reliable secondary sources per WP:FICT and is cannot be cited to meet the criteria of notability established therein (A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:NOT#INFO) Pilotbob 04:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that these fictional characters have any real-world notability, or provide justification for the extensive in universe plot summary. --Gavin Collins 11:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Star Wars is itself an undeniably notable fictional universe, and the creatures therein absolutely help make it what it is. The article is certainly not a plot summary an any way. I would have no problem with trimming the article down to more notable and/or better-sourced creatures, but an outright deletion is out of the question. AndalusianNaugahyde 16:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hyperbole, Viperix, and AndalusianNaugahyde, as a useful list. This is so obviously notable as an idea to be covered by WP:OUTCOMES. I'd go along with trimming - it should only include notable characters, whether major or supporting, in books or movies. Get back to me if you want me to do the dirty work. Bearian 19:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:Plot, WP:WAF and I'm sure others. There is already a Star Wars wiki for this stuff.Ridernyc 20:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Hyperbole (talk · contribs), and also there seems to be good referencing, even if there could be more. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 10:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• To be honest, as co-founder of Wookieepedia, I would say that the information is well-protected there and this list can technically be seen as unnecessary on Wikipedia. However there seems to be enough people that want to keep up with it, though someone will add things from our wiki here and make it even worse. Weak delete. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, many books have been written about the fictional Star Wars universe, meaning that lots of fictional Star Wars stuff should stay on Wikipedia. Some of these, such as ewoks and sarlaccs, are also very well known icons of pop culture. And, you know. 96T 16:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 KieferSkunk. (Note: non-admin close.) szyslak 03:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Nemo 2[edit]

Finding Nemo 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

False information, no IMDB page or official information on this sequel.

Comment how about asking the original editor where he got the information? He is a new editor, so remember not to WP:BITE the newbies. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 20:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as the contributions of a banned user. Its contributor, Hype44 (talk · contribs), has one other contribution outside this article, the addition of a link to a deleted article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halloweentown: She's The Witch. The user's edits seem to vaguely follow the pattern of Lyle123/StealBoy, a hard-banned user known for hoaxes about Disney "sequels". See also Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Lyle123. szyslak 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm not adequately convinced that Hype44 is Lyle123 (although certainly a check may be in order). Notwithstanding, this article has no sources, appears to be a hoax, and if nothing else, fails WP:CRYSTAL. --Hyperbole 23:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete No sources, Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 20:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie A. Lewis[edit]

Leslie A. Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Single-incident coatrack masquerading as a biography, which violates WP:NPOV and places undue weight on a single piece of a person's life. FCYTravis 20:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Integrity of this AfD has been compromised. The nominator, an administrator, has protected "his own" version of the article, which deletes most of it, including more than half the references. Certainly this undermines the integrity of the AfD process, as even I myself would vote for deletion with what is now left. Anyone commenting on the article should have a look at the version before he protected it, which is here. Reswobslc 22:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The protection was temporarily necessary, as an editor removed the "Living persons" category and reinserted a self-published blog which was removed for being a patently unreliable and unacceptable source for an article about a living person. The protection has been reduced to semi. FCYTravis 22:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean ME? I don't have a blog, so this "self-published" accusation is nonsense. Now, why semi? Are anonymous users vandalizing this article or something? And are the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News "blogs"? As you have removed these too. Last I checked, these are in-print newspapers. Look, the point of an AfD is to gain the community consensus, which you cannot get by manipulating the AfD itself. I propose this AfD is NULL AND VOID and you start a new AfD, with the most recent un-manipulated version of the article, and then DON'T TOUCH (aka protect) it! Reswobslc 22:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the blog "SammyTaylor.net," which I removed specifically because it's an unacceptable, self-published source which cannot be used. You reinserted it. FCYTravis 22:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot be used to support statements about living people, true, but cannot exist as a relevant link in the article, not true. Reswobslc 22:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. We do not link to blogs in biographies of living persons except for blogs written by the biography's subject. Blogs are specifically cited as links to be avoided, and BLP requires that all external links must be of high quality and reliability. A personal blog does not meet either of those criteria. FCYTravis 22:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so this is why the article should be deleted/protected? I don't even see this as relevant to this AfD, even if as, you say, "I'm Wrong". Reswobslc 23:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Um, with all due respect, her widely publicized grassroots-organized ouster is what she is notable for, if being an elected official somehow wasn't enough. Nominator hasn't even looked at the massive amount of supporting media coverage, otherwise he would have known that the contents of the since-removed YouTube video are well documented by reliable sources and he would not have removed it claiming they were somehow unverifiable. If NPOV is still a concern, deletion is not the answer. Incidentally, I can't help but notice that more than half of the nominator's last 50 edits are to undo or delete my contributions... Travis, what did I do to piss you off? Reswobslc 21:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article is exclusively concerned with a single incident in this person's life to the exclusion of every other part of her life, and thus improperly gives undue weight to that incident. It is established policy that Wikipedia does not create "biographies" about people who are temporarily in the news because of a single incident. FCYTravis 22:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The same is true of Amelia Earhart, and we're not AfD'ing her. Non sequitur. See WP:COATRACK#What is not a coatrack. Reswobslc 22:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete due to BLP concerns in conjunction with borderline notability. Of the three sources cited, one is local news and hence not especially reliable, one is a court document giving verification of a tangential fact, and one is a blog/opinion piece which has no place on wikipedia. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one should not count in light of the fact that nominator has deleted the citations, leaving only three behind, and then protected the page so they could not be re-added! OF COURSE reliable sources are "missing"...Reswobslc 22:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin I'm changing my Weak delete to a Delete after reviewing the sources (including those in the earlier version of the article) and giving further consideration to the BLP issues raised here. In cases of borderline notability - and that's what this is: moderate interest in predominantly local news sources for a short time - BLP concerns should be enough to indicate that deletion is the best course. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment. I peeked at the recent non-protected version and I believe it is indeed a BLP violation, specifically WP:BLP#Criticism. I also know that semi-protection and protection are ways to prevent BLP violations. I suggest that the protection be lifted so the community will not be suspicious that the nominator is abusing admin powers (false or otherwise). Should protection be necessary, an uninvolved admin should do so.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • question Perhaps you can clarify "criticism". The deer video and the ouster is what this lady is most notable for, just like Timothy McVeigh is notable for a bombing. In both cases, the focus is on these negative events and not the person's childhood or upbringing. Focusing on the events is not "undue weight" or "criticism". An example of "undue weight" would be an article dwelling on this judge's, or McVeigh's religious beliefs that are irrelevant to the things that made them notable. Reswobslc 17:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't like the principal source--the transcript of the CNN show is what I can best describe as a one-sided lynch mob. I know CNN is supposed to be a RS, but the WP article on Nancy Grace indicates very clearly why nothing said on her show can be used as negative information about anyone. DGG (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply It is unclear which version of the article you're looking at. This is an unusual case where post-AfD the nominator removed content from the article and then protected it. Three sources were deleted by the nominator before the page was protected, and because two of them in Lewis's jurisdictional area, I would personally have considered them more "principal" than Nancy Grace. If you have seen these, and still believe CNN is the principal source, then can you acknowledge it so your position is clear? Reswobslc 15:33, 4 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, Sandstein 19:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per WP:BLP1E. No version of the article contains any information about her life, or any sources for same, except for this one affair. Deor 21:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The behavior of any editors involved notwithstanding, the article cites reliable sources, and those sources indicate non-trivial coverage. There is likely to be further information availible to fill-out the article in other sources, and thus this is in need of keeping and expanding per WP:HEY, and not deletion issue at this point. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - I would tend to believe that, while Circuit Court judges (who are Federally appointed) are probably inherently notable, District Court judges (who are generally local elected officials) are not. The question, then, is whether Lewis's bad press and subsequent retention election is enough to confer notability on her. This is a really close call, but I tend to believe that a hostile CNN talk show and some otherwise local furor does not clear the notability bar. Delete as nn. (Note that I do not see WP:BLP violations here: if a person becomes infamous for a single incident, that does not bar Wikipedia from writing an article mostly about that incident - see, e.g., Mark David Chapman) --Hyperbole 23:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, clear WP:COATRACK. Far below WP:BIO standards, and the attention briefly attained by a viral video clip isn't really notability. --Dhartung | Talk 00:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The fact that a YouTube video single-handedly influenced an election so much as to swing the majority vote is in itself novel enough to make her and this incident notable. Reswobslc 01:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've already !voted "keep" once, Reswobslc. That's all you get. Deor 03:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The CNN bit lets us know it wasn't local interest only. This news aggregator lets us know that the Salt Lake Tribune published an article 8-Nov-2006 (no longer available online) saying in part that she (and another judge not retained the same day) were only the third and fourth judges not retained in the 21 year's Utah has had retention elections for its judges. I believe that she is notable. Decent merge target - an article on all four of the judges that Utah's voters have declined to retain. GRBerry 03:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The view from England: "US judge gets voted off" is hardly notable, worldwide. I've not heard of WP:COATRACK before, but having read it, this fits perfectly (yes, I know it's only an essay). This might make a para in a putative article Effects of YouTube videos, else write a proper bio of the woman and see if that's notable. Smalljim 19:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 street, and create redirect to Drake Circus Shopping Centre. Sandstein 20:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drake Circus[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

A non-notable small sub-district that isn't much more than a roundabout in Plymouth. It doesn't appear to have any historical or geographical significance. The article was primarily created by a local to disenfranchise the term "Drake Circus" from a nearby controversial shopping mall (Drake Circus Shopping Centre). The talk page has attracted a lot of attention by trolls, vandals and disgruntled students and locals, as a result the article required semi-protecting. In spite of all the rhetoric there has been no attempt at providing proof of notability per WP:N using WP:RS. The small area contains some run down shops, part of Plymouth University a church cum war memorial and a museum and art gallery which are all irrelevant to the article's notability due to non-inheritance of notability. gHits of any note are minimal, the search term being sidelined by the shopping mall. What's left is either non-independent or trivial. -- WebHamster 19:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Keep. I've taken the unusual step of putting this late vote at the top because the whole article has just been replaced with a fully-referenced and I believe uncontroversial version. The only issue that would remain is notability, and I think that's shown now. Smalljim 23:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*keep

• This is a bad faith nomination Talk:Drake_Circus_Shopping_Centre
• The Drake Circus areais home to the Faculties of Health & Social Work, Social Science & Business, Science and Technology, and part of the Faculty of Arts and the Peninsula Medical School. As you can see from a mapit includes the Drake's reservoir Drake reservoir and theMusuem and art gallery

It has an immense history which users have been blocked from adding to this article by those wishing to promote a nearby shopping mall. For example in 1881 snow on Sheepstor caused the most severe water shortage ever experienced in Plymouth. Records of 29th January show that there was no water in the leat or the reservoirs at Crownhill and Hartley. There was only three inches in the Drake’s reservoir, which was reserved for fire. There had been no domestic supply for the previous three days. Its reservoir once fed by a In the wall above the now disused conduit, which was rebuilt in 1671 is the inscription ‘Made in the Maioraltie of John Trelawnye 1598’. Above this are the Arms of and crests of Drake history of Drake Resevoir The area includes one of the largest universities in the UK

• as for gHits are minimal and 'run-down' shops if we refer to google and for example search 'uk silver jewellery' there are globally 3,230,000 sites. The consistent number one site is a domain of a shop in Drake Circus who sold their previous domain www.plymouth-england.com to arespected local historian. What reference or verification is given to the claim that it has some "run down shops".
• over a long period attempts by anybody to publish a true and accurate account of 'drake circus' have been systematically vandalised with legitimate references constantly being deleted.2007 copyright chris robinson81.155.65.71 20:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

keep The image by chris robinsonshows Drake Circus. The building on the right still stands today occupied by the agents fulfords maybe shown more clearly at [8] As for run down Drake Circus has benefited from extensive investment over the past five years. I am sure I speak for many that we would like the opportunity of adding and expanding this article but all attempts at doing so over the past 6 months have been met with fierce resistance and blockings of accounts. The motive behind this request for deletion is a vindictive desire to stamp out the truth for the benefit of creating internet presence of a commercial enterprise.Nicole 50dc 20:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Which image on the BBC website are you referring to? (picture 1 is a different building, it's a similar shape but it looks different and is in the wrong location, compare with picture 3 in the same gallery, then compare pictures 3 and 7. Which pedestrian street is in the picture? Snigbrook 22:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to image 1 (the illustration by chris Robinson) which (i think) shows the musuem/library on the right, which means you are looking up to the current Drake Circus area. The Fulfords image shows their buidling which is further up. Either way the images show not 'all' the Edwardian buidlings were flattened in the blitz.Nicole 50dc 23:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The building on the left of image 1 looks like the building with the Guinness sign in image 3 - all the other pictures in the same gallery are in that area. If that's the case then it's the corner of Old Town Street and Ebrington Street (on the map at [9]), and has been demolished, although it is possible that it's a different building. Snigbrook 01:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will invite Chris Robinson to answer that as I must admit I am little confused as to what building it is. I think what is irritating the locals (particularly the older ones) is that it was the developers who originally disenfranchised the term "Drake Circus" from the locals and not the other way round although I really do not want to get embroiled in that war again.Nicole 50dc 16:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Keep that the location is run down does not mean that the article needs be deleted. This seems a real, notable neighborhood in a city, and thus seems inherently notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*keep Whether it is a Street, road, district or whatever is immaterial. It is an area with some notable pre-war and post war history attached to it.86.151.170.3 13:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep like with the other article, the attempt to delete this one seems an effort to avoid the difficulty of writing NPOV articles under harassment from local people with a POV. . There seems to be some local dispute involving the relative importance of the neighborhood, the shopping center , and the town or the university. I think both articles are viable enough. DGG (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that I personally think it's non-notable, my prime motive for bringing the AfD is partly to get a wider audience discussing its viability and partly to put paid to the dissent on the talk page. Additionally there's been a notability tag on the article for a bit now. A properly run AfD will put paid to all these things in one go... at least theoretically anyway. There has been plenty of time for people to add info to this article as it's been there for a year. It's only been semi protected for 2 days. All the IPs had to do was register an account, wait 4 days and they could have added the required info. Instead they preferred to use disruptive tactics instead. This isn't a bad faith nomination, it's to try to get things sorted once and for all. As I put on the talk page, it will either survive this AfD or it won't. If it is indeed noteable then it will give someone a kick in the ass to prove it instead of whining about it. That fact that it's semi-protected is immaterial, info could have been placed on the talk page by IPs for us to include it. In spite of the shouters' complaints there have been plenty of additions to the article as well as deletions. The history is there to see, there is no cadre conspiring to wipe it from the face of Wikipedia. If there were justifiable additions then they would have been included. As you can see from the talk page plenty of offers were made, but no-one took us up on them. ---- WebHamster 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully accept your motivation--it was a little hard to figure out otherwise. Thanks for the clarification,03:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I've just asked the admin who protected it to remove the semi-protection from the Drake Circus page to allow the user currently known as Nicole 50dc the opportunity to edit the page that he feels so strongly about. It seems inequitable to consider deletion when the creator of the page has had only a short time in which he could edit it. He seems to be almost the only remaining active user/IP from those 20 or so socks etc. that disrupted this article and the adjacent Drake Circus Shopping Centre one - (its AfD). I would like to think that, having learned from the experience gained from the other AfD in which he participated copiously, he will now add content to this article responsibly, and, having had that opportunity, will accept the consensus as to its fate (whatever that may be). Smalljim 22:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Nicole 50dc 23:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short time? The article was created in October 2006 by User:Burbidget who hasn't taken part in the dissent and/or afd. ---- WebHamster 23:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a series of edits by our old friend Yiwentang (now blocked) on 30 October 2007, culminating in this one [10] that started this disagreement. When I spotted it I copied the last pre-Yiwentang version of this article over to the shopping centre one [11] as a compromise. So I suppose that means this is all my fault… Smalljim 23:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I summarily sentence you to a week in a tent right in the centre of Drake Circus :P ---- WebHamster 23:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! The road or the shopping centre? 'night. Smalljim 23:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment'Thank you although it remains blocked to me. I particularly wanted to publish images with an account of the long lost and concealed entrance to the Portland Square Bomb Shelter in Drake Circus where so many children lost their lives. In April 2008, on the 67th anniversary of the tragedy a memorial will be held for all those killed in the Portland Square, Drake Circus bomb shelter however maybe I should wait until after the event.Nicole 50dc 23:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• — Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Would that be under your own name or as 81.155.65.71? ---- WebHamster 01:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's nothing to stop you uploading the pictures any time you like, you aren't blocked from doing that. Please also bear in mind that WP:NOT#NEWS ---- WebHamster 23:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just been unprotected. Please behave reasonably! I'm off to bed now, hope to see the makings of a great article by tomorrow morning. --Smalljim 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Recent research by Smalljim and outlined on Talk:Drake Circus#Sub-district shows that Drake Circus isn't actually an official area at all. As best we can figure it, officially, Drake Circus is just the name of a road and part of a roundabout. It's not an officially designated council district, it's not an officially designated postal district. Seemingly it's just a local nickname for an arbitrary area around the road itself. So far, after protection was removed, there seems to be no serious attempt at establishing notability by the outspoken supporters of the article. There have been additions to the article of a similarly named reservoir which ran out of water once and a bomb shelter that was bombed once, but nothing that could be interpreted as notable per WP:N. ---- WebHamster 02:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The large multi-million pound Plymouth business schoolis next door to 50@Drake Circus and as you can see its postal address is clearly 'Drake Circus'. So indeed is the landmark money centre building orthe voodoo lounge which are two or three streets away. If it were just a street or roundabout the council (and post office) would have a sign that says 'Drake Circus Street' or 'Place' or 'Road' or whatever. Instead it is signposted 'Drake Circus'. I hope to upload more images and content over the next 48 hours. In the meantime maybe worth noting that most old (and some modern) maps of London do not officially recognise Chinatown,_London so does that article likewise have no right to be here.Nicole 50dc 14:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Drake Circus is the street name whether you like it or not, it doesn't need a road or street suffix to be considered to be either. Just because a firm or building gives itself an area name does not mean that area name is official. The mail gets there because the local sorting office knows where it is. Given the accusations of WP:COI from yourself and others with regard to DCSC you seem remarkably keen on trotting out the Midas Homes link at every opportunity. What other articles do or don't do is immaterial to this discussion as you have already been told. Meanwhile if you can come up with an official definition of Drake Circus being an area as opposed to a road then please do so, until then it's merely original research and synthesis and is meaningless to WP. Just for those who haven't read Smalljim's research, even the road name hasn't been there all that long (relatively speaking). Apparently it was changed from Tavistock Street to Drake Circus just after WWII. Even now it's only a section of a road as it becomes North Hill a short way along its length. So far nothing has pointed to the area being notable. Photographs of the street and descriptions of empty 19th century reservoirs and bombed bomb shelters does not a notable area make. ---- WebHamster 15:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt you will ever be able to verify the area sign was changed from Tavistock Street to Drake Circus just after WWII. Even if it were remotely true then by your own admission it makes the sign at least 60+ years old!Nicole 50dc 02:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the web pages being cited for the bomb shelter only mention Portland Square, there is no mention at all of Drake Circus. Likewise the reservoir citation also makes no mention of Drake Circus. This being the case it's looking like these two sections need to be deleted. ---- WebHamster 16:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tragedy was "in the vicinity of the Planeteriumwhich is in "...Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA.."Nicole 50dc 03:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For photographs of buildings you need permission from the architect, not just the photographer. IANAL & IMHO, these pictures cannot by licensed under GFDL of Creative Commons, without permission of the architect.[12] Two of them have come through so i hope to publish them within 12 hours. It has already been established that Portland Square falls within Drake Circus."Hepworth House, Portland Villas, Drake Circus,plymouth or professor in analytical chemistry,A429,portland square development,drake circus,plymouth,Devon,PL4 8AA. I cannot upload any more detail due to the constant edit conflicts caused by your incessant disruption.Nicole 50dc 16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the midashome reference was only added to the discussion page to rebut the suggestion the building fell outside the drake circus area. I have absolutely no commercial interest in that or any other organization and if you think links are spammy remove them. My only concern is to further academic knowledge and research whilst ensuring factual history or geography is not distorted for the benefit of a shopping mallNicole 50dc 17:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic digression collapsed

Off-topic digression collapsed ---- WebHamster 02:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Collapsed section reduced because it included some relevant comments --Smalljim 10:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Please read the article you quoted properly "The copyright act does not, however, prevent anyone from taking or painting pictures of any building visible from a public place, or displaying such pictures." You aren't publishing plans or blueprints. You are taking snaps from a public thoroughfare, it's perfectly legal to do so without anyone's permission. If you wish to waste your time making the effort then go right ahead, but do not make statements that other people may construe as law. My "incessant disruption" as you call it, and I remind you of WP:CIVIL, are correcting your basic errors, spelling mistakes and various other mistakes. If you don't wish to read WP:MOS or WP:EL then fair enough, but do not insult other people who have done so and are correcting your mistakes. Either get it right or accept that there are others who will make it right for you ---- WebHamster 17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The reference actually says "The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act, passed in 1990, extended copyright protection to architectural works unless the building was constructed or the plans to the building were otherwise published before Dec. 1, 1990. Courts have generally agreed that all buildings not yet substantially complete as of Dec. 1, 1990, are covered by the act." Few of the notable buildings in Drake Circus were built or designed before 1990 (neither was the mall).How others construe the Law is their choice. My choice is not take the risk and its reference is to explain my choice and the reason why no images have been published yet. It was not intended as any form of legal advice or warning. I have made few if any spelling mistakes that i have not corrected myself.Nicole 50dc 18:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] This is beyond the purview of this AfD, but I didn't make that quote up, it was from the very article you linked to. Blame them not me. Like I said, if you wish to waste your time then feel free. As regards your mistakes, the history is there for all to see, both your mistakes and my corrections, "vodoo longue" anyone? ---- WebHamster 18:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] For example property releases reinforce my fears (I know it’s contentious but I am not prepared to take the risk)and explains why I have not published all the images yet. Please bear in mind I have only been able to edit this article for less than two days which in itself was only created a few days beforehand by Smalljim.Nicole 50dc 23:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] And I quote from that page "Definitions courtesy of American Society of Media Photographers." You are in the UK, the buildings are in the UK. QED. [End of troll buffet]. ---- WebHamster 23:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I said 'for example'.( If you must know i was referring to the crucial issue of where the images are first published. i.e. the US - this page is being served from a US based server.) however i do not want to cloud this issue with a legal matter. The only point I want to make is that I have not as yet published all the images relating to Drake Circus.Nicole 50dc 23:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above discussion is at ALL about the status of this article WRT to deletion/keeping. This entire page is being used as a proxy for a discussion that should happen ONLY on the talk page of the article in question. Let's keep the discussion here about the status of this article with regard to guidelines/policies such as notability and verifiability and original research. All other discussions, such as those related to the content of said article, should happen on the article talk page. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, from what I can see in the links provided, this is a shopping center and not a neighborhood or district. Regardless, it is unverified original research (calling a shopping center a district with that collection of sources is blatant OR synthesis), and there do seem to be conflict of interest problems as WebHamster indicates. The closing admin should consider ignoring several SPA arguments above that assume bad faith against the AFD nominator, and established users arguing to keep should strongly reexamine this situation. --Coredesat 22:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This also seems to be a POV fork of Drake Circus Shopping Centre. --Coredesat 22:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reviewing the rewrite, my argument is still to delete, as a non-notable street. --Coredesat 23:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, synthesis for a place that doesn't exist. The confusion in this page, the articles and their talks seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the two uses of "Drake Circus". Drake Circus Shopping Centre is exactly what it says it is. However, there is no district by that name, merely a street. The street of Drake Circus (which is the real subject of this article) is not notable by itself. Regarding the oddities in addresses: The Moneycentre appears to be a street away, but when the roundabout existed was adjacent to it. The Shopping Centre's address is Bretonside as its main entrance is actually on the street Bretonside. All mail to the University goes through an office which is situated on Drake Circus, hence why the whole campus appears to be in "Drake Circus".--Nilfanion (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably more of a shopping area than a district, and it seems to me that most of it was demolished and replaced by the shopping centre and roundabout (btw, the new shopping centre's address is Charles Street, not Bretonside, and the old one was apparently 'Eastlake Walk'). Snigbrook 02:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and question/request: I wish "my" library had a copy of Pevsner and Cherry's Buildings of Devon or indeed anything authoritative about Plymouth. It doesn't, and no library that does is within easy reach. As it is, I have to rely on dribs and drabs in individual web pages, and also "plymouthdata.info", which lacks any obvious academic credential but does seem to have been assembled very conscientiously and disinterestedly. The latter site doesn't have a page on Drake Circus, but it does have a couple of pages on the "Blitz": Blitz.htm on March '41 and Blitz2.htm on April '41. The former includes a photograph of a building on fire in Drake Circus. The latter doesn't mention Drake Circus but does talk of the hit on an air-raid shelter that's described in the WP article as "nearby Portland Square". This kind of thing is compatible with the notion, suggested above, that Drake Circus is merely the combination road and roundabout; perhaps a significant road, but no more. Now, if this is indeed the extent of its formal recognition, it would not be surprising if it were also informally used to mean an area. But I haven't seen any convincing sign of this. Plymouthdata.info says little more about it, but of course it's hard to say whether this is because there's little else to say, because the author hasn't yet got around to it, or simply because what can be said about it doesn't happen to interest the author. So let's instead turn to finished (and respected) books, rather than works in the making. What do Pevsner and Cherry say? What does Pevsner say (in Devon or South Devon) about pre-"development" Drake Circus? What do other authoritative books say? Off to your libraries, ladies and gents. -- Hoary 01:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lucky me - I have copies of both Pevsner and Cherry's Devon and the original South Devon. Neither of them says anything significant, though. There are entries in the later work for the museum (I used this as a ref in Plymouth City Museum and Art Gallery), the then Polytechnic (which would belong in Plymouth University) and the Moneycentre. Also mentions of Sherwell House and Queen Anne Terrace etc. There's more about North Hill: not surprising because it's much longer. The Edwardian roundabout with the Guinness Clock was demolished before the later much-expanded edition was revised, so there's nothing about that, but nothing in the original either. I spent half an hour in Plymouth local studies library earlier in the week, but it wasn't long enough, I only really confirmed that the road was called Tavistock Road until at least 1955. // I should perhaps clarify here why this article exists at all: until 30 October it was the article about the shopping centre, but on that day it was hijacked by an SPA who rewrote it as a POV article about a "sub-district" of the same name. At the time the existence of such a sub-district seemed possible to me, so, apparently being the first to notice the change, I left it as it was and copied the pre-hijacked version over the existing redirect to at Drake Circus Shopping Centre. Then much vigorous discussion between the SPA and (mostly) WebHamster while I looked for evidence and built up an alternative article based on what I found. Then yesterday an attempt at compromise where I added parts of the SPA's article to my fork, and late last night copied it into main space. // Looked at dispassionately this morning, it should go, really - there's nothing to make it more notable than thousands of other city streets, unless we want article on all those too. Some do, I know. Smalljim 11:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the good work, Smalljim. -- Hoary 11:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Struck through prior vote. After further review, it does seem more and more that this really is a non-notable street, rather than a neighborhood, and also seems an inappropriate POV form from the shopping center article. Per the research done by Hoary above, it does appear that this street/neighborhood (if it may be called that) lacks any real independant sources to expand the article past the stub stage, and likley is non-notable.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, following Smalljim's (non-) findings. -- Hoary 11:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC) .... PS yes, as Smalljim suggests below, redirect to the article on the shopping centre. -- Hoary 01:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If the result is going to be delete, as now appears likely, can I suggest it should be redirect to Drake Circus Shopping Centre instead, because most people coming here looking for an article on the shopping centre would expect to find it under Drake Circus. Other existing redirects are Drake circus and Drakecircus. --Smalljim 11:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - some of the information could be useful for a Plymouth City Centre article, but I don't think Drake Circus needs an article of its own. Snigbrook 02:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — if anyone wants a copy for merger purposes, just ask. --Haemo 01:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg the Gorilla[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. Article is a summary of the character with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT, and a trivia section, which is discouraged against in WP:TRIVIA. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Greg the Gorilla' -wikipedia" on Google returns only 7 hits, entirely non-reliable fansites and forums and trivial mentions. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite, or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 19:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to List of Bloody Roar characters. Pinball22 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 20:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Bloody Roar characters. (A fair number of character articles linked to from there could also use merging into it.) —Quasirandom 20:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I've seen that merging to a unified list is a common proposed solution in many AfDs, but I don't see how that addresses the issues since there appears to be no notable information in the article. Even if you trimmed it down and then merged, instead of a bunch of non-notable articles, you simply have a single non-notable article. Without reliable secondary sources, the presentation of the subject matter doesn't change anything as there is still no way to establish notability and the article would still fail WP:FICT. Likewise, instead of a bunch of individual plot summaries, you have a single article with combined list of plot summaries, still lacking any real-world context or significance. I just don't see there being enough content in the character list to deserve a fork from the main game article itself. Doctorfluffy 20:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case, I don't think the list is likely survive a notability argument, but until the merged list is actually created we won't know -- and certainly a merged list has a better chance of finding sources to support the notability of the subject (the characters as a set, as opposed to each character), one that the editors deserve a good-faith chance at. In general, I strongly prefer incremental improvements: lots of small changes have a better chance of creating opportunities, by letting editors see other possibilities, than sweeping changes do. —Quasirandom 21:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I can see your point about the whole set of characters being more notable than the sum of each individually, but I really doubt reliable sources are going to emerge for these characters. This one had 7 ghits, a few others in the category were actually worse with 4 ghits, and, after googling maybe 10 at random, I didn't find any that broke 200. I wouldn't haven't nominated it for deletion if I thought there was any hope of salvaging anything notable from the article. Doctorfluffy 21:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above STORMTRACKER 94 20:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there are no primary sources to verify the content is not original research, nor reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that this fictional creature has any real-world notability.--Gavin Collins 10:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, NN. The entry in the List is sufficient. Smalljim 20:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 00:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, given the target is gone. There's a unanimous agreement that this article shouldn't exist by itself, and (now) no viable place to merge, hence the deletion. Daniel 09:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violet fungus[edit]

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

Fails WP:FICT due to lack of secondary sources. No real world context, not notable in the real world Pilotbob 19:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) and don't delete that article -- see comments at its deletion discussion page. Pinball22 19:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per Pinball22. BOZ 19:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above STORMTRACKER 94 20:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useless trivia. No real world notability. Bombycil 16:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) was subject to AFD, which closed as "Delete, and expand whatever Creature type gets renamed to." That article is itself on AFD at the moment. GRBerry 03:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, given the target is gone. There's a unanimous agreement that this article shouldn't exist by itself, and (now) no viable place to merge, hence the deletion. Daniel 09:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treant[edit]

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

Fails WP:FICT due to lack of secondary sources. No real world context, not notable in the real world Pilotbob 19:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) and don't delete that article -- see comments at its deletion discussion page. Pinball22 19:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per Pinball. BOZ 19:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Pinball22 STORMTRACKER 94 20:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useless trivia. No real world notability. Bombycil 16:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, given the target is gone. There's a unanimous agreement that this article shouldn't exist by itself, and (now) no viable place to merge, hence the deletion. Daniel 09:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tendriculos[edit]

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

Fails WP:FICT due to lack of secondary sources. No real world context, not notable in the real world Pilotbob 19:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) and don't delete that article -- see comments at its deletion discussion page. Pinball22 19:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world notability. If Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) gets deleted, this plant could be mentioned in a footnote in The Day of the Triffids, where the idea for this plant probably originated. --Gavin Collins 11:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useless trivia. No real world notability. Bombycil 16:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, given the target is gone. There's a unanimous agreement that this article shouldn't exist by itself, and (now) no viable place to merge, hence the deletion. Daniel 09:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shrieker (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Shrieker (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:FICT due to lack of secondary sources. No real world context, not notable in the real world Pilotbob 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) and don't delete that article -- see comments at its deletion discussion page. Pinball22 19:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per Pinball22. BOZ 19:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useless trivia. No real world notability. Bombycil 16:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's more useful than you are.
• Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, given the target is gone. There's a unanimous agreement that this article shouldn't exist by itself, and (now) no viable place to merge, hence the deletion. Daniel 09:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shambling Mound[edit]

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

Fails WP:FICT due to lack of secondary sources. No real world context, not notable in the real world Pilotbob 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) and don't delete that article -- see comments at its deletion discussion page. Pinball22 19:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per Pinball22. BOZ 20:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this fictional plant has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world notability. --Gavin Collins 11:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useless trivia. No real world notability. Bombycil 16:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, given the target is gone. There's a unanimous agreement that this article shouldn't exist by itself, and (now) no viable place to merge, hence the deletion. Daniel 09:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom fungus[edit]

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

Fails WP:FICT due to lack of secondary sources. No real world context Pilotbob 19:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) and don't delete that article -- see comments at its deletion discussion page. Pinball22 20:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per Pinball22. BOZ 20:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ghits show that no reliable secondary sources exist to demonstrate notability outside of the game. Shame it can't speak or sing, otherwise this could be merged with Little Shop of Horrors (musical).--Gavin Collins 11:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useless trivia. Bombycil 16:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 09:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin vine[edit]

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

Fails WP:FICT due to lack of secondary sources. No real world context Pilotbob 19:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) and don't delete that article -- see comments at its deletion discussion page. Pinball22 20:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per Pinball22. BOZ 20:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unlikely secondary sources exist. Doctorfluffy 03:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ghits show that no reliable secondary sources exist to demonstrate notability outside of the game. --Gavin Collins 11:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useless trivia. Bombycil 16:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 20:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. Done. Neil ☎ 14:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metallic dragons (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Metallic dragons (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:FICT due to lack of secondary sources. Solely a summary of in universe information. No real world context is or can be estabilished. Pilotbob 19:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). Pinball22 20:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per Pinball22. BOZ 20:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article doesn't have an AFD notice on it. BOZ 20:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of throwing the notice up. -- GJD (Talk to me|Damage I've done) 14:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creature type[edit]

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

This article has insufficient content, real world context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of this creature type (or is that type of creature?) outside of the game rulebook from which these fictional creatures are derived. Gavin Collins 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nomination as written doesn't make sense, since this isn't a creature type, it's about the concept of creature types in D&D and a list of the different types that exist in the game. This is the sort of thing that would be a section of the main article if we had infinitely big main articles, but since we don't, it makes a good supporting article. Pinball22 19:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Would the main article be allowed to go into infinite detail about game mechanics? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 03:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing quite says "deletionist on a spree" more than this kind of error and a over reliance on cut and paste. Basically this set of deletions should be described as "Some fictional things I found that don't have references yet" Artw —Preceding comment was added at 21:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nothing says words of wisdom quite like this article: "A plant is a vegetable creature". However, without any sources, we don't know if it is a creature type, a type of creature or.... a creature type concept. In any case, I just don't see how this is a "good supporting article".--Gavin Collins 22:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Pinball. BOZ 19:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an important element of the rules of D&D. Articles like this are split off from the main article in accordance with WP:SUMMARY. --Polaron | Talk 20:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pinball.--Robbstrd 23:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - to stop a snowball close and keep the discussion going. I gave up following AD&D after the heresy of Unearthed Arcana, so I'm not sure how important the "creature type" category is in the new 3.5th edition; but if this article is simply summarizing game mechanics, shouldn't it get transwikied off to a D&D wiki? Polaron has a point; but, the main D&D article doesn't go into so much detail about game mechanics that this subarticle would need any forking. The D&D article is about the real-world aspects of the game (description, explanation, popularity, past troubles, flagship status, pioneering aspects etc.). The minutiae of game mechanics isn't there. I'd suggest maybe Wikipedia's not meant to teach us how to play the game, but to tell us what it is. After all, the point of an article shouldn't be to summarize a company's gaming manuals, should it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide. There are no reliable secondary sources to establish real world notability. There is no real world context to this information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotbob (talk • contribs) 16:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep / Eventual Merge. While not a member, a glance at the talk page for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons shows that they know that the various creature articles are a problem and need listification. It seems that the preliminary work on listification has stalled for right now, but deleting the underlying material isn't going to help on that. This article should eventually be merged into an entirely new framework for discussing creatures in Dungeons & Dragons, but Wikipedia is not on a deadline. SnowFire 04:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would not be concerned if this article gets deleted as the material is available on lots of fansites. There are no footnotes to verify the content anyway, so better to delete, rather than copy and paste suspect material. --Gavin Collins 09:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The standard of "It's available elsewhere" would delete all of Wikipedia... well, all of it except for original research, I suppose. And the material actually is cited in the reference given. I suppose you could ask for specific page numbers for each statement, but that's a standard that is only seen on some Featured Articles. SnowFire 14:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete listing the types of creatures in D&D is a job for the Monster Manual, not wikipedia. Even if enough encyclopedic content could be found, it would be better placed in a "types" section in an article about creatures in general. Percy Snoodle 16:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep so that the stub and start-class articles on specific creature types can be merged into it. NeonMerlin 19:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wikipedia is not a gameguide. Ridernyc 11:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete by unanimous consent as a poor biography with no notability, and no reliable sources. Also, it is in violation of the rule against prognostication, because the author's first publication date is in the future. Can be recreated when the subject is verifiably notable. Bearian 19:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dalan Edwin Decker[edit]

Dalan Edwin Decker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. Does not meet criteria of WP:BIO - 4 Google results for "Dalan Edwin Decker" and 5 for "Dalan Decker". Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 18:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO "Writer" with an upcoming vanity-press book. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - An article on an author of a single, self-published book (forthcoming). Fails WP:BIO. The creation of Jorgerodriguez1000 (talk · contribs), a single purpose account. Victoriagirl 20:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails the biography policy. STORMTRACKER 94 20:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:N and WP:BIO guidelines, no evidence of coverage in independant reliable sources. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An article about a non-notable author with no reliable sources. I see no reason to keep the article. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Found this in the aforementioned author list, and my recommendation is that we delete the article as non-notable. K. Scott Bailey 15:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless someone strenuously objects, I suggest we close and delete per WP:SNOW. There is no way that this article has any chance of being kept through this process, as there are no reliable sources cited, no evidence of notability, and it clearly fails WP:BIO as well. Objections? K. Scott Bailey 18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, because there was no consensus to merge. Future merge proposals (given there appears to be some support for such a move) should be done editorially, where such a procedure can gather a clearer consensus (as the 'delete' option is taken out of the equation). Daniel 09:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foo[edit]

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

This article is a definition of a word and is already included in Wiktionary. Pckilgore 18:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why not redirect this page to Foo fighter? --Blanchardb 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, significant programming jargon, page is already more than a dicdef. (wiktionary:foo is just the first sentence of this article.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Although honestly I could see a strong case for merging foo, bar (computer science), and foobar. They are obviously very closely related. --Dhartung | Talk 19:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep There's a lot more info here than a simple dictionary definition. Also foo as a redirect to foo fighters is a bit vague. A^RendedWinter 19:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but it should include articles on words where those words can support an encyclopedia article rather than a simple dictionary definition. This word seems to surpass that standard, and thus the article should be kept. It should be noted that most words will NOT be able to meet this standard; however this one does and it should be kept. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep ARendedWinter & Jayron32 have it right, an article amounting to more than a dicdef is certainly possbile (and redirect to foo fighters is a bad idea). Pete.Hurd 22:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significantly more than just a dictionary definition. --Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 23:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to Strong Keep. Just look at the what links here page. Not to mention that there are Wikipedia policy pages that have links to this article. --Blanchardb 00:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most of those links seem to have arisen from the ((SCOTUSCase)) template, which has a variable or placeholder or something named "Foo"... —David Eppstein 04:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to comment This is probably the case, but by pure chance I came across one that doesn't. Something about sockpuppeteering. --Blanchardb 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable term used in computer science. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - this is certainly more than a definition. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - The term is hardly just a dictionary def. And whoever suggested a connection to Foo Fighters apparently didn't even read the article. There's no relationship at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.218.77 (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Important to computer science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.74.92.93 (talk • contribs)
• Merge to foobar (as User:Dhartung says) or metasyntactic variable. I don't think we should put work into maintaining multiple articles if they describe the same subject. Jason McHuff 10:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with redirect to foobar, or vice-versa. Foo & company are important, but we don't need multiple articles about different common metasyntactic variables. - Daekharel 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daekharel (talk • contribs)
• Merge After looking at the metasyntactic variable page, I think I'm going to reevaluate my own opinion to merge. I guess I can see the merit of including this information on wikipedia, but multiple articles on essentially the same subject seems a little silly. At least merge with foobar Pckilgore 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Struck through my prior vote. This should be merged with metasyntactic variable as described above. After reading the article again, and reading the article on metasyntactic variables, it really seems that foo is merely a common example of a metasyntactic variable, and thus really could serve well as a section of that article. A merge would make both articles better. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with metasyntactic variable. There's not much more to say about "Foo" than "it's a metasyntactic variable" and not much more to say about metasyntactic variables than "foo & co." ^L_Wizard @ 02:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Whatever gets done, at least keep Foo as a redirect. I know it's quite popular as a placeholder on WP. shoy (^words _words) 02:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with foobar and bar (computer science) into metasyntactic variable. No reason to have four articles discussing essentially the same concept. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn: I've found this [13] which seems to back up the article. --- The Anome 23:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cristyle[edit]

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

Unferenced, and attempts using the usual search engines to confirm the assertions in the article have failed to come up with anything. Delete per the verifiability policy, unless verifiable cites from reliable sources can be provided to support it. The Anome 18:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 obvious hoax FisherQueen 12:11, 7 November 2007

Larrwitt[edit]

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

WP:HOAX. Correct me if I'm wrong, but pretty sure there isn't an Egyptian god of sexual deviancy. Also a google search for the word Larrwitt returns no matches. A^RendedWinter 18:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete This is obviously a hoax. Mr pand 18:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. The name doesn't even sound semitic, and neither does the mantra. --Blanchardb 18:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - also could not establish any WP:RS, let alone WP:N. MatthewYeager 18:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to this I have found many references to Larrwitt in biblical terminology and the god was in fact worshiped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryman33 (talk •

— Larryman33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

contribs) 19:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Guys, I'm not an expert on this, I was merely providing a stub for a Egyptian expert to build on. I cant write Hebrew so I had to write the mantra and name phonetically. :( Sorry about that! I'm surprised larrwitt didn't come up on a Google search, but like i tried to point out, this is an ALMOST non-existential God, who isn't worshiped anymore. Its no wonder he's difficult to find on the internet.[reply]

• • Comment well, can you back up your claim? --Blanchardb 20:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found my data in the book "The the death of Egypt" Larrwitt was so unknown the only traces of his existence were destroyed in the raid of cyro undertowns in which many smaller religions were wiped out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryman33 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete obviously a hoax. STORMTRACKER 94 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys deleteing my rebuttles?! I tried to say that I found out about larrwitt from Dr Jakob Stark (Writing phonetically again) In St Peterberg university. If you have any query's about larrwitt or want to clarify some larrwitt facts, goto the St Petersberg university website and send a message to them. I found they were helpful people. The reason most of you haven't discovered larrwitt is because Larrwitt was only discovered recently, because the cartouche/hieroglyph for larrwitt is very similar to the cartouche/heiroglyph of Min the Egyptian God of Fertility and Sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panikmachenmann (talk • contribs) 20:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC) — Panikmachenmann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete, and block hoaxer. Corvus cornix 21:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not being biased! Anyone checked with mr Stark yet? He appears to be ignoring me. Panikmachenmann 21:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a full bibliographic citation for this source, so that it can be evaluated? exact title, author, publisher, year, and so on. —Quasirandom 00:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I searched numerous databases of journal articles that included archaeological papers and found nothing that matched "Larwit", "Larrwitt", "Larwitt" or "Larrwit". There were several results for "egyptian God of sexual deviancy" but none relevant to the subject of this article. If there is ongoing research at St. Petersberg University, it is original research. Bobby1011 01:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - an obvious hoax. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One of the most obvious and poorly done hoaxes I've seen. Edward321 04:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah Bobby, I have to assume that it is original research then, I will fight no furth ur for it. Sorry, I wasn't aware of OR policy.Panikmachenmann 20:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per the nomination, this is an apparent hoax. Yamaguchi先生 21:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt a hoax, but Dr Stark has verified with me that his work on this subject is still only in the research stage, and he is looking for some proof which directly refers to Larrwitt, instead of just referring to him in passing. However, it is due for deletion under to Original research....thing Panikmachenmann 22:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Salted --JForget 00:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pinch day[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:MADEUP. Google returns nothing to suggest that this term has any relation to birthdays. The only thing of interest I could find was a few sites linking this term to St Patricks Day (however none were very reliable). Maybe a redirect if there is any merit in it. A^RendedWinter 18:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete and salt. I got a feeling that if the article is just deleted it will pop up again. --Blanchardb 18:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An anon just added a link, but it is to some blog that states it's being done in one family. Is that the best that can be done? --Blanchardb 19:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 20:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ibid et al 21:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Google reveals nothing. There's nothing to suggest that this term exists. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Nonsense. Thanks, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 21:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense and nonnotable. Nburden ^(T) 21:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mulloy[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax-neologism. I can not find any info to support that this is even a real neologism. It is tagged for transwiki consideration already, but if not a true term, that should be cancelled as well. Arakunem^Talk 17:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doh, too late. The wiktionary bot has transwikied this nonsense. More cleanup now... Arakunem^Talk 23:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Speedied off of Wiktionary. Arakunem^Talk 15:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Given the last paragraph, I would also go with Speedy. --Blanchardb 17:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete this garbage quickly. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 keep side didn't have one policy based reason. This is a Secret ^account 18:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PADD[edit]

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

Real-world information is almost entirely original research; one bit that is cited to a third-party source can be incorporated into LCARS (to which this article might more appropriately redirect). There is no assertion of real-world notability for these props, but there is some material based on the more broadly-scene user interface in the LCARS article. --EEMIV (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with appropriate cleanup tag. OR or not, the fact remains that these gizmos appeared in Star Trek before they did in real life and are quite notable in the Star Trek universe. --Blanchardb 17:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There need to be sources demonstrating that they are notable out of the Star Trek universe. Otto4711 04:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it is linked to by many other articles. Anarchist42 18:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is there a Treknology article to dump things in? 132.205.99.122 20:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable. FYI, Memory Alpha is the Star Trek wiki. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in the absence of reliable secondary sources either about the in-universe ST aspects or the original research claims that the ST design "may have" inspired PDA design. Otto4711 04:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto4711. I can't see how this meets the criteria for an encyclopedic article. Or merge into a ST article. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 04:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I'll admit that it does need some more ref's, but seems notable. - Rjd0060 04:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you let us know what the reliable sources are that you're relying on in making your determination? Otto4711 18:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable. Patrick80639 05:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - where in the article is that notability asserted and referenced? Lacking that, the article should be deleted? --EEMIV (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete GRBerry 03:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slates[edit]

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

Article consists of one big quote. No claim of meeting WP:Notability in article. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 17:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, then move Slates (album) to this title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HisSpaceResearch (talk • contribs) 17:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a Secret ^account 18:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Symphonic Winds[edit]

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

Page has been tagged as unreferenced since June of this year. I've just done some googling, and found one item that might just qualify as an independent source, and that was so sketchy as to be meaningless. There are several things that could be construed as claims to notability, but without sources they're worthless. Please also see recent deletion discussion for another group associated with St. Peters Lutheran College, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Peters Orchestra. Finally, even if this article survives AFD, it should be moved to St Peters Symphonic Winds since Symphonic Winds is a synonym for Concert band and so should really re-direct there. David Underdown 10:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. David Underdown 10:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Here is the link. http://www.stpeters.qld.edu.au/cms/stpeters/cocurricular/music/Ensembles.html I don't know if it is notable however, as I can't find any sources saying who they played with etc. If it is found to be notable, then it needs to be rewritten scope_creep 15:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, that's not an independent source as it is from the school itself. Notability requires independent sources. David Underdown 15:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 17:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article is not sourced and fails WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion. TonyBallioni 12:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TonyBallioni. The ensemble's entry in the College's article should be sufficient. Smalljim 15:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kubigula (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doing business as[edit]

Doing business as (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:DICT. This appears to be an expanded definition of a phrase. Probably better transwikied to Wiktionary. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 17:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, article is much more than a definition, giving equivalents in other dialects of English and discussing the necessity and legal ramifications of d/b/a. --Dhartung | Talk —Preceding comment was added at 20:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a legal term widely used and defined by examples in common law. It can be sourced better. Bearian'sBooties 00:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per both above. As is, the article is already far more than a dicdef, though it requires sources. Although improving it is out of my league, I'm sure someone with expertise in the area could help expand it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to trade name. Bobby1011 01:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as this is a legal term. (It is also not the same thing as a "trade name".) Reswobslc 04:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The term "trade name" generally refers to products rather than companies, so it is best kept separate. (Example: muriatic acid is a trade name for hydrochloric acid.)  –radiojon 05:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well I don't know how it works in other nations, but in Australia you would never hear the phase "doing business as". A company is said to be "trading as" or "operating under a trading name". Bobby1011 03:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply In the US, "DBA" is used as a noun. I own a business and I got a DBA for it. Here is an example of a form one might fill out here in the US to get such a thing - which is an alias for a legal entity, not a trademark or product. it most definitely deserves its own article. Reswobslc 08:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we tend to butcher the language in the U.S. anyhow, which is how DBA can be a noun (and "google" a verb). I would be okay with moving it to term more recognized throughout the world, and "trading as" seems fine. However that term risks confusion with "trade name", so I think the current setup is more clear.  –radiojon 06:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is a significant legal term of art, and much more than a definition (if any article that defined its subject had to be deleted...). — xDanielx ^T/_C 10:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should confess that I suspect bits of this article may be misleading, but it could just be that my own understanding is slightly awry. I'll look into it. — xDanielx ^T/_C 10:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 19:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curriehill Primary School[edit]

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

A primary school without assertion of notability. The first AfD in 2006 was closed as "keep", but it seems to me that none of the "keep" arguments given there are valid by today's guidelines. The article has not expanded since.

I also nominate the following article about a closely related school:

• Currie Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as wholly unreferenced without any evidence of notability. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I normally (in fact, only have, to date) only support secondary or further education school/college articles, which usually either have sufficient information to sustain an article, or are capable of expansion. Primary schools and the like have much less of a chance to progress in such a manner (as evident by lack of expansion in more than a 12 month period), thus unless they hold even mildly referenced or even verifiable information, particularly with an article at this state and size, simply should not, and cannot, be left as stands. This article in my eyes is no exception to this. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per THOR. TJ Spyke 23:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per Thor. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 15:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect both to Currie to where the content has already been merged. Deletion is not an option because of GFDL considerations. TerriersFan 22:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand. Why wouldn't deletion be an option? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once content has been merged, the edit history must be preserved in an auditable form to meet our WP:GFDL licensing requirements. TerriersFan 02:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singularity 08:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newropeans[edit]

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

I am a sysop on the French version of Wikipedia and I nominate this article for deletion because it has been deleted in German (twice) and in French; see de (1), de (2) and fr if you can read the languages.

The reasons for the deletions were:

• No external source on this group has been given and the mere existence of sources is extremely doubtful. I have not seen the texts in German, but the one in French was 100% written by them and it was a pointless policy statement like “On this topic, Newropeans is in favour of this and that”.
• This group is quite unknown and unrelevant, it hasn’t ever run in an election yet, it has no influence whatsoever, and the (very little) “fame” they have is a result of their PR service. Keriluamox 16:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - no sources/references provided, as said the external links shown are in low count and per PR service "fame". Rudget _{Contributions} 16:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Here is a giveaway: Newropeans works to gain attention, money and members. They haven't achieved notability. I say put this article back on after the 2009 election. --Blanchardb 18:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:N and WP:ORG guidelines; the article lacks any reference to reliable, independent sources, and thus is likely merely self-promotion. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and the founder, Franck Biancheri should probably be added to the AfD as well as his think tank Leap2020. His only other claim to fame is founding AEGEE. Neither he, his think tank nor his party have articles in the French or German wikipedias. Bobby1011 02:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well he had an article but it was deleted immediately after this one. Keriluamox 09:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Only 42 websites link to newropeans.eu, according to Google. No references are provided, either. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Franck Biancheri This guy is notable; he has founded remarkably many organisations (AEGEE has 15 000 members), and was one of the top twenty "heroes of 2003" in this poll by Time Europe for being a "French champion of European unity". I agree that the creation of a dedicated Newropeans article can wait until the 2009 election. - S. Solberg J. 21:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The article says nothing about him being among the "top twenty heroes". You can save the article from deletion by adding this tidbit, provided that it comes with the source you already gave. I will help you: I will remove the PROD tag immediately. --Blanchardb 22:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not any more notable than Europe United (though apparently better organised). —Nightstallion 18:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply It would be a notable achievment in itself to (plan to) launch election campaigns in so many countries at the same time. I am convinced that it's a serious organisation considering the founder's history and the big network of local blogs etc., and that we'll see more of Newropeans later. But this party has a very limited history, no reactions from public opinion or (at least english) independent media, and no election results. - S. Solberg J. 00:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 15:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a Ratner[edit]

Doing a Ratner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms indicates that articles on neologisms may not be appropriate. I would feel more comfortable if this article were a redirect to Gerald Ratner where the phrase is already mentioned in sufficent detail to explain it. As it stands this article mainly mirrors the Gerald Ratner article, with the addition of a questionable list of other people who have "done a Ratner". The selection of people for this list is highly subjective and is possibly OR. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - references provided. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep does seem to be a fairly well-recognised term, in the UK at least. Well-sourced, especially the strong BBC article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neologisms such as this do exist, so there will be references - as the guideline says: "Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case." "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.)" So we need to look at those references to see if they are using the term or are about the term. All of the sources simply use the term, and only one - [14] - could be said to devote a section of the report to be about the term. There is a paragraph in which the history of the term is explained. However, the report is not actually about Doing a Ratner - the report is about Barclay's chief executive Matt Barrett who has "candidly criticised his own product, suggesting that the astute consumer would do well to steer well clear of it."

In the article, once the term is explained, there is little more that can be said about it, and having a list of examples to explain the term is unneeded and excessive. The example is Gerald Ratner himself. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Gerald Ratner#The speech. Article fails to meet the WP:NEO guideline because it doesn't reference any secondary sources about the term. We're really looking for sources on usage of language here. GRBerry 03:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look Out Your About To Be Hit By A Rabbit (film)[edit]

Look Out Your About To Be Hit By A Rabbit (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Unsourced article about a supposed future film. Google returns nothing that seems to discuss it. Original author has been recently blocked for creating nonsense pages. Onorem♠Dil 16:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy deleteIMDB knows nothing either. Nothing on the pages of the alleged stars. Spelled wrong. Almost certainly a hoax. 199.71.183.2 16:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Author keeps removing afd tags so looks like he does not want it considered for deletion.--NrDg 19:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - sole reference content, no text. AFD message has been removed 5 times, see history. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - This is obviously nonsense. And if David Koepp did indeed write the screenplay, I'm sure he'd give the film a grammatically accurate title. Mr pand 18:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, hoax. Corvus cornix 21:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Google reveals absolutely nothing. It's definitely a hoax. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete faster. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Lee Clark III[edit]

Henry Lee Clark III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not sure this is a notable subject, despite the NYTIMES reference. It appears the most notable thing he did was get shot, sad to say. 31 Google hits by this name. Not sure coverage of his killing rises to the level of "significant media coverage." 31 Google hits for "Pookie Loc". I find no mention at Allmusic. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete More of a local news story, than a topic for an encyclopedia. PCock 16:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article gives the impression that Clark's passing is more notable than his career. --Blanchardb 17:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sad that he died so young, but Wikipedia specifically is not a memorial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 18:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Ruhe[edit]

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

There are plenty of reviews of the 2007 film Control (2007 film) that include a sentence or two on Martin Ruhe's good cinematography work on that movie. However, the collective of the references mentioning Ruhe do not provide enough biographical information on Martin Ruhe to create a Wikipedia biographical article. If Ruhe were "notable" as a biographic topic, reliable sources would have covered his life in more detail. A Wikipedia article is not an award to be won through cinematography accomplishments and there seem to be no reason to provide an exception for Martin Ruhe. Until there is more reliable sourced biographical information, the Martin Ruhe article should be deleted. Please review and discuss the reliable source material, including the material on Ruhe contained in the following: (1) The Times May 18, 2007, (2) Irish Times October 5, 2007, (3) The Guardian October 5, 2007; (4) Independent on Sunday October 7, 2007; (5) New York Daily News October 9, 2007; (6) The Village Voice October 10, 2007; (7) Canadian Press October 12, 2007; (8) Toronto Star October 26, 2007; (9) Toronto Star October 26, 2007. -- Jreferee t/c 16:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, east.718 at 15:35, 11/5/2007

• Keep, appears notable. This nomination is incomplete and there is no AfgD tag on the article. Bearian 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable cinematographer. For what it's worth, I'd have considered him notable enough just based on the music video work alone, the Control film credit (for which he's up for a BIFA award) just seals the deal. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Borderline isn't it? However this article in Variety has appeared since the nom. Smalljim 16:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 18:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfeñique fair[edit]

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

Unnotable event, fails WP:NOTE. Brewcrewer 18:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete of Merge into Day of the Dead (as nom). --Brewcrewer 18:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Add references and keep - googling shows plenty of sources to establish notability. Artw 20:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, east.718 at 15:47, 11/5/2007

• Keep. Notable enough and different enough than Day of the Dead per se to have its own listing. --Blanchardb 15:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Googling for "feria del alfenique" gives plenty of hits. It appears to take place in at least one other city (Guanajuato) as well. Article needs copyediting, so I've added the tag. Smalljim 17:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Golden: Guitarist, Radio Personality[edit]

Jim Golden: Guitarist, Radio Personality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Autobiography with little claim to meeting WP:BIO. First several pages of non-wiki ghits don't show notability for this Jim Golden. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 15:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing notable about achieving National recognition and having a CD in international release. Nothing notable about winning three world wide music contests. -- (comment added by IP user 70.191.240.74)

• Delete. Lots of clutter that shows he is constantly surrounded by notable people, but nothing to show notability of his own. The article is also poorly written. --Blanchardb 15:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stated by someone who would not know poorly written if it bit him. -- (comment added by IP user 70.191.240.74)

There are some real garbage articles on this site. This article is not one of them. Opinions are like belly buttons. Everyone body has one. Let the general public judge for itself. Clean up your own site before criticizing an article belonging to someone else.

• Delete as written, doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as failing WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:N, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, and WP:RS. The page has already been userfied, so no long-term harm will be done by deletion. I'm sure he's a good man, a fine father, and a Christian, but music ministers of this ilk are very common, and his hagiography does not belong on WP. Bearian 19:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No claims are made for anyone being a minister in the article. You may try reading it next time before venturing an opinion. -- (comment added by IP user 70.191.240.74)

Hagiography???? You must have dug deep in the thesaurus for that one. Article shows no mention of individual being a minister at any time. It seems he has accomplished much in his life and deserves a page like this one.

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Kholia[edit]

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

Autobiography with no claim of meeting WP:BIO. First several pages of non-wiki ghits don't show notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 15:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The fact the article has to specify the activities of the organizations he worked for is a strong indication that the author himself has doubts about the subject's notability (and, of course, that of those organizations). Like yeah, you probably never heard of that organization, but my friend was its VP. --Blanchardb 15:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 18:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wave motion gun[edit]

Wave motion gun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Delete - fails WP:PLOT as having no out-of-universe content or context. 90% of the article is irredeemable original research as no reliable sources identify any of the "examples of similar weapons" as "wave motion guns" so inclusion is based entirely on the subjective POV of the editor who adds it. Space_Battleship_Yamato_(spaceship)#Weaponry_.2F_defences more than adequately covers the concept as it relates to the actual series so there's no need to merge any of this. Otto4711 15:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is actually describes an important element found in many science fiction anime series. I'm not familiar with the subject so I don't know if there is a more generic term for such a "super weapon" concept. This can be possible expanded to convey the literary significance of this and why it is so common. --Polaron | Talk 17:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - ... which would make it original research, quite beyond the fact that "wave motion gun" is specific to Space Battleship Yamato and is by no means (as Polaron speculates) a commonly-applied generic term for SF fictional superweapons. Reliable sources to the contrary are a prerequisite for saving this mishmash of an article, and there isn't a single one.  RGTraynor  18:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I realize the title is not necessarily appropriate but the article is currently written as describing the commonly used concept in scifi anime of a superweapon that leaves the user vulnerable in the aftermath of using it. This debate is whether an article on this concept is worthy of inclusion or not. We can have a debate about titles later if the article survives. --Polaron | Talk 18:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Great. Do you have any reliable sources discussing the phenomenon? Even presuming the title was recognized generically - which it is not - to avoid violating WP:SYN and WP:OR, the article would need those, not merely a haphazard list of every Big Damn Superweapon in an anime series, movie, SF book or video game, whether or not they actually fit the premise.  RGTraynor  23:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "wave motion gun" is a commonly-applied generic term for SF fictional superweapons in anime and manga. Of course, that only matters if proper sources can be found. Edward321 04:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Just for yucks, I decided to Google the term, specifically excluding sites using the words "Yamato," "Blazers" (to omit Star Blazers) and "lyrics," because most remaining hits refer to a song by that name, to gauge if the term is widely used in SF circles outside of SBY. I get 344 hits. [15].  RGTraynor  08:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Commment Wouldn't the song help establish notability? Edward321 16:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wanted to write a Wave Motion Gun (song) article, no doubt. For establishing anything other than some members of an obscure band are SBY fanboys, probably not.  RGTraynor  18:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 03:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even if we assume good faith, there are no primary or secondary sources to provide evidence that this is not OR.--Gavin Collins 15:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and redirect The wave motion gun is a likely enough search target, given that it's even had its own song (Marcy Playground's Wave Motion Gun), but there's no reason for this element of Space Battleship Yamato to have its own article, and the rest of the content of the article is clearly OR. -Harmil 16:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and redirect per Harmil. Rray 02:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Harmil. Edward321 03:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Harmil. Noroton 19:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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