< November 6 November 8 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. As several commentators have noted, the article probably should be retitled, but the appropriate forum for that discussion is the article's talk page, so they didn't even attempt to form consensus here as to what new title would be better. GRBerry 18:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satanic ritual abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

Satanic ritual abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article needs to, at best be merged into Satanic ritual abuse and or False allegation of child sexual abuse and at worst deleted altogether due to it's pure speculation. It admits to being pure speculation at several points throughout the article and I feel it is simply not necessary. This is not a personal nomination, it is professional. There has also been much argument over the name of the article which has been causing a lot of problems with a specific user. Carter | Talk to me 23:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[See talk page for discussion on Snocrates's opinion.]
The reference by Loftus should be counterbalanced. See:
Summary of Research Examining the Prevalence of Full or Partial Dissociative Amnesia for Traumatic Events
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/tm/prev.html
Ground Lost: The False Memory/Recovered Memory Therapy Debate
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p991137.html
This URL has archives of corroborated cases of recovered memory
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Taubman_Center/Recovmem/index.html
Memory & Abuse: The Recovered Memory Controversy
http://kspope.com/memory/index.php Abuse truth 00:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[See talk page for discussion on Storm Rider's opinion.]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the strongest argument to keep is Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria, the subject of the article fails the caveat to this criteria. the_undertow talk 06:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Vests[edit]

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

non-notable novel/deries of novel per WP:N Henry Merrivale 23:56, 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 --JForget 02:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The myths of December 25th[edit]

The myths of December 25th (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article lacks a reliable source, and thus can be considered original research. Little to no context on subject matter. Borders on fringe theory if not random religious excogitation. Outright non-encyclopedic.

I would have Prod'ed it but there is an ongoing discussion in its talk page on its encyclopedic value. Dali-Llama 23:50, 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. Neil ☎ 13:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defective Epitaph[edit]

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

Delete a slew of unsourced articles about albums by a barely notable band but with neither sourcing nor any indication of coverage in third party reliable sources for notability as we'd like to see per WP:MUSIC.

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

The result was Withdrawn in light of LaMenta3's substantial rewrite and expansion. Carlossuarez46 18:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Israel[edit]

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

Delete unsourced article about a mayor of a mid-sized city - we don't know when or where he was born, or whether he's still alive. Any way, for those who have stated that mayors of cities over 100,000 are inherently notable - Macon's population was 97,606 in 2000 and certainly less when this dude was mayor. Carlossuarez46 23:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have significantly expanded and referenced the article. LaMenta3 01:46, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Jia Jun[edit]

Yan Jia Jun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced one-line bios of wife & husband - she a princess of Wei born in 23 AD - checking our articles about Wei, this state didn't exist from the 200BCs to 200ADs, so this may be a hoax. Anyone more familiar with Chinese history should either add content and sources to these or confirm whether they are hoaxes.

I am also nominating:
I disagree with speedy deleting for now.--A. B. (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ma produce thousands of hits. Moheroy 02:38, 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 Speedy Deleted by User:Maxim. Carlossuarez46 23:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vin Decoding[edit]

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

Given all the cleanup tags, including notability, I think there is little to keep this article going. Delete Blanchardb 19:52, 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 Redirect to Chronicles of Ancient Darkness#Oathbreaker. James086Talk | Email 13:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oathbreaker[edit]

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

Delete book due out in September 2008 for which no information has been given out (per the article). Unsourced, OR, and WP:CRYSTAL. Carlossuarez46 22:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I see there's slightly more information about the book at Chronicles of Ancient Darkness#Oathbreaker which should suffice until publication. --A. B. (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I have added some more information from Chronicles of Ancient Darkness#Oathbreaker to the oathbreaker page. Not sure if it will suffice though.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions) 01:46, 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 YOU HAVE SELECTED KEEP AS THE COMPUTER'S DEFAULT VOICE. east.718 at 04:06, 11/13/2007

Speechbot[edit]

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

Short article about a program from H-P Labs, sourced to a blog, no indication that this program (like a process or a computer program?) is notable and received significant coverage in reliable third-party publications. Carlossuarez46 22:51, 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 redirect- if content is ever added, it can become an article again. Until then, there's no reason to not keep it as an rdr for search purposes. -- Mike (Kicking222) 01:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mad Men episodes[edit]

List of Mad Men episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete or Redirect to Mad Men - The article consists of nothing but an episode table that exists in its entirety in the main article. The main article includes links to comprehensive episode summaries from the network, whereas this list links to stub Wikipedia articles which are all nominated for merger. Per WP:SUMMARY this is an unnecessary content fork and the main article is not large enough to require a separate duplicate list. Attempt to redirect was reverted without comment. Otto4711 22:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Masaruemoto. Decoratrix 00:15, 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 Keep. @pple complain 05:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan Prisoners Support Group[edit]

Vegan Prisoners Support Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm all for animals and the like, but this organisation does not assert notability, nor can I find anything like a reliably sourced article written about the 'Vegan Prisoners Support Group'. Several sources mention it see[ here), but none are about it specifically. Thus, from my estimation, it fails WP:N - it does not have even one reliable source of which it is the sole subject. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:29, 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 merge into Outsider art - done. Neil ☎ 13:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art extraordinary[edit]

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

Suspected self-promotion, and in any case the term seems to lack notability. This article claims that the term "Art extraordinary" is used to describe Outsider Art. To the best of my understanding, the term is used by only one small organization that calls itself the Art Extraordinary Trust--the article was created by a user named artextraordinarytrust. Another user placed templates on the article questioning the notability of the subject and the fact that this read like an advertisement--these were deleted by an anonymous IP. A google search for the term "art extraordinary" reveals a very small number of occurences, all directly affilited with a single gallery/collection in Scotland. I can find no evidence that the term is in circulation more generally, thus it hardly seems to merit its own article. BTfromLA 22:12, 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. As an aside, if you look on google for "Joao-Maria Nabais" or "Joao Nabais" (no ã), you find quite a few English language hits. Neil ☎ 11:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

João-Maria Nabais[edit]

João-Maria Nabais (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Twice speedied by me as A7; then a contested prod. Looks like non-notable biography/possible vanity to me, but difficult to tell since most/all references are in Portuguese. android79 22:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • But that doesn't say that non-English language sources are considered less reliable, just that when there is a choice of sources the English language one should be used for the convenience of readers. Phil Bridger 20:27, 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 --JForget 02:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego[edit]

Downtown Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article that simply excerpts from the lead sections of other articles. These are distinct cities with separate articles and this combined article and title seems extremely unlikely to be of any value. Hawaiian717 21:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved it back to Inland Empire (CA). --Oakshade 07:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you apparently did a cut and paste move and did not move the talk page. I undid the cut and past move. If it needs to be moved use WP:RM. Also you may want to consider a move back to [Inland Empire (California)]] which is what appears on the dab page. Vegaswikian 08:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just didn't know how to move it properly as it wouldn't let me since Inland Empire (CA) already existed. --Oakshade 08:21, 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. Singularity 20:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Hammond[edit]

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

Second half of article is a direct copy from a now obsolete website. Is the rest worth keeping ? thisisace 21:47, 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 — madman bum and angel 20:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wugging[edit]

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

This term appears to be a neologism with little to no notability. It fails WP:N and WP:NOT (dictionary), and it may also fail WP:NFT. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:31, 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 merge and redirect to KADD. Neil ☎ 11:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K242AS[edit]

K242AS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is about a radio translator station. By definition, translator stations do not provide their own programming, and are therefore non-notable. Possible merge with parent station, if parent station already has an article. JPG-GR 21:24, 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 withdrawn - article moved to KNLB. Neil ☎ 10:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K244CA[edit]

K244CA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is about a radio translator station. By definition, translator stations do not provide their own programming, and are therefore non-notable. Possible merge with parent station, if parent station already has an article. JPG-GR 21:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, should be merged with parent station page, what is the parent station?--Rtphokie 21:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend that you stop creating articles for radio stations you know nothing about. If you're not sure what the parent station is, how can you be sure that a translator has any notability whatsoever? JPG-GR 21:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend that before creating any more translator stub articles, see http://crtech.org/fxactive.html for a list of FM translators and their parent stations. Create an article about the parent station, and then add info about translators in that article. Though it is still a good idea to not create articles about stations you nothing about. No radio station article should say "broadcasting a format". DHowell 08:14, 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. This is a Secret account 19:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K295AI[edit]

K295AI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is about a radio translator station. By definition, translator stations do not provide their own programming, and are therefore non-notable. Possible merge with parent station, if parent station already has an article. JPG-GR 21:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, should be merged with parent station page, what is the parent station?--Rtphokie 21:26, 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 withdrawn by nominator - note has now been magically transofrmed into a valid stub at KRCY-FM. Neil ☎ 10:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K280DD[edit]

K280DD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is about a radio translator station. By definition, translator stations do not provide their own programming, and are therefore non-notable. Possible merge with parent station, if parent station already has an article. JPG-GR 21:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, should be merged with parent station page, what is the parent station?--Rtphokie 21:26, 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 --Haemo 23:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris vernon[edit]

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

Non-notable local radio show host. Per precedent, (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Sturm) local radio personalities are not inherently notable. Contested speedy. Article cites no reliable sources. Caknuck 21:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, to meet the inclusion criteria of WP:BIO, the "person must have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The "referances" [sic] you have added clearly do not meet that threshold. -- Satori Son 22:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if you guys live in america or not but go to google right now and type in Colonel Reb is Crying and then tell me this guy is not notable.I live in Los Angeles and i've herd of this guy and he is in memphis,tn.SpeedyC1 22:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Removed comment of a sockpuppet of an indef blocked user. Caknuck 14:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:ILIKEIT. Just because you've heard of him or he has a YouTube video doesn't make him notable. See WP:BIO for the guidelines there and tell me how Vernon qualifies. Caknuck 01:42, 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 Theodor Lohmann due to copyright violations from the German Wikipedia and delete material on Telephone newspaper copied from Citizendium until such time that a compatible license is agreed upon. Tijuana Brass 06:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone newspaper[edit]

Telephone newspaper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Theodor Lohmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)– (View AfD)

This article is copied in full from Citizendium, which is listed there under the same title. My concern with this article is not whether the content is well written, notable or verifiable, but rather that Citizendium has yet to define whether their articles are to be public domain, open source, copyleft, GNU, or something else. According to the disclaimer at the base of their page, a decision will be made in the near future, but as I see it, it's best to play it safe in the time being and not wander into any potential legal issues.


Comment adding Theodor Lohmann, who is in the same boat. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should an appropriate license be decided upon at Citizendium - and I'm optimistic that it will - then by all means, let's bring this article over. In the meantime, the wiki can wait - it won't be the end of the world. Delete, albeit temporarily. Tijuana Brass 20:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Rewrite away the copy vio and then keep. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I posted the ancient celtic music article and also forked another two articles from Citizendium: Theodor Lohmann and Telephone newspaper so whatever is decided should be applied to all three. Anyway when I copied them over I did so because I though they were well written and were missing from wikipedia with the exception of Telephone newspaper which was a stub. At the time I checked citizendium's copyright policy here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Copyrights, which states: All articles with content sourced from Wikipedia to the Citizendium are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2. All other contributions are considered to be released under an open content license yet to be determined.
So I assumed that this should allow us to copy their content. After this article was nominated for deletion I decided to look into the matter and apperently they are going to decide on their license by november 15 and the three candidates are the GDFL (the same we use over here), CC-BY-SA (which is compatible with the GDFL and again would allow us to usethe content) and CC-BY-SA-NC which would limit commercial use and so would be incompatible with the GDFL. The question remains however if we can copy their material now as they themselves state that its currently distributed under a free license. In any case their deadline for choosing a license is close enough that I think we can wait and then take any appropriate action.
PS: made the same post in two talk pages, hope it explains what happened, as to my vote, as people said above they should proprably be deleted I was under the impression that the content was already free when I copied it, gona have to wait untill november 15 to know for sure I guess. RIP-Acer 21:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Whatever they conclude, if they intend to keep content forked from Wikipedia, according to the terms of the GFDL used here, they also need to release such content under the same license. From Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks:
Wikipedia's license, the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) requires that any derivative of works from Wikipedia must be released under that same license, must state that it is released under that license, and reproduce a complete copy of the license in all copies of the work, and must acknowledge the main authors (which some claim can be accomplished with a link back to that article on Wikipedia).
At any rate, that's a matter which will need to be pursued outside of this AfD. To return to the question at hand, should the closing admin decide to delete the material as a precaution, it's an easy matter to restore it should the license decided upon by Citizendium be compatible with our own. Tijuana Brass 02:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New Twist! It appears that the Theodor Lohmann article was translated from the German wiki: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Theodor_Lohmann which in turn was based on a third party source. Assuming that the german arcicle is not a copyvio and that they translated it then we could keep it dont you think? Need opinions :D RIP-Acer 21:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason not to. Since I'm the person who started this AfD, making a decision on that and closing it out myself would be a conflict of interest, but I agree with your reasoning. Tijuana Brass 02:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I first began this article I was careful not to fork the content but to write a "new" stub. Since then the content has been copied across from CZ. Assuming CZ choses an incompatible license would it be sufficient to revert to the last non-forked diff, or would the whole page need to be deleted and recreated? Witty Lama 02:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

These are under the IN-LIMBO license: nothing specific, as yet.  :-) Specifically, the articles ARE NOT under ANY free content license, and as such, they are very obviously copyvios, although no one at CZ is calling a lawyer, I assure you.

The Lohmanm article was completely re-written after it was discovered the German WP article was a copyvio.

I'd suggest the articles be speedy deleted lest someone come along and think them GFDL, which just is not so. This and this should not have been removed and was removed out-of-process, apparently.

Basically, you'll need to wait a few weeks till the CZ license is decided. I'm anxious to see what it will be, too! :-)

Stephen Ewen 03:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to speedy keep as the copyvio has been removed and the article reduced to a stub. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to speedy keep as the copyvio has been removed and the article reduced to a stub. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comment on speedily deleting copyvio's that applies in this instance. Yes, copyvios need to be removed. But this can be done by rewriting as well as deletion. Speedy deletion need not be hasty deletion. Where possible, when the subject is otherwise notable and verifiable, rewriting should be the preferred method. Certainly, even a speedy deletion candidate can be given enough time for someone to effect a rewrite. Where it can be argued that the intent of the source document's creator is to release under some form of copyleft, then a little less haste should be employed in the speedy deletion process. Which is why this afd should have been given more time to proceed to a decision, rather than pre-empted by returning to speedy deletion. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was non-admin closed. Excuse me, but the thing to do is delete the article then recreate it, since there is complete copyvio version in the history that someone could mistake for a GFDL release. Stephen Ewen 02:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, non-admin closings are only for simple, non-controversial cases. I'll take care of it. Any questions on it raising a conflict of interest (since I opened this AfD), talk page me. Tijuana Brass 06:00, 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. east.718 at 04:07, 11/13/2007

Route 1A Curse[edit]

Route 1A Curse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

At best WP:SYN, at worst WP:NFT. Cannot find any references - the only external reference listed is nonsense. Failed speedy. Toddst1 20:54, 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. Singularity 20:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Rodríguez[edit]

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

Would probably be notable if I could verify this. This was the largest version I could find, if not the best. Someone had hijacked the article for someone with less claim to notability. Unable to verify subject as a musician or an icon. Nothing at ALLMUSIC. 42 Google hits. Not sure we can rely on Google for a Phillipno icon. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This phrase Rodríguez has since become a cultural icon in the Philippines, appearing in numerous magazine articles. is unsourced and no further assertion of notability. --βandβ (talk•contribs) 03:38, 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: Speedily deleted. Vanity - made-up game. - Mike Rosoft 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T/S[edit]

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

Seems to be completely WP:MADEUP. After several searches, the only reference (other than a site that shows new wiki pages) I could find to this game was a single forum post [8]. ARendedWinter 20:38, 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. WjBscribe 01:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arna Poupko Fisher[edit]

Arna Poupko Fisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was a prod [9] by User:Oo7565, but let this get a standard vote. The subject appears to fail WP:NN. Being a rabbi's wife with eight babies and lecturing at a college for a living does not make anyone famous or notable. IZAK 20:16, 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 Withdrawn by nom/Snowball keep non-admin closure. TonyBallioni 15:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salamandroidea[edit]

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

This smells like original research or just plain nonsense. Marlith T/C 19:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry. Let us SNOW this debate and close as keep. Marlith T/C 01:19, 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. WjBscribe 01:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Civilization Loop[edit]

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

Non-notable book, published via vanity press Publish America The article omits the author's name - R. Thrift Jason, according to Amazon, which has it at #1,401,136. Acroterion (talk) 19:54, 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 no consensus. But a redirect to Mike Burgmann would be reasonable. W.marsh 21:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Burgmann[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial. A car driver, with no listed victories, dies in a race. Clarityfiend 19:51, 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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 21:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Adolph[edit]

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

This fictional character made one appearance over 60 years ago and has not appeared since. Subject does not meet notability standards. Konczewski 18:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we delete trivial items that disorganize Wikipedia, making it harder to find things a bit harder. If you don't have a useful opinion on the topic at hand (or even the courtesy to sign your comment), please don't bother to post.Konczewski 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the user has posted the same message to dozens of AfDs so it is probably not worth wasting too much time on them. (Emperor 20:19, 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 - Article was deleted in previous AfD on 26 September 2007: (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Shahjahanpur). There is no evidence of any new third party sources found to support an article that would comply with WP:NPOV. Re-hashing the same arguments again and again does not seem to be productive. To recreate this article, or similar articles, sufficient secondary sources need to be found for a balanced representation of the subject; primary sources on their own, are insufficient. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Ram Chandra of Shahjahanpur[edit]

Shri Ram Chandra of Shahjahanpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Founder of a non-notable cult. Although there are plenty of Google hits, they all seem to be created by members of this group. Dougie WII 18:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE

The article was just begun when the "instant delete" sign came up from Dougie WII, So I stopped to deal with this process. I will continue on the article only after this process is complete. The organizations he founded are now three seperate entities: SRCM (Chennai), SRCM (Shahjahanpur) and ISRC (Institute of Ram Chandra Consciousness). There are also Two Research Foundations: Sahaj marg Spirituality Foundation (SMSF), CREST, in Asia and four SMRTI (Sahaj Marg Research and Teaching Institute) in Europe, USA, India, and Dubai. Is over 300,000 members and 60,000 present for the last seminar, not a "notable" achievement? (How can you tell if the GOOGLE hits are by MEMBERS of the group. There are "researchers" and "seekers" (potential members) and other interested "governments" and UN of which this group is a member (the DPI Program). The group is in many countries as one can readily see at this site: http://www.srcm.org/srcminfo/servlet/CenterTree?NodeId=0&ShowChildren=0 --Roicharlemagne 20:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another related article deleted for non-notability: Shri_Ram_Chandra_Mission_%28Shahjahanpur%29 -- Dougie WII 21:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Copyright violations; most of this was pulled virtually ver batim from here or this.
  2. Absolutely no secondary sources on the subject of the article. If you click on the "sources" the only secondary sources talk about a school completely unrelated to the life of this person and the book talks about Sufism, not this person.
  3. Currently reads like a PR piece similar to the organizational websites from which the text is drawn. Renee 00:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. W.marsh 21:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Aimee (band)[edit]

Saving Aimee (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is completely unreferenced and band is not notable. Prod was simply removed saying that because it toured with a notable band this one is too. There are no given refs and that reason obviously doesn't give automatic notability. Does not satisfy any notability guidelines. Zero pages link to it. Reywas92Talk 18:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are the dozens of online ticket sales companies (e.g [10]) currently selling tickets for their tour not considered reliable? What about a review of one of their gigs supporting McFly in the Eastbourne Herald [11] (yes, I know it was written by a 13-year old, but it was a McFly gig. The source (newspaper) is reliable)? The BBC mention their tour here.--Michig 22:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The NME should be considered a reliable source, I would have thought.--Michig 23:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References which were not included in the article. Changing vote to weak keep. Precious Roy 10:10, 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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 21:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quarles Elementary[edit]

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

Very non-notable school, giving no reasons for notability. It is only an elementary, and they have generally been accepted as non-notable. The previous AfD for this was a year ago and ended to keep it only because some thought that all schools are notable, which they aren't. This article is uencyclopedic as it includes the location and contact info. No good refs for it. Reywas92Talk 18:08, 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 Speedy Delete as author requested deletion. Davewild 22:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Mason[edit]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Haemo 23:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiverton Town F.C. season 2007-08[edit]

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

A single season of a non-notable team in a not very notable division. OZOO (What?) 17:54, 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 Speedy delete only author requested deletion. Davewild 19:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endiannessmap[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to deserve its own article separate of Endianness; Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide. Dougie WII 17:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I have added this part in the Endianess article and it was removed. I added it to the talkes page and references it. Then it was removed because someone sayed there should be no link to the talk page. Then I allocated this article. It was previously removed because there was a copy in the talks page. So I removed the talkes page copy and allocated the article again. One cannot understand the Endianessmap.svg diagram without an explanation to it. It is not a howto. It explaines the was endianess work. You should not just delete an article by looking at the structure but also try to read and understand what is the content.Eiselekd 17:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry if you've been getting the runaround. This should be the best place to discuss where your content should go (if anywhere) on Wikipedia -- Dougie WII 17:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It contains an example of how to apply Endiannessmap.jpg. Without it it is hard to understand what the diagram is about. If I'd add the example into Endianness itself it would explode the article. Please show what you mean with "Contains no information...". The content of this article is the example. This example is not in Endianess The article explains the diagram Eiselekd 18:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Eiselekd 18:38, 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. WjBscribe 04:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arupathimoovar Festival[edit]

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

This festival in India seems to fail WP:N. The article does not cite any sources. Google gives some entries in travel guides; so the festival seems to be real, but that does not suffice to pass WP:N. A request to WikiProject India did not turn up sources either. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 12:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 17:23, 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. WjBscribe 01:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox and Hounds[edit]

The Fox and Hounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Definition of a pub name, that's it. Not much more can be said, since each pub with this name has an individual history and a different reason for using it. Masaruemoto 05:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 17:21, 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. John254 00:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juggs[edit]

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

Nothing to suggest any notability. Score (magazine) was deleted, and I imagine this is on the same sort of level. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious - where did you look? There are quite a few, see below. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Googling "Juggs Magazine" gave me many mentions, at a second glance. Very few that I coul see from reliable sources though, and none that I could see that was coverage of the magazine. No more bongos 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are sources on Dian Hanson, really. Magazine has a two-sentence mention in one and a one-word mention in another. Maybe I was a little hasty though, maybe the article should redirect to her. No more bongos 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. They do go into the history of the magazine a fair bit, actually. Dian Hanson is to Juggs as Hugh Hefner is to Playboy; you can't really write about one without the other. Give me a couple of days, and I'll show it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There, done. Yes, the actual history of the mag is mostly gleaned from the Dian Hanson pieces. I think that's also enough for notability, however. And the Village Voice calls it "the magazine of choice for breast men", which could also be enough. But the really interesting notability isn't from there, it's from "Demonstrable wide name recognition from reliable sources." (which is really a WP:BIO criterion, but I hope you get the idea). In short, whenever any humorist needs a one-word recognizable name of a pornographic magazine, they use Juggs. That's what the Simpsons cite mentioned below is all about. But more than that, when Wikipedia:Reliable sources, like CNN, or the New York Times need a one-word name of a pornographic magazine, they use Juggs. Between that and the fair history we can get from the Dian Hanson articles, I hope you'll change your opinion. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't possibly comment. :) No more bongos 04:38, 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 20:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Box Ghost[edit]

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

This is a non notable ghost in a fictional show. It was tagged for several problems, but the tags were removed by 69.251.255.170. However, it does not pass notability standards and cannot be cited by independent secondary reliable sources. In fact, it is not cited at all. Pilotbob 03:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 03:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 17:17, 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 merge and redirect to list of Mad Men episodes. --bainer (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke Gets in Your Eyes (Mad Men episode)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Smoke Gets in Your Eyes (Mad Men episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Also nominated:

    Redirect all to Mad Men. These are all stub articles for individual television episodes which are not independently notable. They consist of nothing but the title of the episode and the original air date. Per WP:FICT these articles should not presently exist until such time as the reliable sourcing for them exists. A complete list, including links to the official synopsis, is already in the main article. An attempt to redirect them was reverted so I bring them here for the consensus of the community. Otto4711 17:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fine, WP:WAF whatever, the point still stands that the episodes are not individually independently notable. Otto4711 18:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I redirected the list because it was nothing but the same episode chart in the main article, minus the links to the AMC episode synopses. The main article is not so massive, nor is the information about the episodes so extensive, that a separate list article for them is required. Otto4711 18:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have nominated the list of episodes for deletion or redirect. I tried redirecting it to the main article, where an identical list already resides, but it was reverted without comment. Otto4711 22:51, 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. W.marsh 21:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Day of Contempt[edit]

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

    Band page for which I can see no real claim to notability, and definitely no independant references. But since the page has been around for 2 years already, I'll give it a chance at AFD instead of just A7 Speedying it, in case I'm missing something. TexasAndroid 16:34, 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. WjBscribe 01:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of people who died on their birthdays[edit]

    List of people who died on their birthdays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Interesting yes, but encyclopedic? I don't think so. Seems like a list of loosely associated people. Clarityfiend 16:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not great at statistics, so I cannot debunk Ultraexactzz systematically, but I'm pretty sure he is wrong. Once you fix the birthdate, at birth, you only have one random value in play, the death date, which should have a 1/365 chance of ending up on *any* *specific* day, including the birthday. (And let's leave leap days out of an already messy discussion. :)) - TexasAndroid 18:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A little more. Let's examine the same problem in a world with only two days in a year, to simplify things. If my birthday is on day 1, then I can either die on day 1, or day 2. In either case, I have a 1/2 chance of dying on my birthday. If we take a random person on this weird world, then there are only four cases for b-day/D-day combinations: 1:1, 1:2, 2:1, or 2:2. But again, even though we do not know what the B-day is of this random person, there is still a 1/2 chance of both days being the same. 2 hits out of 4 possibilities, for 1/2. This expands out. For a random person in a world of a 3-day year, the pairs are 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 2:1, 2:2, 2:3, 3:1, 3:2, and 3:3. Again, 3 hits out of 9 possibilities, for a 1/3 chance of the two being the same. And it corresponds directly up to the 365 day real world. 133,400 possibilities, 365 of those are hits, so for a random person, they have 365/133,400 or 1/365 chance of the two being the same. - TexasAndroid 18:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer Utraexactzz's line of reasoning - I'd have only a 1/365 chance of dying, period. Clarityfiend 18:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Twould be nice if it worked like that. :) - TexasAndroid 18:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My Math = the fail. With a fixed birthdate, which everyone has, you're right, it's only one in 365.25 (averaging for leap year). So much for me being clever. ^_^ ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    :] Rudget Contributions 20:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My grandma wasn't born on her birthday. Also, she was my grandpa's sister. Funny stories, both of them; take me out for pad thai sometime and I'll tell you all about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:14, 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 It would appear that the arguments in reference to verifiability and reliable sourcing have been satisfied. However, on the references themselves I will make no judgment, that needs discussion on the article talk page. The result of this discussion is Keep.. Mercury 05:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Alaskan Hotel and Bar[edit]

    Alaskan Hotel and Bar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    I removed a CSD template after a quick Google search, thinking that the hotel in the article was actually the hotel at this site, which would probably be notable for being the first hotel in Juneau, on the National Register, etc. As far as I can tell, it isn't. Other than being 100 years old, I can find no evidence of notability other than mention in an obituary. Smashville 16:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Per above, I have rewritten. If the other hotel by this name, in Cordova, is notable... then feel free to undo my edits. --W.marsh 20:16, 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. WjBscribe 01:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Willie Macc[edit]

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

    Non notable comedian and actor. Google news gives no hits at all[16], regular Google gives 131 distinct hits[17], including Wikipedia, myspace, ... but not any reliable sources. The link given to the STL interview doesn't work (at least for me). Having been in a reality show is not enough to meet WP:BIO, and the other acting roles are very minor. Fram 16:11, 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. W.marsh 21:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ian McKay (English National Opera)[edit]

    Ian McKay (English National Opera) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    A marketing director is not really notable enough for his own article without a very good reason (which this one doesn't have), otherwise we'd have articles on every department head in every organisation of any prominence, which we certainly don't want. -- Necrothesp 16:11, 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. W.marsh 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Syd Hayes[edit]

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


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

    The result was No Consensus. the_undertow talk 06:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Avrohom Yitzchok Ulman[edit]

    Avrohom Yitzchok Ulman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Does not cite any sources, and is full of original research by banned user Daniel575. Has been tagged since 2/2007. Yossiea (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply. As a non-Jewish person reading this article, I did not understand why this person is notable; if the words "Haredi" or "BaDatz" are supposed to signal notability to me, they went right past me. If there's a way to make this man's importance more clear to a general readership, that would be really helpful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi FisherQueen: The word "Haredi" is not significant but the fact that this rabbi is a member of one of the the highest Haredi rabbinical courts, together with not more than about five other such rabbis, makes him very notable. I have now inserted a few Jewish media references in the article to illustrate that. Nothing in the article is exaggerated, it's quite modest actually, just states the facts about someone who is regarded as a leader by tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Haredi Jews in Israal. I know that it may be hard for a non-Jew to assess the importance of any rabbi. How many do you know or have you studied? Just as a non-medical expert would be hard put to explain the workings of the nervous system to a layman, so tread cautiously. There is also the factor, that often one group of Jews (and editors) may dislike another group's rabbis, and vice versa, so that tendency needs to be watched and may be misunderstood from an outside perspective. IZAK 13:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply and question Thanks for clarifying his importance. Given that tens or hundreds of thousands of people consider him a spiritual leader, is there a reason that google-searching "Avrohom Yitzchok Ulman" yields so few useful results? Should I be googling using Hebrew characters, for example? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment' The New York times recently mentioned (See [18]) an increase in the market in Israel for products certified by Haredi rabbinical councils, using as its lead example a cell phone certified for its inability to connect to the internet (which as the article explains is shunned by many Haredi Jews). The article mentions the Badatz. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi again, FisherQueen: You have hit upon a huge dilemma perhaps without realizing it. I would say that you lack two fundamental insights into modern-day Haredi life in general, especially to those in Israel, that pertain to your question. One is that Haredim and their leaders do not function like Western leaders. They literally despise the media and the academic world. They do not allow their children to study secular studies. That is just a fact one must accept about them and their chosen lifestyle. The second factor is that they are vehemently opposed to the Internet and certainly to any form of mass publicity through it, and they have outright banned its presence in Jewish homes and allow it only very sparingly for business purposes under very tightly controlled environments. Parents are warned that their children will be kicked out of yeshivas if they allow them any Internet access. See Of ostriches and cavemen; Can Israeli rabbis enforce their ban against the Internet? and Bezeq to launch ‘Kosher’ internet. This is the same way that they have dealt with TVs in homes for decades with great success as no-one wishes to defy these rabbis and face social ostracism in those communities that they preside over. The net result of all this is that you will often find very little information on the Web about some of the presently most notable and highly-regarded rabbis, Hasidic rebbes and Jewish sages. Thus one must often rely on the barest of crumbs that would minimally satisfy Wikipedia's standards and criteria for how to verify notability. There is also the odd phenomenon on Wikipedia that some persons who are actually rogue "rabbis" and may have no standing in any Jewish community, can get articles because of the publicity that has been generated about them, but truly humble publicity-shy personalities may get shunted aside in the media blizzard. Actually, rabbis such Rabbi Ulman would surely be very happy that no articles are written about him anywhere on the Internet and certainly not on Wikipedia, so even though the author of this original article may be blocked from Wikipedia, he was actually sticking his neck out and taking a huge risk writing up any article about such a notable rabbi. So these kinds of situations require great care and inspection so that one does miss the forest for the trees. Thanks for giving this your considered attention. IZAK 05:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    that cretae

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. @pple complain 05:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sean Williams (ethnomusicologist)[edit]

    Sean Williams (ethnomusicologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Delete. No assertion of notability. EndlessDan 15:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Question. Which source 'doesn't count?' I offered three. I linked to the amazon page because it included a copy of the Publisher's Weekly review, the Chronicle of Higher Education is a very significant and reliable source, and "A Chef's Table" is a nationally syndicated radio program. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - "Low-selling" refers to just about every academic book, btw. Please, I hope to never see that argument again. Academics don't write for the NYT best-seller list; they write for their peers. The measures of influence are cites to their work. You can use whether their works show up in libraries as a rough proxy for that influence, too. Publication of a book with Oxford University Press and a reference from Garland pretty much guarantees a very wide distribution in libraries. --Lquilter 18:26, 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 keep. W.marsh 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Euclides da Cunha (disambiguation)[edit]

    Euclides da Cunha (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This is a disambig page that includes three links: Euclides da Cunha, an author; Euclides da Cunha Paulista, a stub article about a municipality named after the author, and Euclides da Cunha, Bahia, another such municipality that has no article. (That entry links to the Bahia state, which doesn’t mention the municipality at all and therefore shouldn’t be linked as a reference for it.) Assuming that it is reasonable to think that the first two links could be confused with one another, that still leaves only two existing entries to be disambiguated, with the author obviously being the most likely target for a search on Euclides da Cunha. I feel the disambig page should be deleted and replaced with hatnotes on each article linking to the other. A redirect seems pointless in view of the likelihood that anybody would navigate directly to “Euclides da Cunha (disambiguation)” and what such a person would be looking for. Propaniac 15:13, 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. WjBscribe 01:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Benetin[edit]

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

    Maps linked to in article are not of this place. First several pages of non-wiki ghits (in both English and French) do not refer in any way to a kingdom or island with this name. Hoax? Contested prod. Fabrictramp 15:14, 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. WjBscribe 01:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Adams Mill Bar & Grill[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Adams Mill Bar & Grill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Disputed proposed deletion. Only reference is to a local magazine that I don't think the requirement for reliable sources. Possible WP:COI conflict of interest/advertising too, even if it isn't blatant; Wikipedia is not a place to list every single restaurant the world over. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 15:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Can you prove it using newspapers, news reports its been the subject of? I must admit I've never heard of any of the restaurants you're quoting! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 15:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The project can not contain an article on every restaurant and bar that has "significant local importance." I'm sorry, but that does not make it noteable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kscottbailey (talk • contribs) 15:38, 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. WjBscribe 00:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    MyTopix[edit]

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

    There has been a notability tag in place since March, and there is still very little content. Brollachan 15:08, 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 and redirect.-Wafulz 02:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel Geduld[edit]

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

    This article was originally speedy-deleted under CSD G10/BLP concerns. However, DRV overturned, finding BLP-compliant, non-controversial revisions in the history. To prevent BLP-related vandalism, both the article and this AfD with be semi-protected. Deletion is on the table (because it is unclear whether the subject meets WP:BIO), as are other creative solutions (merging to his most famous show was suggested at the DRV.) Xoloz 15:01, 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. east.718 at 04:02, 11/13/2007

    San-ryu-do[edit]

    San-ryu-do (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Recently founded art, no sources, no evidence of notability Nate1481( t/c) 15:02, 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 merge. A lot of this is already mentioned in prose in the article, editors can merge any extra content as they see fit. W.marsh 21:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Smashing Pumpkins Grammys[edit]

    The Smashing Pumpkins Grammys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Aside from its bad formatting (including no intro and questionable title), is this really worthy of its own article? All of this information can easily be merged to the main Smashing Pumpkins article. - eo 14:51, 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. John254 01:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Woodhaven Boulevard[edit]

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

    No assertion of notability. Fails the USRD notability guideline for city streets. Wholly unreferenced. —Scott5114↗ 14:28, 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 --JForget 03:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hadouken![edit]

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

    Do we need this article? They are not a notable band and only have released two singles neither of which have charted. I don't think we need it. Thundermaster367 14:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • The above was posted by me whilst logged out. Esteffect 16:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    "you all may say yes we dont need this page. but what about the people who enjoy reading this page about a band who they extremely like. look at Hadouken!'s sales for tickets. you will notice how steadily they are being sold out for every gig. Read up Genious" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.248.169 (talk) 23:13, 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. WjBscribe 00:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Packaged To Play[edit]

    Packaged To Play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Article on an album by Kevin Caffrey, an artist on whom we've never had an article. PROD removed by original creator, User:Kevincaffrey, without adding any independent and reliable sources to the article. A quick review of the top google hits proves the album is real (not surprisingly), but gives no evidence of notability or sources that we can use to build out the article. GRBerry 14:10, 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. John254 01:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hitra Wind Farm[edit]

    Hitra Wind Farm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This wind farm seems nonnotable. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:06, 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: Restored redirect to Republic - obvious consensus that this article is redundant. Early closure. - Mike Rosoft 16:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Republican form of government[edit]

    Republican form of government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    POV essay, duplicate with Republic. I'll leave the creator's comments on the article's talk page without any further comments. Delete and redirect to Republic. - Mike Rosoft 13:56, 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 - anything else would be a blatant violation of consensus. Non admin closure. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 00:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cross Bay Boulevard[edit]

    Cross Bay Boulevard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    No assertion of notability. Fails the USRD notability guideline for city streets. Has no footnotes. Skipped PROD because someone would have removed it like always. —Scott5114↗ 13:54, 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. east.718 at 04:01, 11/13/2007

    Civil engineering software[edit]

    Civil engineering software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Very broad subject, maybe better suited for a category or a list than an article. Unreferenced. Martijn Hoekstra 13:27, 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. W.marsh 21:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Anti-Malay racism[edit]

    Anti-Malay racism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    NPOV lack of good resource Zack2007 13:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete The article's name itself goes against the NPOV policy. That, and the contents of the article, suggests a definite POV of the article. And on a lighter note, the article does not cite its sources. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: It seems that many citations are from the same sources. Hence lack of reliable sources.--Zack2007 02:10, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 21:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sikozu[edit]

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

    This is plot summary has no reliable sources to demonstrate real-world notability of this fictional character from the Farscape television series. Gavin Collins 13:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Cleanup This article neds some serious cleanup. The plot is not a...well, plot. Its far too long, and covers stuff that a normal plot should not be covering, like a character's abilities, personality and such; they should be in a separate article. To top it all off, it does not cite any sources at all and seems to be mainly from self-research. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:50, 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. V and OR violations. I can't find anything on Google to suggest that even a redirect would be necessary. -- Mike (Kicking222) 00:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thread breaking[edit]

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

    Original research, unverifiable. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. The article's sources are totally unverifiable; they are based on a website's forum (which cannot be counted as a source) and are therefore inappropriate as an article's source. Besides, the article's content is very "dangerous"; it basically teaches its readers how to perform "thread breaking". --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:02, 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. John254 01:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Qserv[edit]

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

    This company is not even remotely notable, even on a local scale. The article reads like a press release, and seems to be nothing more than an advertisement Mcai7et2 11:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've expanded the article a little and added six sources. Bláthnaid 13:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. If given some effort, the article can be made better. Its best to keep and see what happens in the next few months. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:05, 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. Davewild 18:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Japanese Ministers, Envoys and Ambassadors to Germany[edit]

    Japanese Ministers, Envoys and Ambassadors to Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    List of mostly redlinks and/or nonlinks linked from only one substantive site. Little work has been done on this article in nearly 14 months and it's difficult to see how it's notable within the EN Wikipedia. If anything, notable Envoys, etc can be linked from the parent articles but the usefulness of this list is not immediately apparent. Its creator has not edited in the last 11 months. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 11:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. While this article's use may be apparent in the future, its too incomplete currently. Furthermore, it does not cite any sources and it has been like that for quite some time now (since January 2007). And I agree with Mansford; its just a list of names, there's no mention of what the officials did on their trip to Germany. For all we know, they might as well be on vacation :). --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Not for english Wikipedia? Please remember this in an English language Wikipedia, not a Wikipedia about English topics.
    2. Useless? A chronological list of ambassadors can be very usefull from a historical perspective.
    3. Redlinks? Either these are articles that can be created, or the wikilinks can be removed.
    4. Boring? Thats just in the eye of the beholder.
    5. Categorize? This is a chronological list, which can never be categorized without losing information.

    Yes the article could use a proper introduction, some formatting and (better) references, but these are not ground for deletion for this particular article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment to new voters and closing admin, I today changed the article to have better formatting, referencing and show more useful information in English. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 00:52, 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 keep. John254 00:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of German ministers, envoys and ambassadors to Japan[edit]

    List of German ministers, envoys and ambassadors to Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Same argument as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese Ministers, Envoys and Ambassadors to Germany. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 11:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad. I added the missingg AfD2 tag, but with a wrong title. Fixed now. --Tikiwont 12:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Not for english Wikipedia? Please remember this in an English language Wikipedia, not a Wikipedia about English topics.
    2. Useless? A chronological list of ambassadors can be very usefull from a historical perspective.
    3. Redlinks? Either these are articles that can be created, or the wikilinks can be removed.
    4. Boring? Thats just in the eye of the beholder.
    5. Categorize? This is a chronological list, which can never be categorized without losing information.

    Yes the article could use a proper introduction, some formatting and (better) references, but these are not ground for deletion for this particular article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment to new voters and closing admin, I today changed the article to have better formatting, referencing and show more useful information in English. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:23, 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 snowball keep. No delete votes. There is also no precedent for deleting articles about TV shows that ran for three seasons all over the world. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t•c 16:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Beyblade[edit]

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

    Non notable show, the only links I can find at to sites selling toys, has no awards that I can find, finished it's only season about 7 years ago, non-encyclopaedic, just being a TV show should not automatically make it notable, the article is very poor and written heavily "in-universe" using language only someone who had seen the show would know about. Has had a no citations tag up for 8 months with no improvement on the article.Macktheknifeau 10:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Its not that bad; although it lacks polish, the article is fine overall. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:23, 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. --bainer (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Australians in international prisons (2nd nomination)[edit]

    See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australians in international prisons - no consensus (2 years ago)

    This is a strange one. This is a well-referenced list, yet is does not belong here. Its criteria are arbitrary and it is obviously being maintained for reasons of campaigning rather than being encyclopedic. It offends against WP:NOT and indescriminate collection of information and WP:NOT a soapbox. Consider the criteria for inclusion "the prisoner received a lengthy or harsh sentence in comparison to Australian law..." Why? Why should wikipedia care if laws in one jurisdiction are harsher than another? Do we want List of Saudi Nationals who got off light under US Law? Don't get me wrong, I support Amnesty International - just not on Wikipedia's time.--Docg 10:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. Others might wish to consider whether the bios linked in this list meet WP:BIO or whether they are part of the same campaign?--Docg 10:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment It looks well sourced. DPCU 11:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The individual cases are, but how do you source "the prisoner received a lengthy or harsh sentence in comparison to Australian law" - without falling foul of WP:NOR.--Docg 11:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's why I think we need to delete. There's no criteria here which would not be subjective or lead to an unmaintainable list.--Docg 12:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's rubbish. The more likely reason I think is that you don't want to think about it. What's wrong with changing this page to something better? It's a complete waste to delete all the work that has been put into referencing the page. Come on... please help. JRG 22:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I genuinely believe that this page is unencyclopedic. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I believe I am helping by saying that.--Docg 22:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'm sorry - point taken - but I still would like to see your reasoning why any alternative criteria wouldn't work. JRG 03:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have Category:Australians imprisoned abroad--Docg 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's helpful. Please explain why?--Docg 22:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletion arguments were: This is a strange one. This is a well-referenced list, yet is does not belong here. Its criteria are arbitrary and it is obviously being maintained for reasons of campaigning rather than being encyclopedic. It offends against WP:NOT and indescriminate collection of information and WP:NOT a soapbox. Consider the criteria for inclusion "the prisoner received a lengthy or harsh sentence in comparison to Australian law..." Why? Why should wikipedia care if laws in one jurisdiction are harsher than another? Do we want List of Saudi Nationals who got off light under US Law? Don't get me wrong, I support Amnesty International - just not on Wikipedia's time.-- My arguments were that the criteria are not abitrary. I didn't touch on the issue of campaigning but I think that is drawing a conclusion that is not warranted and argues about the editors rather than the content which is not in line with Wikipedia guidleines or policies. Given the criteria are not arbitrary (you have to be Australian under some definition and you have to have been incarcerated and you have to have been notable enough to have citations supporting the event) then it is not merely an indiscriminate collection of information any more than any other list. The differentiation between jurisdictions of sentences is actually a matter of passionate interest to Australians, regularly making front page news. In our current election campaign, the leader of the opposition made a remark which by some was considered misjudged and at the very least was debated concerning sentencing in Indonesia - see for example this news story Rudd in fast turn on death penalty published in The Australian on 10 October. Wikipedia is not meant to care about anything, caring is not a criteria for inclusion - what matters is whether it is encyclopaedic. To answer in passing one of the other arguments advanced above, a category has frequently been ruled to not be a substitute for a list - it isn't sufficient in this case in my view either - a list aggregates the information in such a way that a category does not manage to present.--Golden Wattle talk 01:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to follow up the criteria for inclusion are: noteworthy for the following reasons, (1)the prisoner was arrested and charged and / or convicted of notable crimes whilst abroad. or (2) the prisoner is an otherwise notable person in Australia. The criteria does not include: the prisoner received a lengthy or harsh sentence in comparison to Australian law as per the deletion argument which thus misrepresents the list. --Golden Wattle talk 01:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is a dispassionate list, it should include all Australians in foreign jails, even British or American ones. What justification for limiting to those one someone feels are harsh - that's the root of the POV.--Docg 01:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly - my bad - the criterion for inclusion on harsheness has just been removed [28] - it didn't used to be there some time ago. I don't think it is a useful criterion and I don't think the list needs to be modified as a result of the criterion having been removed. Inclusion in the list is governed by notability - there have to be references to support the notability. If you end up in jail for some minor misdemeanour and you are not notable and your misdemeanour or the senetence you received is not noteworty, there will be no sources and you will not meet the criteria for inclusion. If I am arrested for jay-walking in New Zeland, I won't make it on the list.--Golden Wattle talk 01:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list seems to be made up of mostly trivial subjects that I don't think deserve Wikipedia articles. Drug dealers convicted abroad of smuggling a couple of kilos of drugs? I saw nothing in those articles that looked encyclopedic, and therefore the list doesn't look encyclopedic. It looks like a nicely organized bunch of trivia.Noroton 01:32, 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 — if you want a copy for merging, or transwiki'ng, just ask. --Haemo 23:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Timeline of the Sigilverse[edit]

    Timeline of the Sigilverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:NOT#PLOT, as it provides no real world content. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of this fictional timeline outside of the CrossGen comics canon. Gavin Collins 10:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment There references are very poor and so this article not got primary sources that are verifiable. If this material were added to say a Good Article, it would imediately loose its good status. Merging would cause more damage than a deletion. --Gavin Collins 18:15, 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 keep as disambiguation page. Nomination withdrawn and no delete votes. --Itub 12:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Language police[edit]

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

    Intrinsically POV-pushing article, which started as a "humorous" disambiguation page[29]. No assertion of notability for the phrase. With a couple of cherry-picked references to sources that happen to mention the term, it is little more than a dictionary definition. Some language academies are listed with no apparent reason. Note: see the talk page for more background. --Itub 10:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I left in an invisible comment sourcing the French "language police". I have also created a new wiktionary page for wikt:language police, which will likely stay as dictionary.com has an entry for that phrase. So there are three sourced entries now. Furthermore, I also consider "language police" a likely search time for the other entries plus the see also section. This is good enough for me as a regular dab editor to keep the dab page. – sgeureka t•c 12:25, 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. --Tikiwont 16:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Radio First Termer[edit]

    Radio First Termer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    not notable, conflict of interest (self-written), advertising. (basically WP:VSCA) Dougie WII 06:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The radio station existed only for 21 days, and only one of the people involved in it (apparently the author) went to Iraq, and only once. I still think this is more advertising for new commercial endeavors than encyclopedic content. - Dougie WII 14:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 10:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Phaethon 0130 made substantial changes to the article, I have no problem with the way it is now written -- Dougie WII 16:05, 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, with the provision that the list of press releases are removed. Neil ☎ 15:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Polyglot (webzine)[edit]

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

    Article was prodded in April, but prod removed by article creator. It is a large article on a webzine, and very detailed; but as there seem to be no external sources given that assert the subject's notability to satisfy WP:RS and WP:N, and as I'm not sure what other criteria than external sources can be used to demonstrate a webzine's need for inclusion in Wikipedia, I thought I'd bring it here for discussion. My opinion's neutral. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Out of curiosity, why did you re-add the very long section titled "Companies whose press releases have been included in Polyglot", which I deleted? Do you feel that it adds to the article? I'm just curious, as we wouldn't normally have a section like this in any other press article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The section attests to the notability of the webzine by indicating the companies that have a connection to it. Many Wikipedia articles about newspapers, magazines, and the like have sections that list at least some of their staff or regular contributors (e.g. The Herald Sun, The Daily Telegraph which also has a blog section, The West Australian, Gulf Daily News, Prothom Alo, De Standaard, Gazet van Antwerpen, Amandala, Belize Times, The Guardian (Belize), BH Dani, The Globe and Mail has a laundry list of contributors rivaling Polyglot's, Le Devoir, The Gazette (Montreal), National Post, Toronto Star has a huge list of people who are involved with it, Toronto Sun has a current writers list and an "alumni" list that is also very long, Vancouver Sun, El Observador, Haaretz, and many others). Many of these newspapers are not in English and thus are less likely to be read by most readers of the English language Wikipedia, yet their staff and contributors past and present are listed in the articles about them, often in bulleted list form. Other than the editorials, Polyglot's only contributors are hobby game companies so, I think, it is entirely appropriate to list them. As the "news" section of the article attests, these companies have been coming and going with some frequency lately (the article does not state this but the game hobby industry is currently in a turbulent state of transition) so their inclusion here, in a way, documents the recent history of the game hobby industry. Some of the articles on newspapers cited above have these lists in multi-column formats and perhaps it would be best to emulate these in order to make the article less long-looking, I just have to figure out the wiki code for that. :) — A lizard 15:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the secton title confusing me? I'd have no problem with a "notable contributors" section to this article - or even just a "past contributors" section - but not a "list of companies whose press releases they printed" section. That'd be like a "list of topics written about by the Toronto Star". Also - notability is not inherited; writing about a notable topic doesn't necessarily make the author notable. Being noted does, though. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is just the section that concerns you, then there is no reason to nominate the entire article for deletion. The article does indeed attest to the webzine having been noted by insiders within the hobby game industry, as do the external sources cited. This is further pointed out on the article's discussion page. The Polyglot webzine has been noted, in other words. The game companies mentioned in that section are Polyglot's contributors. Perhaps shortening that section so that it is in paragraph, rather than bulleted list, form would be a better way to show that the most prominent companies in the game hobby industry consider it to be important for them to make contributing to Polyglot be a part of their marketing efforts. These companies whose product lines are so big and popular that there are entire wikipedia portals about them; if there are multiple articles about Dungeons & Dragons and the company that makes that game, then it follows this is a "notable" topic for Wikipedia; it only follows that a news outlet in which the most important initiatives by that company (and several others like it) are announced on a regular basis is notable as well. — A lizard 19:58, 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, Tikiwont 09:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The contributors list was re-made in paragraph form and is now substantially shorter; all but one of the companies mentioned have Wikipedia entries of their own. — A lizard 18:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A lack of notability is alleged by two users who have at the same time advocated the removal of a complete section which most forcefully attests to the article's notability: the list of contributors; that the largest companies in the game hobby, computer, and console game industries regularly use Polyglot as a marketing outlet (and these companies have millions of dollars in assets, whole Wikipedia portals about them, and many of them are publicly traded) consider use Polyglot for marketing their products means, at the very least, that they think the webzine is notable. Removing them severely damages the article's notability, this is circular logic. — A lizard 18:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment No, it is not circular logic, because the notability of a magazine is not dependent on who sends them press releases (which is what I assume you mean by "contributors", unless demonstrated otherwise). This is simply marketing, which is what companies normally do, and their standards for who gets press releases are not ours. Notability is not, as you seem to believe, transferable. Instead, notability depends on reliable, independent secondary sources who choose to write about the topic. Additionally, I tagged the article with ((more sources)) because I think it needs this help. That was a kindness. By removing this tag, I presume you are indicating an unwillingness to take steps to improve the article's sourcing, and so I withdraw my supporting vote above; coupled with your gross misunderstanding of our notability requirements, I no longer have confidence the article will improve. If it survives, I will review in a month or two and consider a renomination. --Dhartung | Talk 21:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh.... AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would also cite the following reasons for keeping the entry:

    Dhdistro 22:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment In any case, it is completely inappropriate that you change other other peoples comments. [30]]--Tikiwont 23:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    -- My humble apologizes, I am new to wiki markup code and used the entry above mine as a template for formatting code and then when I previewed it I saw the strike through and; not knowing it meant anything, I removed it as an error and I must have also have inadvertently done it to the entry above mine as it is difficult to edit in the very small editing window for entries that is displayed on my laptop's screen.
    Dhdistro 16:56, 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 keep. W.marsh 21:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Aperture card[edit]

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

    The article is redundant with text in Punched card. tooold 21:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is true. And since redundant, there is nothing to merge. When reviewing them you might have noticed that the Punched card text actually has more detail than the article to be deleted. tooold 17:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:MERGE and WP:DELETE for more details on why redundant articles should be merged and not deleted. I oppose deleting the article. If it were deleted, then when someone went to "wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture_card" they would get nothing. If the merge procedure was followed, they would get redirected to "Punched_card". -- Austin Murphy 18:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 09:49, 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 --JForget 03:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Seven gates of hell[edit]

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

    Original research essay. If anyone can explain to me what this article is about I will remove the nomination. Seems like a hoax. Ridernyc 09:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. It is not verifiable. The content of the article even contradicts the existence of such a place. Since there is no hard evidence that the place exist, there is no real need of the article, unless some convincing evidence is found. By the way, what is the name of the place? The seven gates of hell or Toad Road? --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:53, 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. --Tikiwont 11:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Patterns in multiple-choice tests[edit]

    Patterns in multiple-choice tests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Original research essay. Ridernyc 09:25, 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 No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 22:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Kenosuke Sato[edit]

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

    This article appears to be either a hoax or misinformation. The article is not referenced and a Google search does not support the claims made in the article. More outlandish claims have been previously removed as have other claims attributed to Sato on other articles. As a result, I am proposing deletion as the article is either a hoax or covers a non-notable person. --Nick Dowling 09:20, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 21:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe)[edit]

    United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This long plot summary fails WP:NOT#PLOT, as it provides no real world content. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the Star Fleet Universe canon. --Gavin Collins 10:20, 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- non-notable in and of itself, and there's nothing worth merging. The episode's article has far more than enough "cultural references" and "notes" without adding to the mention of this song, and the only content contained in this article is plot summary and lyrics, which are copywritten. -- Mike (Kicking222) 00:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Vasectomy Song[edit]

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

    Television trivia with no potential for expansion. Fails WP:N. Alksub 08:06, 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. WjBscribe 04:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Faxlore[edit]

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

    Basically a dicdef. The article starts out talking about urban legends spread by fax. The article then just talks about various urban legends that already have their own articles and have nothing to do with this article. Original research, the only citations are for the urban legends and not for the term Faxlore. Ridernyc 08:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. I added a reference to one of the Brunvand books, the one closest to hand; just about all of his have examples. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comment. We also have photocopylore, which is even sparser than this article. I suggest that the two articles perhaps should merge, and in any case should share a common fate. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet another comment - the photocopylore was apparently requested as a missing encyclopedia article; see the history. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:55, 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. W.marsh 23:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Economic progress[edit]

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

    The article has started as an original research/POV essay [41], and it still isn't anything else. I don't think it can be salvaged, but I am open to suggestions. Until/unless that happens, delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    REPLY I have a suggestion. If an article is going to talk about economic progress, then instead of writing about the specific CAUSES of economic progress, talk about HOW economic progress occurs in the first place.

    The best way of doing this is to first define what economic progress is. I think the reason why the article is so POV contaminated is because nowhere is there any definition for economic progress. It's surprising that nobody picked this up yet. Once we do that, THEN people can be free to discuss and improve the entry.

    For if we START the entry with explaining how economic progress is spread, why some countries seem not to have it, etc, I think we are just going to go off on tangents.

    I can make some suggestions as to what exactly economic progress is and how it should be defined, and I can do it without having to resort to dogma. I can keep it comletely "neutral". If you want I can define it for you.

    This article is useless and SHOULD be deleted. But economic progress itself should stay, just changed. - Private Freedom 03:00, 7 November 2007


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

    The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 11:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Beancounter pacification[edit]

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

    Neologism, unsupported by references. Alksub 07:56, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 14:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2suit[edit]

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

    Notability WP:N. Not in the slightest. Firelement85 07:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete per nom. Unfortunately, this isn't the only such article that has cropped up. Michaelbusch 07:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Redundantbot 00:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. east.718 at 04:00, 11/13/2007

    Seneca Technologies[edit]

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

    Possibly falls under WP:NOT#SOAPBOX but there seems to be notability asserted and third-party sources. I've declined the speedy tag (although I can understand why it was placed in the first place) brought this to the community for a more final representative decision and take no position. Accounting4Taste 07:00, 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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Autopsy (Marilyn Manson video)[edit]

    Autopsy (Marilyn Manson video) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Seems rather crufty. There's no assertion of any cultural or other impact this video has had, no reference to any mentions of the press, etc. Do not see any way to justify a claim for its notability nor for the article's inclusion. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:22, 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 speedied. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Squeeze Theory[edit]

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

    Original research. Alksub 06:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've speedy-tagged it for advertising the technique. Michaelbusch 06:19, 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 --JForget 03:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    "Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion"[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    "Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This is an essay and not an encyclopedia article. I'm fairly sure portions of this can be merged into zitterbewegung, but as I'm not a science expert or even that knowledgable, it would be beyond my ken. But as it stands, this is obviously an essay and violates WP:NOT. Prod removed by anon (most likely author). JuJube 05:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    RESPONSE BY W.GUGLINSKI:


    Let us analyse Alsub's argument: Essay advancing an original theory


    1- From the Alksub's viewpoint, we have to delete all the articles on cold fusion, because cold fusion is considered by the academicians till the present day as an experimental essay with no viability, and so cold fusion cannot be described in the Wikipedia pages.


    2- The item Theory in Cold fusion page must be deleted, because everything written in there is only a theoretical original essay, since the cold fusion theorists cannot explain even that single theoretical question pointed out in Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion: The question then is, where will this additional mass come from?


    3- The item Proposed mechanisms in the Condensed matter nuclear science must be deleted, because everything written in there is essays advancing an original theory.



    But consider the following:

    That’ s why the articles on Cold fusion are not deleted from Wikipedia.



    Now let me show that the article Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion is not an Essay advancing an original theory. Because actually the article is showing a FACT: that there is a wrong belief among the skeptics. And this is a FACT.


    Actually it’s an important FACT , that people need to know, because:





    That’s why the article Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion cannot be deleted from Wikipedia. Because, as in the same case as happens with the articles on Cold fusion, the important is the description of the FACTS. And the article Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion describes the FACT that it’s wrong the belief of those ones who claim that cold fusion is theoretically impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.149.62.83 (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Response tl;dr. JuJube 03:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    AND THE CONSPIRACY GOES ON

    Dear Wike members

    You are not the only ones that conspirate against Quantum Ring Theory.

    Even the cold fusion theorists conspirate against QRT, as everybody can see in the link below the letter posted to Christy Frazier, entitled CONSPIRACY AGAINST QUANTUM RING THEORY

    http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0



    CONSPIRACY AGAINST QUANTUM RING THEORY

    To: Christy Frazier

    Managing Editor, Infinite Energy


    cc. Bob Wever, Steven Krivit, Nancy Kolenda, David Bradley, Naveen Dankal, Peter Jones, Jed Rothwell, Antonny Leggett


    Dear Christy

    I have noted that there is a s conspiracy against my Quantum Ring Theory among cold fusion researchers and journalists that divulge the cold fusion experiments.


    Interestingly, somebody has deleted my book from the bibliograpy of the Wikipedia page on cold fusion (my book has been added to that page in July-2007, by the physicist Trever McFaddon).


    Many cold fusion researchers and journalists believe that cold fusion will be explained by a theory proposed by some eminent theorist of an important research institute. For instance, the journalist Bob Wever says in his blog Strategy Kinetics:

    “Many believe that the work of MIT's Peter Hagelstein--a tenured professor of electrical engineering--is exemplary and if verified experimentally, stands in line for a Nobel prize.”

    http://www.strategykinetics.com/2006/02/cold_fusion.html#more


    So, there are theorists that hope to win the Nobel prize with a successful theory able to explain cold fusion. And of course that they don’t want my Quantum Ring Theory as an opponent.


    Actually it is funny why the people believe that Hagelstein’s theory is able to explain cold fusion occurrence, since his theory is unable to explain even a single question like that arisen by the nuclear chemist Mitch in his blog Chemistry Forum, where Mitch wrote:
    “In conclusion, giving coverage to this fringe science only helps perpetuate the false belief that there exists any viability in cold fusion”
    http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0


    So, Hagelstein’s theory or any other theory on cold fusion did not convince Mitch on the viability in cold fusion.


    But after reading the response to his question posted by me according to Quantum Ring Theory, Mitch wrote:

    “I have not heard of Zitterbewegung energy before, and have been studying up on it before giving a formal response. Sorry for the delay”. And we realize that Mitch is not quite sure anymore that cold fusion viability is impossible, after reading the explanation according to Quantum Ring Theory.


    It is of interest to note that cold fusion researchers complain that there is a conspiracy of the academics against the cold fusion occurrence.

    But the own cold fusion theorists have a conspiracy against the QRT, which is the unique theory able to explain the cold fusion occurrence.

    It’s only a new paradox in the history of the science’s development.

    Regards

    WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - incoherent. - Mike Rosoft 13:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mizanation[edit]

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

    Appears to be total nonsense. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:40, 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. east.718 at 03:57, 11/13/2007

    List of churches in Perth, Western Australia[edit]

    List of churches in Perth, Western Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    There is already a list of all the churches in Perth in the Perth street directory. Wikipedia is not a directory. There is no need to duplicate it here. Hesperian 05:32, 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 redirect to Demographics of Cape Verde to avoid duplication W.marsh 21:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ethnic Groups in Cape Verde[edit]

    Ethnic Groups in Cape Verde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    See the talk page in Talk:Ethnic Groups in Cape Verde for details. Ten Islands 04:50, 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. east.718 at 03:58, 11/13/2007

    Ally Magazine[edit]

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

    Conflict of interest. Creator and main editor is affiliated with company that owns the magazine (see admission of affiliation at User talk:Allstarecho#RE: Message). Previous related article was deleted and creator/editor has chosen to remove references to magazine's previous 2 names and history. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 04:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Further comment - User_talk:Hemstrong, the creator and main editor, removed the AfD template. I reverted. Also, he/she left the following comment on my talk page: I've contacted Ally magazine's legal department. It seems your just a sore fag because your a wiki editor and not part of something successful. I hope ALly gets on your ass. Then the user blanked my talk page. I reverted that as well. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 04:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That should have no effect on the deletion discussion. Also, I don't think you have to add a comment to delete if you nominate an article. I think it is implied. - Rjd0060 04:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see nominators all the time leaving their own comments to delete. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 04:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Though WP:NPA can be invoked... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but the civility of a user has absolutely nothing to do with a decision on AfD. -Rjd0060 15:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree on COI but then there's the matter of WP:CORP as also stated in the nom rationale. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Press releases are primary sources and therefore do not satisfy Wikipedia's policy on notability. Additionally, what evidence do you have that the nominator is "not in compliance with the best interest of wikipedia"? --SesameballTalk 01:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the vulgar comments were left on my talkpage by the user AFTER the AfD nomination, saying I am not in compliance with the best interest of Wikipedia and saying this is personal, is frankly B.S. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 04:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Bstringer87 (talk · contribs · logs) Account created after AfD nom. --AliceJMarkham 12:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Interestingly, a B. Stringer is listed as Amos Palm's senior VP of Public Relations on their Oct. 21 press release. • Gene93k 12:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Allstarecho,

    It came to our attention at Amos Palm Publications that a staff member had mis-represented our management group through various forms of harassment and vandalism on wikipedia. We initiated an investigation through the Professional Standards Division of Amos Palm Publications. Our investigation showed that a staff member created fictional information about the publication and management group. The staff member known as "Jeff Meredith" also uploaded proprietary image of the cover of our December issue of Ally magazine. Further into the investigation we were able to obtain the screename and password to ensure the article that is present on the wikipedia website is deleted.

    The management group has contacted wikipedia and it's officers to ensure the article is removed with the best integrity possible.

    The staff member has been removed from staff and is no longer accessed to our publication and management group. Again, we do apologize for the inconvenience that has been displayed over a simple article. Amos Palm Publications does not publicize itself through public forms of definition as these tend not to be prominent sources of information.

    Again, we do apologize for any interruption in your services to Wikipedia. Should you have further information or conflict, please direct them to our legal department for review at:

    Becky R. James
    Senior-Vice President - Professional Standards/Corporate Responsibility
    james.becky@appmedia.org

    Principal Tower
    801 Grand Ave
    Floor 20
    Des Moines, IA 50314

    All the Best,

    Damon Amos

    Coming from someone who keeps removing the COI and Unrefed tags from the article, using an IP registered to Target Corporation that has been repeatedly blocked from editing due to vandalism? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and cleanup, with no prejudice to also refine Category:Conspiracy theories.--Tikiwont 11:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of conspiracy theories[edit]

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

    Massive unorganized list of conspiracy theories. This looks like one of those situations where a section was becoming a problem in another article and they just split it off. There is no inclusion criteria, but really how can there because anyone can make up a conspiracy theroy. The list starts of by simply being links to articles, then tries to categorize itself by country. Then just falls apart and starts having mini essays on various theories. This really something that should be a category, this list is just a magnet for vandals, OR, and other junk. Ridernyc 04:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Ridernyc 04:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Yes, and there won't even be any lists to add it to! - Rjd0060 15:27, 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 per a fairly strong consensus. krimpet⟲ 03:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)[edit]

    Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    Previous AfD for this article under a different name:

    This article was nominated for deletion back in August, and the AfD was closed as "no consensus". It seems to me that it has not improved much since then, and that the previous discussion may not have covered all the problems.

    First, this article was created by its subject Ryoung122 (talk · contribs), who has continued to edit it since the AfD closed. I was drawn to the subject by the orphaned category he created for it, Category:Supercentenarian trackers, and by the subsequent correspondence with Ryoung122, which involved (inter alia) spamming irrelevant and badly formatted-links in large quantities. Those things are not relevant to a deletion decision, but the diffuse nature of the material prompted me to examine this article more closely, in particular the claims to notability.

    I don't see that the references provided come anywhere close to establishing notability:

    1. http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM lists Young as the validator of some supercetenarians. It's a primary source, irrelevant to notability
    2. http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwger/about/admin.html is a list of the Administration & Staff of the Gerontology Institute. It lists Young a Graduate Research Assistant, which is not a notable position, and as a primary source it's irrelevant to notability
    3. http://www.demogr.mpg.de/calendar/files/23312.3112487793-Workshop%20Program.pdf is simply a list of conference participants, and irrelevant to notability (most academics participate in lots of conferences)
    4. http://www.supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/organization.htm lists young as a memner of the committee of the Supercentenarian Research Foundation. Not a notable role, and another primary source
    5. http://www.grg.org/Adams/AA.HTM doesn't mention Young

    The external links are little better:

    1. The first of the kinks to mention Young is the Yahoogroup which he runs, but that's not a WP:RS reliable source
    2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5293436.stm is an article about a supercentenarian, not about Young. Young is not mentioned until paragraph 11, and then with four sentences of quotes.
    3. http://www.globalaging.org/health/us/2006/longevityclues.htm offers substantive coverage of Young. It's a 1,0000-word article in a newspaper from his home state, about the work of Young and his colleague
    4. http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2005.8.274?cookieSet=1&journalCode=rej is a list of supercentenarians, which doesn't mention Young
    5. http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/6/B579/TA1 is a journal to which I don't have access, but is presumably to a paper written or co-authored by Young. Irrelevant to notability
    6. http://www.demografie.de/calendar/files/51736.8836975098-Workshop%20Program.pdf is a conference schedule which presented a paper by Young

    And that's it. He's a 33-year-old graduate student who has given papers at conferences, which is non-notable. Otherwise he gets a few quotes in a BBC article and one more substantive article in his hometown's newspaper, and he claims to be a consultant to a few outside bodies (though we have no independent sources for those claims). That's perhaps slightly more than the norm for an academic, but it seems to me to fall well short of WP:BIO, which looks for such points as a "credible independent biography" or "Widespread coverage over time in the media such as the BBC, The Times or other reliable sources".

    There has been three months since the last AfD, in which the subject himself has added references. If in that time even the article's subject hasn't found evidence to bring the article close to meeting WP:BIO's requirements, I think it's safe to conclude that the evidence probably doesn't exist. Delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above comments include several incorrect statements. However, User BHG decided to delete where I pointed out when her statements were not correct. Therefore I suggest you all check out the source links for yourself, and see who is telling the truth. Have a nice day.Ryoung122 21:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply I reverted your editing of my nomination, and a further edit by you of the nomination was reverted by another editor. You have been repeated asked to follow WP:TPG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: there is far more material out there about me than about Keeley Dorsey. Further, I also created aticles for my rivals as well. That says a lot.Ryoung122 13:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WAX makes this irrelevant. ---- WebHamster 01:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Further, the article originally started as a way to counter fictitious age claims, such as Mary Ramsey Wood. The original nominators nominated the article for deletion in response to an attempt by myself to get Mary Ramsey Wood's article to reflect the obvious truth that her age claim was not credible. After heated debate, it was eventually acknowledged that I was right and now the article reflects reality.

    One of the main tenets of Wikipedia is that you can click on a 'wikilink' for 'more information.' Given that I am cross-referenced with several other articles, it stands to reason to have the information organized in a way that one can find out about similar cases from each other. Ironically, by linking these aricles, BHG (originally deleting the category 'Erdos numbers') found a link to 'supercentenarian trackers' as well. I do not believe that deletionists that go around deleting educational categories such as 'Erdos numbers' while leaving gobs of gratuitous information about not notable people like Keeley Dorsey or Sunnydale, California are really helping Wikipedia. One of the reasons Wikipedia has not found greater success is that it is remade in the image of the masses, instead of dealing with what is really important. What can be more important than resarch into the human life span, in an attempt to identify what limits us to a mere 122 years?Ryoung122 13:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryoung, with reality, you need to properly portray reality if you want any credibility. Note that the person who put this up for AFD the first time was not involved in the Wood article at all, whatsoever, not even a minor edit. Not even one word, character, or revision on the article or its talk page. Period. Aboutmovies 19:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: User Kittybrewster is a frequent contributor to BHG's talk page:
    Appears to be conflict-of-interest and vote-stacking. We see no analysis, rationale, or attempt to consider both points of view (at least, BHG did that). I can't see how you can claim 'fails' when I have already posted the proof. Apparently for some, this is a 'pissing contest' and not really related to an objective approach.Ryoung122 14:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Yes I am a fan of BHG. That led me here. Additionally I was irritated by the flood of protest, commenting and editing by Mr Young. Irrelevant to the point that this fails WP:BIO. In any event it is for the closing admin to decide the merits of the arguments. - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:
    Precisely as I said, we see user: Aboutmovies started the Mary Ramsey Wood article:
    (cur) (last) 00:11, 26 July 2007 Aboutmovies (Talk | contribs) (4,445 bytes) (created, feel free to expand with sourced information)
    Which was a source of the prior debate. Hence, I stand by my comments and they are backed up by checking the facts.Ryoung122 21:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody said I didn't start that article, the problem is you said above: "The original nominators nominated the article for deletion in response to an attempt by myself to get Mary Ramsey Wood's article to reflect the obvious truth that her age claim was not credible."
    Thus though I was involved in the Wood article, nobody involved with the Wood article nominated this article for deletion. Errabee nominated (please remember that only one person nominates, the rest of the people are simply particpating in the debate) the article for deletion. So no, your comments are not backed up by the facts. Also, for the upteenth time, learn how to properly format your talk page comments, see WP:TALK for details or study how others particpate to figure it out. Aboutmovies 21:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    I mention this for the sole reason that there seemed to be a dispute over the inclusion of the statement that Mr. Young is a researcher at GSU without a source, and then once a source was added to that effect, it was then poo-poohed as trivial. It seems that everyone here needs to review the core policies at work here, and use a little common sense. LaMenta3 18:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read the nomination? I assessed all the sources for evidence of notability, which is the issue here, and of the GSU link I wrote "not a notable position, and as a primary source it's irrelevant to notability". References are needed to verify facts, but not all of them are releavnt to notabilty (see WP:NOTE). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oldest Georgian Woman Dies at 112

    WLTX.com, SC - Oct 15, 2007 A memorial service was held Saturday in Pickens, SC Georgia State University gerontology researcher Robert Young says Christopher was the oldest documented ...

    Hmmmn, not even a 'hometown' news source...72.158.38.41 01:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no link for that quote, so it's unverifiable; and it does not appear to be one of those listed in the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A link for the story appears here [42] (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/14/07): "The oldest documented Georgian, she was the seventh-oldest person in the U.S. and the 11th oldest person in the world, said Georgia State University gerontology researcher Robert Young of Atlanta." "Upon Mrs. Christopher's death, Besse Cooper of Monroe became Georgia's oldest resident at 111, Mr. Young said." In addition, I must disagree that things without links are unverifiable. The source is clearly given (WLTX.com). Enter that URL into your browser; the main page has a search option. I searched on Langston and the first hit was the story in question [43]. "Georgia State University gerontology researcher Robert Young says Christopher was the oldest documented Georgian. He says she was the seventh-oldest person in the country and the 11th oldest person in the world." "Young says her death means Besse Cooper of Monroe is now Georgia's oldest resident at 111. She was born on August 26th, 1896." JJL 04:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep Although renaming the title may be relevant. The GRG website officially lists him as "GRG Chief Claims Investigator" on http://grg.org/Adams/Tables.htm as well as grg.org. I think the problem is when you guys talk about 'nobility,' you refer to nobility on the Internet, such as through Google. While I think Robert is most notable for having a 1-of-a-kind job at Guinness, his name can be found on the Guinness books, rather than the official guinnessworldrecords.com site. So the question remains: can someone have nobility off of the Internet but have nobility through books? Robert has plenty of on-line "Internet" nobility on GRG pages and hundreds of news reports, particularly supercentenarian birthdays, but lacks the Internet nobility through an official Guinness site. Anyways, I don't think Wikipedia should be exclusive to sources on the Internet. I believe if there is a book out there, it can be used as a reference on Wikipedia even if the data of the book does not appear on the Internet. Neal 19:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    Of course notability can be sourced from dead wood sources, many articles are sourced in such a way. Additionally the number of sources isn't necessarily an indicator either, it's the quality of the source that counts whether it be net related or via other means. As regards the 1-of-a-kind job, well that doesn't necessarily denote notability either. My uncle used to be the only rat catcher for the local council but I rather doubt he's entitled to an article based on that. Regardless of Young's job title at Guinness he is still only actually an editor when it comes down to it and the world is full of them. He's a researcher and list maker, that doesn't confer notability regardless of the subject he's researching and making lists of. ---- WebHamster 19:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I'm actually going to respond to these because it's not simply about 'being right' but about getting the story right. If you still feel the way you do, fine, but let's not have misperceptions, or, worse, deliberately false information. FIRST: there's a big difference between 'rat catcher for the local council' and in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet. There are other people who do nations such as Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, the UK, Australia, etc. Thus this is only a 'one-person job' because I'm at the top of the organizational pyramid.
    Two, even with Guinness...they asked me to join the team, not the other way around. I am an independent consultant, not an 'editor'. That's why I'm called the 'Senior Consultant for Gerontology' in the 2007 and 2008 editions. The fact that when they were looking for someone for the job, they thought of me, says a lot. When the U.S. Social Security Administration wanted assistance with their supercentenarian study, they asked me. So did the Max Planck Institute and the New England Centenarian Study. I don't need to be here to justify any of this to anyone. Facts are facts. If you think that's not notable, fine. But develop some standards. Why is there an article on David Allen Lambert? Created an auto-biography using a sockpuppet. I, on the other hand, created one using my own ID. How about Keeley Dorsey? Two career touchdowns. Real notable.
    Worse than that, however, is that Brown Haired-Girl put out a good argument for deletion, but much of it was based on misstatements and falsehoods. Some of the links she claimed didn't mention me, in fact did. The GSU article, while 'hometown,' was carried on a worldwide website. So much for that argument. In fact a search of all the 'supercentenarian' articles (scientific) on Academic Search Premier shows that I was involved in a majority of them. In some cases I was named in the title; in others you can find my name elsewhere.
    So, if someone wants to 'delete', well vote the way you want. But when BHG claims there are no sources, when there are, then deletes sources as 'SPAM' which are clearly not, that is little more than a 'personal attack' and an abuse of power. For example, she states that this source http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2005.8.274?cookieSet=1&journalCode=rej doesn't mention me, but I see my name at least seven times, at least one of which lists me with the Social Security Administration, which BHG claims is 'unverifiable.' I could go on, but that would be 'spam' (by her definition). 72.158.38.41 02:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "In charge of"? "Collator of" would seem to be more appropriate based on the article. There doesn't appear to be any evidence produced that you actually medically treat these old folk, you appear to catalogue and/or debunk them then write it up in reports (lists?). Anyway, this appears to be degenerating faster than a nonegenarian with a viagra overdose, sooner or later you're going to blow a gasket or someone is going to end up defaming you either deliberately or accidentally, either way I don't want that to happen. I'd quit whilst you are ahead. Let people make up their own minds. And BTW, just have a quick read of WP:WAX before you make any more article comparisons. And I have already cast my 'vote'. ---- WebHamster 02:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: do we say that Scott Boras is not notable because he is an agent? Moreso, 'just an editor' seems quite ridiculous. I am in fact an organizer and creator, not simply an 'editor.' That is why I have positions in multiple organizations including the SRF, GRG, SSA, NECS, etc. When people wanted an 'expert' they turned to me, not the other way around:
    I didn't say you were just an editor, I said you were a list maker too, so that covers the creating and organising aspects I would have thought. Also being an "expert" does not automatically confer notability either. The very basis on which an AFD runs means that it can't be a vendetta. It's a consensus of editors discussing the merits of a particular article. Some of those editors may have an axe to grind, some are independent, the fact of the matter is that the discussion is what eventually decides whether deletion is merited or not. An AFD nominations is NOT and instruction to delete, it's a request "do you folks think this article should be deleted or not?". Feel free to have as much conspiracy paranoia as you like at home but please keep it off WP, it doesn't serve any good and actually decreases the strength of your argument. Likewise disrupting AFD with long, irrelevant quotes does not help either. I have no axe to grind, I haven't edited your article in anyway, I don't know you, I don't know any of the other editors, though BHG has turned down a few of my CSD requests in the past. So stop insulting people and their motives. I read the article, I saw the citations, I made my decision based purely on that. In my view you do not meet the requirements for WP:BIO and/or WP:N. ---- WebHamster 22:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WebHamster is right. WP:NOTE says that "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail". Recording someone as an author of part of a publication doesn't pass that test. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly does Robert Young do that makes him notable as far as wikipedia is concerned? The claim for notability is on the grounds that he specialises in debunking (his word) claims of extreme age. The information used to test these claims is, presumably, held in official, publicly accessible archives of historical records such as census returns, birth, marriages and death records, tax returns, wills, land and property transactions as well as unofficial sources such as letters, gazetteers, directories, etc. The collating and analysis of this sort of information (much of which is now available on-line) should be all in a day's work for someone with a history degree such as RY. It seems to me that, apart from the use to which the data is being put, his role as a "longevity claims researcher" does not differ much from any other person using the same records to research their family tree. In fact, the list of supercentenarians provided at the site linked to in reference 5 (here) seems to indicate that three documents is considered sufficient proof for the "three stars" list (although it is probably easier to prove a case than to disprove one).
    The article is silent about how RY came to be the Guinness Book of Records' claims investigator. Did they approach him or was it the other way round? I doubt that the few world records that the book covers in his specialism would require a full time appointment, so I guess that it is a consultancy role. What does he do with the rest of his time - presumably a large part of it is taken up with his post-graduate studies.
    Setting aside the issue of notability, the article is somewhat short of the usual facts found in biographies. What is RY's background? In the UK, 32 is a late age to achieve a first degree, what did he do before university? What is the subject of his post-graduate studies?
    Regarding the need for this article to be provided as a means of linking together articles on debunked claims, doesn't the ((longevity)) template and the Longevity claims and Longevity myths articles do that better?--DavidCane 03:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. I added only those elements in the 'autobiography' that were pertinent to the 'world's oldest person' discussion. Why did I not graduate until 32? That story is far more interesting...you wouldn't believe me if I told you, so why bother?Ryoung122 11:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you trying to say that we "can't handle the truth"? What you either can't or won't realise is that BHG's comment is saying that someone who is as prone to hyperbole as you are is not a good candidate for writing encyclopaedic articles, at least not one on yourself. You also seem to be confusing the generally understood definition of notability with the wikipedia definition. Obviously people who offer you work deem you to be notable which is fair enough, but WP's criteria is different, we aren't offering you a job. According to the criteria laid down in WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:PROF you don't meet the requirements. It's not a personal slight and I rather doubt prospective employers will write to the Wikimedia Foundation for a reference any time soon. Don't you realise that your demands, protestations and, quite bluntly, whining is not doing your case much good at all. You cannot demand your way into Wikipedia, it just doesn't work like that. Rightly or wrongly, attitudes like that will pull people's shutters down and will shift consensus away from you. Show some modesty and humility, this is not a job interview panel. ---- WebHamster 12:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: It is me, I didn't login because if I had been blocked, I wanted to get the message out. I think the message is more important than the 'administrative punishment' one may dole out for daring to stand up to such an incessant and unfair barrage. The article as written is linked to the appropriate criteria. I doubt if the Mary Ramsey Wood would stand up to the same level of scrutiny. LOCAL newspaper citations? Please. Also, I was featured on the FRONT PAGE of the WALL STREET JOURNAL (Feb 2004):

    http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/03-05/03-27-05/d06he017.htm

    Is that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution? Looks like Massachusetts to me. Not only was it in the Wall Street Journal but carried in many other papers. So, you can say what you want but I respectfully disagree with interpretations otherwise. The standard is 'notable', not 'famous'. Have a nice day.72.158.38.41 16:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So let me get this straight, you deliberately tried to circumvent a possible block on you so you could get out the message of how important you are? And the message that you're notable is more important than the rules of Wikipedia? I'm sorry but you keep on demonstrating BHG's point about the sort of editor you are. ---- WebHamster 17:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Yes, that's an article from SouthCoastToday.com which says it's from page D6 of The Standard-Times which says it's from the Wall Street Journal. If we ignore or verify the source, though, it doesn't help. It does not "feature" Young. It features claims of longevity, discusses GRG and quotes Young. From the article, I find the following: Young is "GRG's senior claims investigator" and he's "a 30-year-old former Census worker". That certainly isn't "significant coverage", so it doesn't satisfy general notability. I don't see it satisfying WP:PROF or WP:BIO either. None of the other inclusion guidelines apply. Young is not notable. - Mdbrownmsw 17:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This line of discussion is pointless. No, there's no need to resort to administrative punishments – and RYoung's behavior as a Wikipedia editor is not relevant to the matter at hand. Except insofar as the strenuous and lengthy arguments of a directly interested party disrupt the natural flow of discussion. Robert, it's my opinion that common sense dictates that you should sit back and let the community discuss this matter without your interference. Since you don't seem to agree, I'm not sure what I can do but sit back and shake my head. I definitely don't see the value of pursuing this on an administrative level, but I am disappointed by your attempt to advance your own reputation at the expense of valuable WP editor time. -Pete 22:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment.I note the above user was not only involved in the Mary Wood dispute, but he has continued even up to today the very same dispute. Thus I note that we have two users, AboutMovies and Peteforsyth, operating from a COI/sour grapes mode (mad that they lost the dispute). Further, I find it highly disturbing to phrase this a waste of WP editor time...what about MY time? If you don't have time for this, then you shouldn't be here.Ryoung122 22:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: "Lost the dispute" - ??! Robert, your confrontational tone is the only thing that ever made that seem like a dispute. Several of us objected to some of your earlier edits, which lacked through citation/foundation/explanation. You and others responded well to that (albeit with a whole lot of accompanying bluster), and the resulting article is a dramatic improvement over what it was before you came along. If there was any dispute, the quality of the article was the winner, and inaccuracy and vagueness were the losers. At the time, you acknowledged that collaboration had resulted in a better article. I agreed with you. What makes you change your mind now? -Pete 23:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Bill Gates dropped out of college, didn't even make it to graduate school. That I'm a graduate student is irrelevant, as the basis for a 'notability' claim is extensive media coverage over a period of time (not a one-time event, not a local paper). Look, I've started other articles for biographies with less than this.72.158.38.41 16:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Robert Young if press coverage was the basis of your claim then I am afraid it fails completely. As has been set out by BHG above, the coverage is minimal to say the least and does not come near, let alone approach that needed under WP:N. I do have to ask at this point, have you actually read the criteria? Btw I notice one of your claims for inclusion is that you is that you are mentioned as a contributor in the Guinness Book of Records. Well I was actually a record holder in the book for many years but that doesn't mean I meet WP:N any more than you do. - Galloglass 16:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've heard of LOTS of people outside of wikipedia. Very very few of them are however notable. - Galloglass 17:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being a contributor to a small section of the GBWR is hardly a calling card for notability regardless of how many issues are sold. There was a section about old age before Young came along and there doesn't appear to be an entry for his predecessor, at least not one I can find. They seemed to manage quite well without him then. Likewise, all the references given are invariably about the subject he deals in rather than about him per se. This is trivial at the very least and insubstantial at best.---- WebHamster 17:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Being of interest is not a criteria for inclusion. ---- WebHamster 17:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But 'notably enough' surely is a criteria. Not being listed at Gallup Senior Scientists List cannot be a solid argument for deletion, in my view. Have you checked other Wikipedia articles in this respect ? There might be quite a number of articles on people not listed at that particular list. Celvin11 18:34 8 November 2007 (CET) — Celvin11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    The issue is rather different to the way you frame it: it's whether the article on Young has established notability in accordance with the guidelines (WP:NOTE and WP:PROF), which involve looking at the evidence and discussing whether it meets the required standardds. My point wrt to Gallup is that I see no evidence either that supercentenarians are "a major subject for Gallup" or that Gallup regards Young as a significant person in their organisation, so his claimed role in Gallup does not help to establish notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete fails to pass the bar of notability for academic work set by WP:PROF, I see the strongest residual claims to notability being his his association with the Guinness Book and Gallup. I'm in agreement with WebHamster & BHG's responses to DGG, and don't see parenthetical involvement with those organizations as amounting to encyclopedic notability. Pete.Hurd 17:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - With all due respect to the subject, I haven't seen any evidence that at this point he passes either WP:PROF or WP:PEOPLE, the latter of which would require a "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". While his work is mentioned in several places, I have yet to see any specific evidence that the subject himself has been discussed at any great length in any of them, which would seem to make it fail on the latter. If and when such coverage exists, however, that would change things. John Carter 18:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:Prof (quote) criteria # 1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. The question then is : can this or cannot this be said about Robert Young ? Pete Hurd's (and Warlordjohncarter's) interpretation of WP:Prof might be too narrow. Celvin11 19:21 8 November 2007 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 18:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC) — Celvin11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    True. However, I don't see any such independent sources on the page specifically indicated that he is regarded as a significant expert. John Carter 16:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, John Carter for your comments. I very much welcome a balanced discussion. In my view, some of the entries seem unfortunately far too overloaded with a negative energy. Some of this might be simply due to lack of knowledge.

    SineBot seems wrongly to label me of creating a 'Single-purpose-account'. I registered with en.wikipedia 3 years ago (on 8 Nov 2004). At that time I of course had no idea about this discussion coming up. It is completely true that I ve contributed to en.wikipedia just a few times. I ve however been far more active at no.wikipedia. I participate here because this topic is one of my fields of interest.

    You dont see enough documentation to place Young as a significant expert in this area. Do you know the longevity research field well ? What about being a consultant to Guinness Book of Records then. Clearly they ve a solid history of consulting expert in various fields, dont they ? Guinness surely is an independent source by objective criteria.

    I am, since four years ago involved with a Norwegian project where we re detecting and verifying the oldest people who have lived here. Mr Robert Young is well known to us here as a leading international expert in this specific field. Celvin11 04:55 11 November 2007 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 03:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Keep He seems quite notable for this AFD furore, let alone his status as an authority on old people. And the academic snobbery in this debate is no reason to delete. Colonel Warden 14:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Causing an AFD argument doesn't begin to create notability.--Prosfilaes 23:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - vanispamcruft and COI problems aside, fails the basic tests of notability WP:PROF or WP:PEOPLE(and "this AFD furore" [sic] is evidence of some flaws in our system, not evidence of notability). --Orange Mike 15:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - yes, he knows his stuff and is on the whole an excellent contributor, but I can't see any thing that makes him pass the basic bar of notability. While the self-plugging pushing of the yahoo group can be annoying, it is the lack of notability and significant coverage in reliable independent sources that sway my opinion . - fchd 17:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Not seeing where this meets the standards of notability. He's got the whole average professor issues; he's done a few things of some interest, but nothing that's made people care about him independent of what he's done (i.e. the independent references notability demands).--Prosfilaes 23:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete with a wry smile at the comment above - absolutely correct. Yes, when this field becomes mainstream, i.e. when there is someone other than the subject (and editor, I believe) involved, then we can indeed celebrate that trailblazing. But not until then. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No independent sources, no independent sources, no independent sources. ~ trialsanderrors 19:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: the original proposer and the article's subject seems to have a vendetta going on and I question the motives behind this CFD. Might it not be better to abort this vote and let a more clearly neutral editor handle it? --Martin Wisse 12:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - There is a vendetta being waged Martin but if you check carefully, its not by the proposer of this AfD, but rather its subject who has breached every wikipedia guideline imaginable in his conduct during this debate. He has hounded and harassed the proposer on multiple talk pages, has taken Conflict of Interest to new heights never seen before as well as hounding many of those who have posted for a Delete in this discussion. I'm sure this debate, which has been conducted fairly and properly by everyone apart from its subject will come to its proper end when an uninvolved admin takes a view of all the evidence on this page and comes to a decision based on it. Incidentally and apart from this debate, I hope Ryoung122's deplorable conduct during it will receive some action. Such levels of harassment, bullying and intimidation by this individual should not go un-noted. Galloglass 12:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally BHG doesn't do vendettas. - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per my comments in the previous AFD. His position at Guiness World Records is notable, and the fact that he seems to be the media's go-to person for quotes on stories of a particular kind also suggests notability. JulesH 18:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It should be noted that JulesH is one of those canvassed for support by Ryoung122. - Galloglass 18:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break[edit]

    • Delete for failing WP:PROF (and BIO/PEOPLE, as well as WP:N more generally). I don't think the sources mentioned above satisfy the guidelines. --Bfigura (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "senior consultant on gerontology for Guinness World Records". Senior to whom and to how many? 1) Like it or not some of your charges are notable, you are not. 2) You have a raging case of the COIs so please recuse yourself and let us get on with it. You are doing yourself (and WP) more harm than good with your responses. All you are effectively doing is reiterating the same arguments. What is it they say about a possible definition of madness? "When someone keeps doing the same thing over and over and then expects the end result to be different". Please see WP:TEND in relation to this discussion. ---- WebHamster 22:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Robert, your disagreement that an article needs to be "about" the subject to establish notability is far out of step with the consensus about what constitutes notability for Wikipedia. That consensus, of course, is subject to change; but you need to take that up at WP:N or similar. Simply asserting something contrary to one of the most foundational WP guidelines, in a specific case, and one in which you have a stake, is unconvincing. -Pete 23:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't see how that qualifies as a non-trivial mention. Notability requires "...sources address the subject directly in detail...".Now, if a review article in a respected Gerontology journal made the statement, maybe then, since they'd be qualified to make such a distinction. But a mention made in passing by a random local newspaper doesn't meet the required threshold in my opinion. --Bfigura (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Not notable per WP:PROF, WP:BIO, just not notable and the main proponent that is busy editwaring here has a massive conflict of interests. Also there are many and more arguments above, which I will endorse. This is a sloppy, poor article about a non-notable person whose is growing to become a notable editwarrior. Not only should his edits be scrutinised, he probably should be warned for failing to WP:AGF and to lighten up as well. Shot info 23:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: above vote appears to be COI retaliation for David Horrobin edit. The article, as written, appears just fine. However, Shot info insists on a complete re-write.Ryoung122 23:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: RY, have you actually taken the time to read and analyze WP:COI? I have many times and am a proponent of a wide interpretation of the policy to include POV pushing. But I and the policy both state that it applies to mainspace editing. To simplify that for you, this is not the mainspace. The article about you is the mainspace. The article on Microsoft is in the mainspace, the talk page to Microsoft is not. If there is a “Wikipedia:” or “User;” or “Talk:” at the beginning of title it is not in the mainspace. So there is no COI for any editor here debating that has had a conflict with you. Now, you did see the specific mention in COI about autobiographies right? Aboutmovies 06:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I'm not sure what to make of the jumble of random statements and facts posted by RY in response to my earlier comments, but it has not shifted me from my view that his specialism is making lists of the very old. Whether these lists are of use to members of the Gerontological community is open to question. The subject may have a degree of notability within the small community of researches collating lists of the very old and possibly also in the wider Gerontological community, but even this does not appear to have been demonstrated and if it had, as per WP:LOCALFAME, this would still not necessarily translate into notability in the general sense or meet the criteria for notability on Wikipedia:
    1. RY does not appear to meet any of the six proposed tests of notability for an academic:
      1. considered significant expert in his field by independent sources - fail, no evidence of this provided.
      2. considered an important figure by independent academics in his field - fail, no evidence of this provided.
      3. publication of significant or well known academic work - fail, no such work shown to have been published.
      4. collective body of work is significant and well known - fail, no such body of work shown to exist.
      5. recipient or nominee for a significant award - fail, no significant award has been made or nominated.
    2. RY does not appear to meet the standard of Wikipedia:Notability - "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --DavidCane 23:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I've ever seen a better example of irony. ---- WebHamster 00:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I was thinking along the same lines WebHamster. - Galloglass 00:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment RY seems to be accusing me of jealousy because I don't have an article of my own. I have no such jealousy, nor do I desire my own article:

    1. What evidence is there of notability as an academic by independent sources? Appearing in the staff list for the department at GSU does not make him notable; being listed as a researcher by the GBoWR does not make him notable.
    2. What evidence is there that fellow academics consider him important?
    3. Where is this significant body of published work? See examination of RY's links below.
    4. What significant award has he received? He's listed on the GSU website here as receiving the "Outstanding Undergraduate Student Award", 2007 from his own department, but that is hardly significant. What other awards has he been honoured with.

    Taking the links that he has provided:

    • "Anti-Aging Medicine: The Hype and the Reality" (for which the table of contents can be found here) does not list RY as a contributor.
    • "Aging: The Reality: Demography of Human Supercentenarians" lists RY as one of eight co-authors of an article titled "Survival of Parents and Siblings of Supercentenarians" (see here for an abstract).
    • The next, for which the link should be http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/rej.2006.9.503, is a smarter version of the "Validated Supercentenarian Cases Aged 114 and Above" list that is already linked from the RY article. This list is produced by the GRG for which RY claims to be the senior researcher and simple lists him as a source. It is not independent.
    • The next, which presumably is supposed to be a link to the latest edition (October 2007) of the Journals of Gerontology (table of contents here, index by author here) does not list an article authored or co-authored or contributed to by RY. is just another link to the Journal of Gerontology website where a search for Robert Young in the authors list shows his only contribution to this publication to be the co-author credit on the ""Survival of Parents and Siblings of Supercentenarians" article already given above.
    • The next two provide alternative links to "The Journal of the American Geriatrics Society" vol. 54 number 8 (August 2006). This lists RY as one of seven co-authors of an article titled "Characteristics of 32 Supercentenarians".
    • The link to the radio article (in which RY speaks for about a minute on how he tracks down the Supercentenarians and checks their ages) refers to him as the Senior Investigator for the GRG. The radio article is focused mainly on one of the Supercentenarians and a Dr Coles not RY.

    Co-authoring two articles, being a source for part of a list of data on supercentenarians, being interviewed briefly about his data acquisition techniques does not make RY notable. Nor does being cited as a source in newspapers and on the BBC website make him notable. --DavidCane 01:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • I note that RY is not the corresponding author on either of those papers, on one he's 6th of 8 authors (Thomas Perls is 1st and corresponding author), on the other, the authorship is attributed to "LOS ANGELES GERONTOLOGY RESEARCH GROUP (LA-GRG)" and L. Stephen Coles is corresponding author. These really fail to attribute any encylopedic notability to RY. Pete.Hurd 04:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Peteforsyth above. Non-notable and unencyclopaedic. Articles on individuals such as Mr Young is not what Wikipedia is about. A short bio on his user page will suffice. —Moondyne 01:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. But if he'll long enough he might become notable ;-]. --Brewcrewer 05:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per BHG's detailed rationale. Stu ’Bout ye! 16:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete failure to submit evidence of notability. Just a researcher. MLA 16:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP Is notable in an emerging field. Give it a chance. I am disappointed to see yet another gerontology and supercentenarian related article being attacked, and some of the "delete" comments on this page have the sour taste of personal grievance rather than a real interest in wikipedia. Cjeales 16:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjeales (talk • contribs) — Cjeales (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Keep I say go for it. Czolgolz 17:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It should be noted that Czolgolz is one of several people whose talk page Robert Young has just spent the last half an hour posting a rather biased and inaccurate summation of these proceedings on. - Galloglass 17:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and on some article talk pages as well - wrapped up in requests to respond to two other AFDs as well. While I wouldn't have much of a problem with Mr Young canvassing to save the other pages, to canvass to save a page saluting him strikes me of a gigantic conflict of interest, and a huge side-order of conceit and self-importance as well. - fchd 17:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete - Misrepresented notability, lack of Reliable sources. --Rocksanddirt 21:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless evidence of notability can be established via reliable independent sources. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per all of the above. This is the most weird debate I have seen here yet. Subject NN. As far as I am concerned, this is a snowball. --Crusio 22:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm not stupid. The Wiki-masses have spoken. Be it as it may, I disagree with the 'snowball' interpretation. First and foremost, it seems that comments made in my favor were removed or collapsed, evidence withheld, etc. Read WP:BIO again. It says:
    • Comment Hey pal, assume some good faith here! I read all that stuff before voting. I agree completely with the collapsing approach, I have never seen anybody giving such long, rambling, repetitive arguments in an AfD. Change your tactics, this is counterproductive, I assure you! --Crusio 12:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Ryoung: Robert, you have pointed many times to the guidance at WP:COI, which warns that editors "should take great care not to edit in a manner that may be perceived as controversial, promotional or agenda-driven" and to "avoid, or exercise great caution when ... participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors". I have just checked, and this discussion currently includes over 26KB of contributions by you, which renders as over 4,000 words. I have never seen such flagrant abuse of COI in an AfD debate, and you are lucky not have had admin action taken against you. But having been allowed to ride roughshod over the COI guidelines and in pursuit of your campaign of self-promotion, please spare us the claims that you have been denied an opportunity to make your case.
      Addituonally, it now turns out that you have been blatantly canvassing this AfD ([44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]), which I will take to WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I do note that some of those persons had already 'voted' for deletion. I don't see anything wrong with making a case. If someone decides against, well that's what happens. I note the extreme hypocrisy in that many 'good' editors are involved in 'canvassing'. If someone posts a message to you that the 'math vote' isn't going the way expected, well that's still canvassing.

    Further, 4,000+ words or not, consider:

    A. Wikipedia is NOT PAPER

    B. Since the arguments have been collapsed, it's almost as if they were not there.

    Further, I wouldn't be continuing to make responses if additional issues have not been raised, but since they have, continued responses are needed.72.158.38.41 19:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    True, Wikipedia is not paper. However, that's not really an excuse to break up others' comments and insert 4,000 word essays into an AfD. It's perfectly okay to make a case, but making it again and again and again is somewhat disruptive. Collapsing seems to be justified in this case. (After all, the closing admin can and should take all comments into consideration, collapsed or not). --Bfigura (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This is not a vote it says at the top, but it's still about a deletion nevertheless, is it not? Extremely sexy 13:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. It's a discussion about a potential deletion, yes. All the 'not a majority vote' means is that the opinion that gets the most votes doesn't necessarily take effect, it's the opinion that has the strongest arguments. --Maelwys 13:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Young frequently refers to his being used as an expert when the press needs a quote etc. As this doesn't appear to have been pointed out I thought I should. Journalists are human beings (though some may argue that point) and as such they have a propensity for taking the easy option whenever possible. So when an article comes up about an old person and an expert, but ultimately unimportant but space-filling, quote is required which do you think they are going to do? Spend time and money researching? Or do you think they'd just look in their rolodex for someone they (or one of their colleagues/competitors) have used before for the same thing? News media tend to be repeat clients of "sound-bite experts" because it's easy, not because they are necessary notable. ---- WebHamster 13:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - it's pretty cool to be a leader in an "emerging field." Once the field actually emerges, then perhaps we might reconsider this article. Rklawton 16:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep N-O-T-A-B-L-E ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 20:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question - B-Y W-H-A-T C-R-I-T-E-R-I-A ? (sorry, couldn't resist!) - fchd 20:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Non-notable outside of Wikipedia. Should get suitable recognition and treatment for disruptive self-promotion/Wikipedia editing. --JWSchmidt 03:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. A researcher in a pretty small area. Fails the "average professor" test (as in, NOT above average in scale, importance, etc) and little sign of actual real-world notice impact (in the world at large or in technical/professional circles, and no, being some journalists' Rolodexes doesn't count). The blatant conflict of interest ain't helping, as do some of the more bogus arguments (when counting Google hits, you gotta use quotation marks: using "Robert Young"+"Guinness Book" knocks down the inflated total to 227). --Calton | Talk 13:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Robert Young is the leader of an international network of volunteers called the World’s Oldest People (http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/ ). I have been impressed with the detective work that these individuals do in identifying and validating supercentenarians. They have to deal with typographical errors and misspelling of names in records to determine if an alleged supercentenarian is legitimate. The careful research of Robert Young and his World’s Oldest People network provides much of the data for the lists of supercentenarians on the Gerontology Research Group website (www.grg.org ). In order to be certain of the legitimacy of claims to extreme age they require at least three documents that support the claim. These documents may include a birth certificate, a baptismal certificate, census records, and a marriage certificate to show a woman’s name change. I am personally acquainted with Robert Young, and I can vouch for his dedication to present accurate data on supercentenarians. The demographic research that Robert and others do is essential for scientific investigation of aging as demonstrated by supercentenarians. His accomplishments in the demography of supercentenarians warrant retaining his brief biography on Wikipedia.

    StanPrimmer 01:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC) — StanPrimmer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    User:StanPrimmer has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Ryoung122. —Moondyne 02:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    According to en.wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRG (quote) "Stan Primmer (founder of the Supercentenarian Research Foundation)" Member list of Scientific Advisory Board is found here http://www.supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/SAB.htm Celvin11 03:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In reply to StanPrimmer's comment: Being a competent researcher is not a the basis on which wikipedia assesses notability (see [WP:BIO]]), because verifying the quality of his work would be original research. Wikipedia is a tertiary work, and as such it requires secondary sources.
      There is a further problem in that Young's habit here of exaggerating his own role and significnce undermines the credibility of his repeated claims about his work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:14, 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. W.marsh 13:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    All out productions[edit]

    All out productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non notable ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:18, 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. east.718 at 03:56, 11/13/2007

    John Swasey[edit]

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

    per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:COPY. Someone seems to be going around copying stuff out of English Voice Actor Database without due consideration as to whether a person fulfills WP:BIO. I've clicked through some of the roles listed here, and they appear to be minor ones. Stub since April 2006. Ohconfucius 04:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Keep: Why not group all of these? Needs some minor expansion (some BIO stuff) but notable enough. - Rjd0060 04:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 16:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Very extensive list of credits, multiple sources. Edward321 05:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep — Number of roles, some aren't so minor like FMP:TSR --ShakataGaNai 18:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep -- this result is, however, without prejudice to subsequent deletion if it is established that the article is indeed a copyright violation, as claimed by the nominator. However, deletion as a copyright violation would require that exact source of the article be identified, by a specific url (not to a Wikipedia mirror), a specific page number in a book or journal, or by some equivalently precise means. John254 01:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Luci Christian[edit]

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

    per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:COPY. Someone seems to be going around copying stuff out of English Voice Actor Database without due consideration as to whether a person fulfills WP:BIO. Stub since November 2005. Ohconfucius 04:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep: Same reason as all of the other ones. Seems notable. - Rjd0060 04:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep need more evidence of notability. JJL 16:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I'd call portraying a central character on Azumanga Daioh enough notability in itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep — while lacking on the Bio, person is notable due to number of roles. --ShakataGaNai 00:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Multiple souces, played large number of lead characters. Edward321 05:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. east.718 at 03:55, 11/13/2007

    Hilary Haag[edit]

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

    per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:COPY. Someone seems to be going around copying stuff out of English Voice Actor Database without due consideration as to whether a person fulfills WP:BIO. Stub since September 2005. Ohconfucius 04:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep: Same reason as all of the other ones. Seems notable. - Rjd0060 04:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 16:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep — while lacking on the Bio, person is notable due to number of roles. --ShakataGaNai 00:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Large number of roles. Edward321 —Preceding comment was added at 05:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. east.718 at 03:54, 11/13/2007

    Cynthia Martinez[edit]

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

    per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:COPY. Someone seems to be going around copying stuff out of English Voice Actor Database without due consideration as to whether a person fulfills WP:BIO. Stub since November 2005. Ohconfucius 04:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep: Same reason as all of the other ones. Seems notable. - Rjd0060 04:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 16:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Sourced, extensive number of roles, has portrayed lead character in multiple well known series. Edward321 05:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep — A large number of Lead character roles --ShakataGaNai 18:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Christine Auten[edit]

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

    per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:COPY. Someone seems to be going around copying stuff out of English Voice Actor Database without due consideration as to whether a person fulfills WP:BIO. Stub since September 2005. Ohconfucius 04:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Keep this one may be notable--many roles, incl. popular A.D. anime. JJL 16:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Sourced, large number of roles. Edward321 05:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep — as per Edward. --ShakataGaNai 18:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Monica Rial[edit]

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

    per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:COPY. Someone seems to be going around copying stuff out of English Voice Actor Database without due consideration as to whether a person fulfills WP:BIO. Stub since May 2005. Ohconfucius 04:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Delete this one may be notable--many roles--but WP:N not clear. JJL 16:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep — while lacking on the Bio, person is notable due to number of roles. --ShakataGaNai 00:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Large number of roles. Edward321 06:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Definitely notable. Lots of major anime dub roles. --kweee 03:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Cult following, roles, etc. The article needs work as I've seen more on lesser voice actors. --Wgfinley 15:24, 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. (Non admin closure). Qst (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Kira Vincent-Davis[edit]

    Kira Vincent-Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:COPY. Someone seems to be going around copying stuff out of English Voice Actor Database without due consideration as to whether a person fulfills WP:BIO. Stub since July 2005. Ohconfucius 04:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Keep this one may be notable--many roles, incl. popular A.D. anime. JJL 16:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep — while lacking on the Bio, person is notable due to number of roles. --ShakataGaNai 00:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per ShakataGaNai Edward321 06:06, 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. east.718 at 03:54, 11/13/2007

    Don Draper and Roger Sterling[edit]

    Don Draper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Roger Sterling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Fails WP:NOTE. Both contested ((prod))s. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Articles are under development. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The above user is the author of the page, and if the pages are under development, they have stayed the same since the 20th of October. And did you take anything I said into consideration at all? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment You say that as if two weeks is a really long time. Does everyone have to work equally fast? —Quasirandom 04:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a long time, but I just think the author might have added to them by now. Actually, he just did. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Regarding WP:NOTE, these two characters meet the same standards as Tony Soprano, Peter Griffin, B. A. Baracus, and Daisy Duke.

    — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment With less effort that you spent marking these articles for deletion, you could have improved Wikipedia and added the citations you say you want. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 04:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - No attempt to show notability in either case. --DAJF 04:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Non notable characters. Just because the show is notable doesn't mean the characters are. Notability isn't inherited. No sources showing notability, no assertion of real-world notability, nothing. Crazysuit 04:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment So by this standard all stubs should be deleted? We are only going to accept full "complete" articles now on Wikipedia? — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where did he say that? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't, he's just trying a straw man. All articles, however small, must demonstrate notability. If they don't demonstrate notability, as in this case, they will be deleted. Crazysuit 06:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and then consider a redirect to Mad Men, the show on which these characters appear. There's nothing in these articles that suggests to me that these characters are notable enough to warrant articles of their own, separate from the series, under WP:FICT. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with the main article. The two pages aren't notable enough on their own.Alberon 09:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect both - why is this even a question? The independent reliable sources to establish the independent notability of the two characters do not exist, the article Mad Men is not such that an encyclopedic treatment of the topic requires that the character information be split off. Otto4711 16:50, 7 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) 18:05, 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 no consensus. east.718 at 03:52, 11/13/2007

    Music and politics[edit]

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

    Article that started with good intentions but now is hopelessly lost as a totally original research essay. Ridernyc 03:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak delete: It starts off good, but the further I read, the more OR it got. Sad to lose all the content though. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Original Research. Bummer. - Rjd0060 04:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep I see the makings (or should I say potential) of a good article here. It probably needs a complete overhaul, but I don't think that's really a reason to delete it. If it's kept, I'd be willing to chip in to improve it, though I don't have the time to do the entire thing by myself, hence the "weak" part of my "keep." If three or four other guys (or gals) want to get together and try to save it, I think we can make something decent out of it. faithless (speak) 07:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    just a warning it's major work. It took me 2 months to clean up concept album and that was easy since I just removed 90% of the article. It will also be a constant job, checking the article at least weekly. Ridernyc 08:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Top-of-head musings with no citations. I should know, I created the article. Lancevortex (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep needs to be improved not deleted. A very important theme throughout music. Indeed
    There is no such thing as Art for Art's sake, art that stands above classes, art that is detached from or independent of politics. —Mao Tse-tung[55]
    with some work this article can be referenced. It certainly seems to be basically correct about the likes of Luigi Nono and Karlheinz Stockhausen. --Salix alba (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look closely the are 5 inline citations, to very good sources, just not picked out in a separate section. --Salix alba (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Original research, unreferenced, POV concerns. But I'm glad to learn of the existence of Stockhausen Serves Imperialism. Sounds hilarious. --Folantin 14:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, in such cases, one should improve the articles, not delete them. Undoubtly a notable subject. 96T 16:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and improve per 96T. Phil Bridger 16:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as having a good basic core of information, and improve the quality otherwise. DGG (talk) 17:54, 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 Merge into Hyrule. I'll do a rough attempt that interested editors are invited to refine.--Tikiwont 10:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Great Sea (The Legend of Zelda series)[edit]

    Great Sea (The Legend of Zelda series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Article is primarily in-universe, and the topic itself is non-notable outside the Zelda series. If there is information that should be kept, it should be moved to The Wind Waker article or more ideally to the Hyrule article. MASEM 02:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a sub-article, and so since it is important to the main article (The Legend of Zelda), it is acceptable. It would not work very well for the Hyrule page, as it is a different area - Hyrule is the submerged kingdom, the Great Sea is the sea above it (and in PH, to the west) - they're almost treated like different worlds. It would not fit on the Wind Waker article as that is not its only appearance. Also, being written primarily in-universe is NOT reason for deletion - it is reason for cleaning it up. I am trying to clean it up, as I have only recently come upon the page, but as a very important part of the mythos, it is reasonable to include it as a sub-article.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As a side-note, while not mentioned in the other games (possibly alluded to in FSA and OoA, but anyway...), its existence IS important to the overall series, as it is a major turning point in the mythos. Though this is a partially crufty example, it is one of the most basic parts for fans constructing timelines, and its existence was explained by Aonoma and Miyamoto as being one of the main points of the split timeline.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I think it's better to delete this and merge the content into Hyrule. That article, itself, has significant problems. There is an appropriate need for a Hyrule article since all the Zelda games take place there, and that would make sense to establish notability to explain how Aonoma and Miyamoto point to a key timeline element (the flooding of Hyrule to make the Great Sea). But even then, most of the content on this page is fancruft - an encyclopedia doesn't need to list major islands in a fictional game setting, only that some of the islands were actually the highest points of Hyrule that didn't get flooded. There's a major need to clean up these parts. --MASEM 05:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not merely that the country is a few feet underwater - it's supposed to be the difference between the Midwest and the Sundance Sea. Phantom Hourglass also seems to imply that the Great Sea is not "just sunken Hyrule", but the entire sea that was already near it and extended over it. And only a little more than half of the games appear in Hyrule.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sub-articles don't get a free pass. They need to prove notability the same as anything else. Miremare 01:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into Hyrule. For those unfamiliar with the subject, the Great Sea is a setting in The Legend of Zelda series later revealed to be a flooded Hyrule. Pagrashtak 15:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trim&Merge into Hyrule sounds very reasonable. If some independent non-trivial sources exist for this location (doubtful), they may help justify the Hyrule article first. (I am positive that Hyrule is wiki-notable, it just hasn't any sources added yet). – sgeureka t•c 16:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into Hyrule; the Hyrule article has few sources itself, and this location is essentially a modified iteration of that. Haipa Doragon (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Can someone please notify the Zelda Wikiproject of this AfD? It's in their scope and they should know about it, but as the primary defender I don't feel I could tell them without cries of "foul!" going up.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done you one better:
    • Merge- Fully deleting this is just a Rack of Rupoors. ViperSnake151 14:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Hyrule. Absolutely nothing to suggest this is worthy of its own article. Miremare 01:30, 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. --Tikiwont 10:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FASTCopy[edit]

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

    nn proprietary protocol, no real content, spam? Rpresser 02:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: Notability issues. Does seem like an advertisement. - Rjd0060 04:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Meets A7. Also, can't seem to find any sources proving any notability at all. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 08:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. An article about a proprietary file transfer protocol that expounds its advantages over publicly available technologies. Agreed: it reads like an ad. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:14, 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. --Tikiwont 10:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dealer's Kid[edit]

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

    This really isn't something that Wikipedia should have an article about. It also looks like a lot of original research to me. Captain panda 02:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: Probably Made up. - Rjd0060 04:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Something for urbandictionary.com - Not wikipedia. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 08:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as neologism. In all likelihood created by some kid to disparage or joke with some other kid. Reminds me of Muffy Crosswire a bit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom et al. --AliceJMarkham 12:17, 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. --Tikiwont 10:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pellmell[edit]

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

    WP:NOT#DICTIONARY Captain panda 02:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep, Wikipedia is a compendium. Bensaccount 02:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - it is a dictionary definition - WP:NOT#DICTIONARY indicates that an article should be more than this. Also, it's already in wiktionary [56], so not worthwhile transwiki'ing. Hal peridol 03:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Duh, per above. - Rjd0060 04:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, and this particular word is not encyclopedic per se. Antelan talk 06:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: per Antelan MatthewYeager 06:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. It's a great word that I like to use, but it's perfect for Wiktionary - not Wikipedia. --Gwern (contribs) 16:11 7 November 2007 (GMT)
    • Delete per nom. --AliceJMarkham 12:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete but in a straightforward fashion, not in a pellmell way. Bearian 23:00, 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 per CSD G7. I probably shouldn't have assumed good faith that the information I moved here from dab page Ngozi was accurate. Picaroon (t) 02:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ngozi, Zambia[edit]

    Ngozi, Zambia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable, town not found on maps, not on earthsearch.net, Google Earth hi-res photos show no town at the location or in the locality given by the FallingRain reference, nearest settlements are v. small villages with no roads, and there are no references to this 'town' on the web except for the Wikipedia article. Rexparry sydney 02:30, 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: Speedily deleted - empty, unsourced (private?) slang term/neologism. - Mike Rosoft 13:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Deard[edit]

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

    WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. I also think this may be a hoax. If not, it still qualifies under WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Captain panda 02:33, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Zones of EverQuest[edit]

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

    This article is loaded with unsourced, unnotable gamecruft.

    There are no sources whatsoever on this article, let alone one that would verify its real world acknowledgement.

    Readers who do not play the EverQuest games would very likely not be interested in this article, failing notability.

    Finally, the article appears to be highly dense in gamecruft, having only in-game content and mentioning nothing of its relevance to the real world. Its high file size furthers this issue.

    Such articles are a magnet for original research and would generally be irrelevant to anyone else. IAmSasori 02:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, unsourced and no real world context, but not a1. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 02:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, article seems to have been improved to address the issues since I last reviewed it. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 04:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No notability outside of fanbase. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 08:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as these virtual zones have no reliable sources to demonstrate real-world notability outside the EverQuest canon. --Gavin Collins 10:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Everquest 132.205.99.122 22:02, 7 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) 18:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Nominator appears to have a serious agenda since they talk of nominating over 100 articles for deletion, which will overwhelm the system. Reasons given by nominator unsourced, original research, and fancruft are grounds for improvement, not deletion, and by nominator's own admission may not be relevant to this article. Nominator claims unnotable and yet provides no indication of what notability criteria they think this article fails. Most importantly claim by nominator that topic is non-notable because non-fans would not read it shows a lack of understanding of notability. I am not a fan of hip-hop or opera - but the 'fact' that only fans would read those articles does not mean those articles are non-notable. Edward321 06:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    the Nominator's alleged 'agenda' has no impact on whether or not this particular article satisfied WP policies and guidelines for existance of notable, reliably sourced articles. this article does not appear to meet guidelines.207.69.137.26 08:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge to EverQuest. The list, while possibly only useful to the fanbase, is nonetheless useful. The EverQuest fanbase makes up a pretty large group of people. ~Floppie(talk • contribs) 02:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Somebody mentioned something about a table...I'd be more than happy to import the table found at Zone Names - EQ KnowledgePit once I get it finished. It's a sortable table with zone information. Someone would have to strip out all the internal links though, and fix the expansion links. ~Floppie(talk • contribs) 03:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep please keep this article This is an important merge/redirect target for the dozens of articles that spring up for EQ zones. This was, at one point, the world's most popular video game, so it's not totally off-base to keep an article for the geography of its fictional world (primary settings of notable fictional works are notable). -Harmil 14:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made some improvements in sourcing and the intro. The body of the article needs to be reduced to essential info, still and more sources need to be added. -Harmil 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And now I've pulled in the table that was suggested above (it was GFDL, and I've credited its source). -Harmil 21:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed up the EQKP-specific wiki markup that I use for item links on my site; also set the table to class="sortable" to make it a little easier for a user to work with. It should be noted that that table is only 100% complete up to (and including) Shadows of Luclin; it also has complete lists from Gates of Discord and the Lost Dungeons of Norrath. I'll notify you each time I get an expansion complete if you want, either that or I'll just wait until I get the whole thing done, since the bigger expansions are finally out of the way ;) ~Floppie(talk • contribs) 21:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as article has no primary sources, making it impossible to verify the content of this article. Nor are there any reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, as all the notes are basically off topic. This article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE and there is no sensible argument for keeping this article.--Gavin Collins 07:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In case anyone wants to merge some content.. W.marsh 13:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Efforts to Create A Glass Bead Game[edit]

    Efforts to Create A Glass Bead Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Unnecessary fork from The Glass Bead Game. Just an external link section with descriptions. No need to merge to The Glass Bead Game as the links are already there, and the edit history shows this is just based on that article anyway. Masaruemoto 02:28, 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. DS 15:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I Don't Know (Yadelyn album)[edit]

    WP:HOAX. There's no listing for this artist on AMG, no results at Billboard, nothing at EW. A google search is similarly unhelpful. Several other articles created by this same editor have been AfD'ed and deleted as hoaxes. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early Bird (Ashley Brodhead's album) Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete cute MS Paint-ed album cover. Hoaxalicious. JuJube 02:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom and JuJube. Hoax.   jj137 (Talk) 02:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete hoax and/or non-notable authors attempt for notoriety. --DP67 (talk/contribs) 03:34, 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. John254 00:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fairy-locks[edit]

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

    This article has been speedy deleted twice, but it appears the author is making an honest attempt to establish notability with references, so I would rather allow discussion via AfD than unilaterally deleting for a third time. With that said, I don't believe this is an article of encyclopedic importance - it really seems more like a dictionary definition if anything. Delete. Tijuana Brass 01:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep: Needs a lot of work, but with cleanup it looks like it'd make a decent folklore stub. A discussion of a folklore trope certainly is beyond a dictdef, and given the sources so far I see no reason it shouldn't be of encyclopedic value. The relevant WikiProject should probably be notified that it needs help. —Quasirandom 02:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ?????: I would have thought the first attempts after reading a new article would be to improve it, expand it, and make it better. It was deleted once because I included a reference and the reviewer felt I was promoting the book. (Would have been better, then, to put in no references as I see on more than a few articles.) Another time it was deleted because the reviewer did a quick Google search on "Fairy Locks" and it wound up being the name of a shampoo. Had he tried a bit farther with a +tangles or -shampoo, he might have started seeing more relevant search results. Now, I spend some time working it up and collecting a list of urls which mention or allude to fairy or elf-locks and it is still being reviewed for deletion instead of being added to. Rsweeney 02:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Seems a perfectly reasonable and sourced piece of folklore to me. It needs a rewrite, not deletion. Nick mallory 02:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Proposer seems to be unnecessarily disrupting a good faith attempt to create a valid new article. Tsk. Colonel Warden 03:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm... no. This is listed here in order to gain wider community input on whether the article is appropriate for the encyclopedia - it had previously been deleted twice within 24 hours, and as I explained above, I elected to move it to AfD rather than delete it a third time to see if the reasoning of past admins represented community consensus. That is good faith, friend. Tijuana Brass 04:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm was it deleted twice in twenty four hours by you by any chance? It seems those deletions were mistaken, given the clear majority to keep expressed on this AfD. Nick mallory 07:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    [57]. Tijuana Brass 17:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It perhaps should be renamed as Elf-lock since the OED does not contain fairy-lock but does contain a significant entry for Elf-lock. Besides Shakespeare, its other cites include:
    1596 LODGE Wits Miserie (Halliw.), Curl'd and full of elves-locks.
    1637 HEYWOOD Dialogues xvii. Wks. 1874 VI. 241 What though my thin and unkemb'd scattered haire Fell in long Elfe-locks from my scalpe, now bare?
    1810 Gentl. Mag. LXXXVI. I. 214 Their hair remains matted and wreathed in elves-locks.
    1848 KINGSLEY Saint's Trag. II. iv. 84 The listless craftsmen through their elf-locks scowled.
    1647 R. STAPYLTON Juvenal VII. 83 The elfe-lockt fury all her snakes had shed.
    1946 W. DE LA MARE Traveller 23 Plaiting cramped fingers in the elf-locked mane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs) 18:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - more than a dictionary definition, but it does need some secondary sources. Hal peridol 03:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, but it urgently needs rewriting. Mr_pand 14:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr pand (talk • contribs)
    • Comment - Elf-Locks already redirects to the Dreadlocks page. (I find the words here hard to express succinctly, forgive me if I'm being confusing.) It seems that the folklore that elves twist knots in a sleeper's hair, by proxy of the Lear character 'elfing up his hair' and other references can also be taken to mean locks of twisted hair created by the owner and blamed on elves (to feign insanity). I have also seen the term used to describe a hag's messy hair, which would be unlikely to have been expected to be a creation of elves, but merely descriptive of the type of tangling resulting from elves or fairies twisting up hair. Queen Mab's 'elf-locks' in horses' manes seems to have mud or mire twisted into it, which might make them appear more like traditional dreadlocks.
      Essentially, if you change the name to Elf-Lock, you'll have to find a clear way of disambiguating elf-locks as 'elf-mischief' (sleeping girls), elf locks as 'messy-hair' without elf mischief (the hag's messy hair), and elf-locks as the dreadlock hair of Celt warriors and Rastafarians (who twist their own hair up on purpose).
      One of the works sited, the children's book of fairies, calls the tangles "fairy-locks" which seems to clearly distinguish between these tangles and dreadlocks. Thus, the reason I used it originally as the title. Rsweeney 19:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Once this AfD passes, you may want to consider posting that up on the talk page for Dreadlocks. You make a good case for splitting off the material into a different article. Tijuana Brass 20:46, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    EverQuest timeline[edit]

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

    This article appears to be a list of plot summaries in various fictional time.

    Such lists are most likely to be gamecruft and are susceptible to original research.

    Along with that, the article is not notable due to lack of real world references. Only EverQuest players would have any interest in this article.

    Along with that, the sources seems inappropriately used and placed. Sources have to be cited within the article, which this one failed to do so with any of them. Also, there are no third-party references to establish notability. Finally, some of those sources do not even work, like the forum ones.

    Judging by the edit history, not much effort is placed to fixing these problems and it is unlikely it will start.

    It lacks real world acknowledgement outside of the EverQuest games and its players. IAmSasori 01:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. —IAmSasori 01:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete No notability outside of fanbase. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 08:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as this time line is writen from a heavy in universe perspective and there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the game. I don't understand why this article was not deleted after the first AfD; its clear this material is available on lots of other fansites, where it belongs. --Gavin Collins 11:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Precedent here shows that in-universe timelines sourced almost entirely from primary sources can be kept even (or especially) when there is disagreement about the notability. I realize the article has few listed sources now, but that can be rectified. Powers T 13:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Everquest 132.205.99.122 22:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The timeline applies to all of the games in the EverQuest series, not just EverQuest. Powers T 22:11, 7 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]
    • Keep Nominator appears to have a serious agenda since they talk of nominating over 100 articles for deletion, which will overwhelm the system. Reasons given by nominator unsourced, original research, and fancruft are grounds for improvement, not deletion, and by nominator's own admission may not be relevant to this article. Nominator claims unnotable and yet provides no indication of what notability criteria they think this article fails. Most importantly claim by nominator that topic is non-notable because non-fans would not read it shows a lack of understanding of notability. I am not a fan of hip-hop or opera - but the 'fact' that only fans would read those articles does not mean those articles are non-notable. Edward321 06:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    the fact that unsourced, original research, and fancruft have not been addressed at all since the last AfD suggests that either they wont be improved or they can't be improved207.69.137.26 08:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon me? The article is extensively sourced, albeit not in-line, and contains no original research. And "fancruft" is not usually considered a very good argument for deletion; unsupported by other arguments, it amounts to "I don't like it." If there is an argument to be made against this article, it's that it's lacking secondary sources to prove notability. Powers T 22:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete the entire article is 'in universe' and I can scarecely imagine any way to make this article reflect real world notability . TheRedPenOfDoom 20:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The timeline of the (previous to World of Warcraft) world's most popular video game is entirely reasonable, assuming that EverQuest is already quite large (which it is). -Harmil 14:42, 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 redirect. W.marsh 13:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Namek saga[edit]

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

    Poorly written and mispelled recreation of the redirect Namek Saga that is now merged with Freeza Saga. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Redirect to Freeza Saga and a lesson on using talk pages to reach consensus for all parties involved. Edit wars are not the way to go. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 01:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is the Namek saga merged with the Frieza Saga (the CORRECT English spelling of Frieza)? They are two different sagas. I say they should be split up. TJ Spyke 01:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It has already been discussed at wikiproject Dragon Ball. the sagas were merged into their original japanese names to make the articles less sparse and bloated. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So the project wasn't content with having character articles go against policies and guidelines (by being at their Japanese name rather than their English names), but also want sagas grouped that way? This is why I rarely even look at DBZ articles any more. There have been attempts to move them to the right names, but the DBZ Wikiproject always show up in numbers to stop that (it took a few tries, but they eventually got Hercule moved to Mr. Satan). TJ Spyke 03:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy redirect per jonny-mt. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:26, 7 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, DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:24, 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. No policy-based "keep" opinions. Sandstein 19:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jackie Meretsky[edit]

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

    Conflict of interest (subject edited article), no assertion of notability or verifiability Nobody of consequence 00:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: Non notable person. Although, COI is never a reason to delete an article. - Rjd0060 04:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No opinion on deletion, but I would like to point out that the COI edits to the article remained neutral and removed some speculative claims (although rather benign ones that she "likes fashion" and such). COI should not be a primary reason for deletion as in this rare case the article was actually helped by it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: If this article is deleted, so should all articles about MSNBC personnel, and for that matter, all television personalities. Jackie Meretsky is a "stub" article (which I have labeled as such), and should be allowed to remain for future edits. Nothing in the article is inapproriate. Candy62 22:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Articles must satisfy WP:N and WP:V and this one doesn't satisfy either currently. Although, adding citations from reliable sources would make me withdraw this nom very quickly. Nobody of consequence 05:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haunts13 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, but why? Nobody of consequence 03:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • this seems like an okay source... but mainstream news coverage is surprisingly thin for someone with her resume. There's nothing on the 2 extensive news archive searches I tried. --W.marsh 13:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was speedily deleted by Woohookitty. Non-admin closure. Deor 09:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Shonaleigh Cumbers[edit]

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

    Prod removed from page before I brought this here. Non-notable, G-hits = 98, no substantial reliable sources I could find. There were a few mentions as part of news articles but not central to the article. I think she fails WP:BIO. Pigmanwhat?/trail 00:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete G11/spam, although it could also pass for a copyvio (part of it is a direct cut/paste from her site) and/or A7/nn-bio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete per nom and Starblind. Prod removal looks suspiciously like creator logged out and removed it as IP. --AliceJMarkham 01:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete (tagged under A7). --jonny-mt(t)(c) 01:44, 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. --Tikiwont 10:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of archaeological world treasures (major and minor)[edit]

    List of archaeological world treasures (major and minor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This list has no objective inclusion criteria. Who determines what are world treasures? Who determines which are major and which are minor? We do have lists of these treasures and sites such as List of World Heritage Sites in Europe and List of World Heritage Sites in the Americas which do have objective inclusion criteria (namely that they are chosen by UNESCO) and lists of national treasures such as National Treasures of Japan and National Treasures of South Korea (which are officially determined by the governments of those countries). We also have List of archaeological sites sorted by country. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete simply too broad; indiscriminate. JJL 00:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as redundant and too broad (and who gets to determine what's "minor" anyway?). I'm kinda surprised we don't have one big category for artifacts & arch. sites though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. As long as all sites/objects are listed in the relevant country lists, this serves no purpose. --AliceJMarkham 01:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Simply too broad to be useful --jonny-mt(t)(c) 01:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 03:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:14, 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 --JForget 03:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Flesh Eating Foundation[edit]

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

    I don't want to put up a CSD, for the ammount of effort put into the article, however, I see no signs of notability per WP:BAND. It looks like a lot of work went into the article, so I hope someone puts me right. Martijn Hoekstra 00:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete nn. JJL 00:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:MUSIC: handful of self-released EPs and an album on a label so micro-indie it might as well be self-released too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete so not notable. ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C 00:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable unless notability can be established using reliable source(s) before close of AfD. --AliceJMarkham 01:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. I'm tempted to tag it for CSD based on the current incarnation, but I have a feeling we might be heading for WP:SNOW anyway. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 01:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, fails WP:BAND. Doctorfluffy 03:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per AliceJMarkham. no sourcing. tomasz. 14:18, 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 keep. John254 00:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniela Gioseffi[edit]

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

    This article appears to be in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy: "Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted." Article is started by user Dorathea, whose entire contributions to Wikipedia appear to be limited to this particular entry and to her own profile; a "Dorathea" is, I think not coincidentally, also named as a friend of the living person who is the subject of the article. (This is inferred from notation by user Dannie66 - likely the same individual who is the subject of the article, as shall be explained momentarily - at one of her edits, stating: "Added a free license public domain, fair use image, a photo of the biographical subject that is in public domain, created by a friend of the author named Dorathea.")

    Most additional edits performed by a "Dannie66," whose contributions are also almost entirely limited to this entry. Given the notation that appears under the image file contributed by this user - "Daniela Gioseffi, 2006 at age 66" - and the username - "Dannie66," and the lack of this user's contributions to almost any Wikipedia entry save for this "biography of a living person" page, it seems reasonable to infer that A) the user and the subject of the page are one and the same, and B) this is a vanity page created by a friend of the author and then edited primarily by the author herself.

    While, as a Wikipedia reader who has no relationship whatsoever, either personally or professionally, with the author who is the subject of the article (whom I had never heard of until today), I have no grudge against any of the parties concerned. However, it is abundantly clear to me that this qualifies as a vanity page. Even if the author's accomplishments are many (and, in all fairness, they appear to be so), it is not appropriate for she and her friend to be almost entirely responsible for the article's content; this is the definition of self-promotion (particularly given the tone of article, which hardly qualifies as neutral; it reads like a literary agent's advertising copy!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antivandal2007 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 November 2007

    • keep this article might have some significant problems, and should probably have a cleanup tag on it, however I don't think it qualifies to be deleted. The author seems to be at least somewhat notable. Someone should just take the time to make sure it's NPOV and cited well. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) —Preceding comment was added at 04:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The nominator is mistaken in his reasoning. The subject of the article is either notable or not, it doesn't matter who writes or edits the page. This article does need severe trimming but the subject of it has been published and there are some external sources. If the nominator thinks the article should be edited, why not edit it yourself? Nick mallory 07:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - it does read somewhat like a vanity page, but the subject appears notable. It's more a cleanup issue than a reason to delete. Mark Grant 19:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep ==the main reason to keep the article is that all the references and links are valid scholarship and this biographee really has done these things and authored all of the works cited. it's factual and no more an advertisement than any other biographical entry that I've read on Wikipedia. Note how the defenders are brief and objective and are Wiki users of the Wiki community, with pages and identities and other work on Wikipedia, but the attacker is ANONYMOUS and has no other work under her or his false name. I note that this biographee comes up with 78 books which she authored or appears within, at Amazon.com, and is on hundreds of sites if you Google "Daniela Gioseffi." This is an accomplished, widely published, biographee according to Wikipedia standards, it seems. The anonymous person calling for deletion sounds emotional and vindictive and protests too much that he or she does not know the biographee, a strange reason to give for deletion. I'm sure there are many biographees on Wikipedia that not everyone who reads it heard of before, but the accomplishments seem to speak for themselves as do all the objective links. 70.107.4.206 20:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Sophia Josephs, Professor of WOMEN'S STUDIES and WORLD LITERATURE, (alerted to this opinion by others who are not Wiki writers. This was put up for me by a Wiki user who has worked on other articles. I read Wikipedia often, but have not put up comments before. I felt compelled to defend this article with its Women Studiees resonance. )[reply]
    • Keep This article should absolutely be kept. Daniela Gioseffi fits the Wikipedia criteria for being notable as she is listed on hundreds of third party web sites and has contributed significantly to the publishing and writing fields for decades. The numerous books, honors and awards mentioned in the article are factual and can be cited by external sources, as mentioned above (Google, Amazon.com, BBC, NYTimes etc. etc.). To say that this article is simply a "vanity page" for promotional purposes is preposterous, as it isn't selling a product or marketing campaign, but listing an accomplished authors' numerous contributions to the fields of publishing and writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmead (talk • contribs) 04:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The comments put forward by the person demanding deletion of this article appear personal rather that professional. While the article in question could use editing, the substance is notable and meets the criteria for inclusion. Daniela Gioseffi has been a valuable contributor to the world of literature and social justice for decades. Richard Kearney, Assoc. Prof. of Theatre. Nov. 8, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.230.2 (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as the subject of the article, I've added viaferable sources, upon request of the author, a professor of Womens Studies in New Jersey, user: "Dorothea." Also, I have given better source for the photo, taken by Pwu Jean Lee, at Dorothea's professional request. Dorothea is not a close friend, but a professional and distant colleague of in New Jersey. I have added links, but I DID NOT COMPOSE THIS ARTICLE, and all publications, facts, and references, as well as links, are correct and verifiable. Also, I have subtracted any subjective adjectives--at Dorothea's, the author of the entry who requested I do so. This is NOT an advertisement, as all poceeds for my books are from not-for profit presses of social conscience, and have now been donated back to those presses. It follows other Wiki profiles, as all seem to agree. I am 66 with a weak heart and my former student, a professor of Women's Studies in NJ, Dorothea, put up this article to preserve my work in writing of peace and social justice issues for over 40 years. She is not a close friend, but a scholar of women's studies. I doubt I will be around much longer, and so students and other professors contributed to the article as they wanted to preserve what they feel is my important work, and to have a reference to it. I have worked on other articles on Wikipedia, i.e. Italian Americans, etc., as I value the efforts of a communal encyclopedia, and have urged fellow professionals to offer financial support and editing, for the sake of avoiding what feminists and ethnic groups call "revisitionist history," that can occur in written and book published encyclopedias, due to editorial bias. I respect the objectivity of Wikipedia, as a communal effort, and usually log in when editing--but have been having difficulty with my log in and attempting to use my old password. The person who marked this for deletion is wrong about "Dannie66" who has contributed OTHER small editings for accuracy to OTHER Wikipedia articles, ie. The Mario Puzo piece, Italian Americans, etc. Would the person calling for deletion mind if a Nobel Laureate were to correct errors in his or her bio or add links for accuracy and scholarship--upon request of the author? Or, is that person just not aware of Women's Studies scholarship and its importance to human endeavors? Does that perosn just simply judge on the basis of his or her own knowledge of what's important? Does that person who called for deletion seem to ignore all the accomplishments and links and references that are accurate and available in the article? Does one have to wait to be dead to receive recognition from fellow scholars and writers? There are many living person's biographies at Wikipedia, as one can readily discover whose entries are put up by colleagues in their given field who respect their work. It is common and usual for colleagues in given field to write of other colleagues. Dorothea is not a friend of Dannie66, but a distant professional colleague. 70.107.4.206 19:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the main reason why people are discouraged from editing articles about themselves is to ensure that the articles are verifiable; all details should come from a verifiable third party source that others can refer to, and not direct from the person in question. See WP:AUTO for more details. Mark Grant 02:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC):[reply]
    • Comment what difference does it make if the subject of the article adds links and references and small corrections if these are valid scholarly references and links, small correction of facts and added ethos. Who is a better source than the subject of the article. Would you mind if Einstein or Maria Curie added a few links to their bios and references, IF they were accurate links and references that are verifiable offerings? Most biographical details of a notible life are achieved by direct interview with the subject throughout the history of biographical writing. Yes? Keep.
    • Comment - again, read the WP:AUTO page that I mentioned above; it's difficult for anyone to edit an article about themselves without adding PoV and unverifiable statements, which is why the practice is discouraged. People who don't know the subject and are working from third-party sources can much more easily ensure the article meets NPOV and verifiability requirements. The editing of this article by the subject and their friends appears to be the only real issue here, I don't think there's any doubt that the subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. Mark Grant 20:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This article is about a well-known, widely-published author. To consider deleting it makes no sense. I don't consider it promotional. If it sounds so, it's just because this person has, in fact, an enormous number of accomplishments. If, however, someone thinks something about it is promotional, they should specify exactly which parts these are and there should be a consensus of whether these instances are or aren't "promotional" rather than factual. If they are found "promotional," then rewrite them in a factual manner--but to delete the whole thing is a ridiculous proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.224.2 (talk) 04:22, 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. — Scientizzle 02:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Brad Abrell[edit]

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

    does not appear to be at all notable. Has had only minr roles. 300Ghits, amongst which quite a few directory. Ohconfucius 04:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: For now. Once (assuming) more notability is established I will be fine with it staying. - Rjd0060 04:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete nn. JJL 15:17, 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 Delete. --Tikiwont 10:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cloud View Road[edit]

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

    per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. This is just a road, no assertion of notability made. The article is basically one sentence and a bunch of directory type lists. Ohconfucius 04:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, no assertion of notability. Appears just to be a random street, no higher credentials like being part of a numbered route or anything. —Scott5114↗ 14:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This does not appear to be a main road from looking at a street atlas. --Polaron | Talk 21:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Certainly doesn't seem to meet WP:50k. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 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 (CSD:G12 copyright violation). henrik•talk 06:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Making of Pi[edit]

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

    No sources, written like an essay, Original research VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 06:20, 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. east.718 at 03:50, 11/13/2007

    M. A. Benjaminson[edit]

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

    nn bio Hyeee3 08:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Insufficient nomination; he looks plenty notable to me even by the old WP:ACADEMIC standards. What d'you want, a Fields Medal or Nobel Prize? --Gwern (contribs) 16:25 7 November 2007 (GMT)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 17:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete. It's not a great nomination, but where's the notability? He's a professor, chairman, and minor jobs that professors get pulled into, at a relatively minor university. He's wrote 45 papers in as many years, but are any of them really important? He's a director of a division of a company that's so small the only page that references it in Wikipedia is his (unless Zymotech is misspelled.) He's got NASA grants, as have a huge number of other scientists. He's at or just above the average professor level, IMO, which doesn't pass WP:PROF. I can see places where if the article was expanded; in particular, I read his "in vitro edible muscle protein production system" as just run of the mill research, but if other researchers were building off of it or NASA was actually going to put it into use, then that would be different.--Prosfilaes 22:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: After a quick googling, he's the president of Zymotech, which does business as North Star Research, a division of Zymotech. It looks like Zymotech is basically one-man show; Benjaminson is the contact address, there's no webpage, but there's a history of grants from NASA. center.spoke.com gives Newell Whitcomb the job of president of NSR. In any case, I don't think it changes his notability.--Prosfilaes 05:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete After removing the MS and PhD thesis, the grant applications & reports disguised as papers, the ones where he was listed only as "technical assistance", and so on, there are 18 papers, almost none of which are in significant journals and none of which seem substantial--almost all are methods papers, which is biology are not usually very creative. Touro, as Prosfilaes says, is not a major university. Unless very high citations can be demonstrated--and I would really doubt it -- he is not notable. DGG (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I have to disagree on the methods comment. We shouldn't be disfavoring methods papers, per se. Some biologists are simply very well known for developing technologies -- and have even gotten the Nobel for it. --lquilter 15:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Influential methods papers get cited, lots, Benjaminson's on the other hand... Pete.Hurd 17:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per DGG. FWIW, ISI WOS lists 28 cited publications, citation counts: 1(15 pubs), 2(7 pubs), and 1 each cited 3, 4, 7, 10, 14 & 15 times. <std disclaimer>h-index==4</std disclaimer>. Pete.Hurd 04:34, 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. east.718 at 03:49, 11/13/2007

    Boubaker polynomials[edit]

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

    Apparentlty, autopromotion from the creator. Only a subject in one thesis, not notable. Barraki 18:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • How did you conclude that the creator is Boubaker? The main problem with the article seems to be that it doesn't say what Boubaker polynomials are. (It also doesn't explain what "registered" means.) Michael Hardy 19:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • [58] (Mmbmmmbm is the creator of the article) Barraki 19:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Not enough data to judge notability. The article doesn't actually explain what the subject is, but merely notes from where the subject was derived. The WP:COI concerns, noted by the nom, are problematic as well, and hint at a possible violation of WP:ADVERT as self-promotion. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No mathematical notability. MathSciNet has 29 hits to "boubaker", but they're all papers by other people with similar names (primarily Boubaker-Khaled Sadallah); none are by K. Boubaker nor about anything named after him. Google scholar had too many Boubakers to look at all of them, but doesn't find anything about the polynomials. —David Eppstein 02:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to Delete. ; the references are true 02:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.203.50.144 (talk)
      • Rem: this IP added a picture which is a sceenshot from Word uploaded by Mmbmmmbm. I assume the IP is Mmbmmmbm. Anyway, neither of them has other contributions than these. Anyway, he could at least use text and TeX instead of pictures. Barraki 17:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nicholas Nuttall[edit]

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

    A non notable British peer with no claim to an encyclopedia article. unsourced and unfounded Princess Pea Face 23:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Far from being unsourced the article contains three decent sources. --John 00:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, John is correct, it does contain sources, however, what in thoses sources of information make him notable?--Vintagekits 11:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Well sourced and as a UK Peer I'd have thought he was automatically notable. Ben W Bell talk 03:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, actually I dont think that is correct and he is not a member of the peerage and never sat in the House of Lords which is the reason that makes members of the peerage notable. Can someone provide a source that he was a peer, if not he is looking shakey.--Vintagekits 11:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Whether you agree with system or not, peerage is part of the national leadership, and that makes him automatically notable. I'm wondering about this nom, though...there were four sources clearly listed at the time Princess nominated it with the comment "unsourced". Either Princess just overlooked things, in which case she needs to be more careful when doing AfDs, or she's not being completely honest. I'll assume good faith, and assume it was for the former...hopefully her future AfDs won't be so problematic. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, again your "keep" !vote rationale is flawed for the same reason that Ben's is - this individual was never a peer. Unlike the AfD on the Baron which Princess also nominated, where I voted to "keep" because there is a much higher chance he was a peer I am leaning towards delete at the moment because he is not a 1st Baronet and there is no asertion to notability, however, I will wait a few days first to see if anything more is added that may change that.--Vintagekits 11:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Baronets are not inherently notable, and a few obituaries and a directory listing in a peerage book do not satisfy WP:N. Edison 04:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Nuttall Baronets. The Baronetcy is the notable thing. I'd suggest some content from the NN article could be placed in the NB article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    God, you could at least notify the person who wrote the bloody article - I don't watchlist, and it is only by chance that I noticed this.

    No, he was not a peer, just a baronet. But so what? There are reams of notable elements to his life.

    • He was a baronet. Not notable, of itself, perhaps; but there are not that many baronets.
    • The article used to mention the history of his family's civil engineering business, which he ran for many years, but someone thought it was duplicative. Shrug. He owned Edmund Nuttall from the age of 8, and later ran it when it was involved in building the Dartford Tunnel and the Tyne Tunnel.
    • Comprehensive obituaries were published in two British broadsheet newspapers - a distinction accorded to few. The details of his romantic entanglements in the Telegraph obit are quite entertaining, but not, I admit, that notable or encyclopedic.
    • He was involved in marine conservation in the Bahamas. The Times obituary says that he "set up the Bahamas Reef Environment Educational Foundation (Breef). During the next 25 years he transformed almost single-handedly local attitudes to maritime conservation... Few others have contributed as much to the islands’ future wellbeing." The Nassau Guardian called him a "prominent local environmentalist ... at the forefront of a number of important marine conservation initiatives and environmental causes". But that was in the Bahamas, so clearly of no interest to our readers in Northern Ireland and the US. No doubt it would be much more notable if he had counted butterflies in County Antrim.
    • It has in-links from Miranda Macmillan, Countess of Stockton, Edmund Nuttall and Nuttall Baronets.

    I don't see how this can be merged into Nuttall Baronets without throwing most of it away.

    If this is deleted, I invite you to review the 40 odd other articles I have written, mostly from scratch, for WP:DYK and tell me which of them you want to delete too. Perhaps Leonard Miall, "just" a BBC executive? Ian Anstruther, another baronet (and so inherently non-notable, it seems). Ion Calvocoressi, "just" an Army officer and stockbroker? The list goes on.

    Incidentally, User:Vintagekits recently moved it from Sir Nicholas Nuttall, 3rd Baronet to Nicholas Nuttall, creating a double redirect that he has not bothered to correct. -- !! ?? 15:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment, actually I think if you look at my edit history that you will see I didnt move some of the redirects. I would be interested to hear why you change the name of the article without necessity - anyway that is a side point.
    "No, he was not a peer, just a baronet. But so what?" - the so what is that members of the Peerage usually get to sit in the House of Lords - its is for this reason and no other reason that they are given automatic notability - Baronets do not get a seat in the HoL, therefore do not gain automatic notability.
    All the rest of the items outlined are laudable and grand indeed - but from my perspective not notable and in many cases purely honourary.
    I actually think that Tagishsimon's suggestion that it is redirected to Nuttall Baronets is a good idea and wold work along similar lines that the Stronge Baronets article works.--Vintagekits 16:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You said: "I didnt move some of the redirects"? I'm sorry; I don't follow.
    (Incidentally, you said, on 12 August, "I am moving this page" but it took you a while to get around to it.)
    You seem to be quite keen on moving pages - probably for very good reasons; with these baronet articles, there are often good reasons to preemptively disambiguate - but not so keen on fixing the mess of redirects left behind. The same thing happened when you moved Ian Anstruther some time ago, as I commented on the talk page at the time.
    Anyway, back to this article: those quotations from his obituaries make him sound rather notable in Barbados to me. How many "laudable and grand" activities must a person undertake before they are notable?
    If you were to merge this into Nuttall Baronets, how much would you keep in the bullet point allocated to this person? -- !! ?? 17:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, I took my time over moving it because I wanted to hear if there was a decent argument against it - I thought that that was fair enough - dont you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs) 17:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Far better than the phonebook entries we have on some baronets, multiple non-trivial sources. Plus his son is a a very interesting character, so I hope he's going to be notable enough for an article at some point ;) One Night In Hackney303 17:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I wouldnt disagree that it is a lot better than some of tha fare dished up in the guise of Baronet telephone entry articles but I doubt it pushes it over the line. --Vintagekits 18:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Multiple, independent, reliable sources attest that he owned an important company and was a significant conservationist in the Bahamas. Clearly passes WP:N which doesn't have any sort of "delete baronets" criteria. Since when are obits in national newspapers disqualified from being reliable sources as Edison seems to be arguing above? --JayHenry 20:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep A well-researched article which clearly demonstrates the subject's notability. Jack1956 21:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Three substantial obituaries in major newspapers clearly establish notability. This is a well-researched and well-written article, and I'm surprised to see it nominated for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're surprised to see in nom'ed, consider that on the nominator's user page she says "I support a free and socialist republic in Ireland and Britain". This nom sounds like an anti-establishment political statment more than anything. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:38, 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 keep. John254 00:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Borwick, 1st Baron Borwick[edit]

    Robert Borwick, 1st Baron Borwick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non notable peer. Not an encyclopedic article Princess Pea Face 23:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep, assuming he had seat in the House of Lords - may reconsider if not.--Vintagekits 00:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - A peer of the United Kingdom, that alone makes him notable. Ben W Bell talk 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I think this nominator needs to review our notability guidelines before any more AfDs are attempted. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. It's a rather weak article, in need of expansion, but clearly has presumed notability per WP:BIO through membership of the House of Lords. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per WP:BIO - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per all above. Johnbod 12:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per all above. In addition I would say that the nominator of this AfD, who declares herself to want a socialist republic, has acted in bad faith and there is WP:COI. David Lauder 12:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Nobody is knighted that is not notable- this is a clear-cut case of more research required, and not a case of a lack of notability. Monsieurdl 17:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (speedy!) Keep the sheer absurdity of this nomination is extraordinary. Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's snowing in here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 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.
    More