< September 30	October 2 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Haemo 01:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Arora[edit]

This is self-promotion. It's cleverly done, and it cites some impressive sources, but it remains self-promotion. This article abuses its sources, of which many do not mention this person by name, to make him appear notable. This article does not report on what third party sources have said about him. It uses those sources to in such a way to make Arora appear impressive. Rather than talk about what VH1 said about him, it says, essentially, "he's so important that he has been covered in VH1." It has so many problems, and my suspicion is that once those problems are worked through, we will be left with a person who has not yet done anything of such significance that he should have a WP article. Also, I think something like one or no mainspace articles link to this one, and the article has basically no editing activity. Whoever was interested in making this page wanted to write up something that made him look like a million bucks, but in the years since, nobody else has seemed to care. One would think that some other articles would link to this person if he was notable, or that other editors would have changes to make if they did. Croctotheface 22:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Noticed you added a prod template. I've changed it to ((subst:AfDM)) NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I added a prod template, someone removed it, I then added the afd template, and that person who removed hte template reverted his changes back to my version. Croctotheface 23:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is correct. I conceded my request to have the page not deleted, thus the AfD is not needed and I reverted the page back to the original deletion notice so it can be deleted. I figured this made more sense so I reverted it back again, let me know/change if you disagree.

Normally a request by the author is enough for a page to be deleted. However, several other editors have been editing the article, and the Prod has been contested so it must now run the course of this AfD. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~, hasn't done much except be 18 when he did stuff instead of 25. But he meets the letter of WP:BIO with this and this and shows up in a few other articles (more as passing mentions). The article is horrendously overwritten PR and needs to have a snappy ((tone)) cleanup. (Resumes can say "so and so was written up in Kiplinger's", but encyclopedia articles should not.) --Dhartung | Talk 01:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not impressed with those sources. My suspicion, as I said, is that once the article is cleaned up, it will have nothing to say. In my mind, being the subject of a couple of fluff pieces does not notability make. I think a good analogy would be an article on a high school athlete. Lots of local papers, which would universally be considered reliable sources, do profiles on high school athletes. I don't think that a couple of those articles would establish notability if the person's actual accomplishments are not in themselves notable. Croctotheface 03:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to weak delete, as I realized that since he has worked for a side project of Entrepreneur.com, the article on him there is not an independent source. Notability will arrive in due time. --Dhartung | Talk 08:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 11:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - All the sources listed are not sources for this person. This seems like it was, as noted by the original nominator, specifically done like this to fool use into letting the article stay, further reinforcing my delete decision. Iamchrisryan 14:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find this article pretty confusing, but maybe I'm missing something. I can't find any mention of him in the first three refs, and I'm at a loss to see the relevance of the Journal of Orthopaedic Science ref. I agree this person probably just passes WP:BIO, but I don't really understand what claims are being made here for an encyclopaedic article. I'm not voting, as I don't really get it. TreeKittens 23:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough. IP198 20:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIo, per nom, and per Iamchrisryan. Shameful and ultimately rather pathetic self-promotion attempt which tries to look legitimate by including sources which don't even mention the subject. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's excellent explanation. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Baka man 23:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Excellent article, but regretfully fails notability.--Bedivere 19:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. --Sc straker 17:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filligar[edit]

A not-notable band. Only claim of notability is the venues they've played, which is not sufficient for WP:BAND. Only indicated media coverage is one article in the student newspaper The Dartmouth.

As a side note, most of this article is original research/unverifiable/self-published due to the dearth of citations. Dylan 00:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND and WP:OR. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete They're availabe on iTunes (whatever that means) and I found [1], [2]. They apparently got a (brief) mention on WGN Youtube, played the Taste of Chicago. They get 5,000+ Google hits. Seem to be "up and coming". Into The Fray ^T/C 00:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom; fails WP:BAND. Precious Roy 16:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but without prejudice for recreation if they meet WP:MUSIC at some point in the future, but they don't meet that criteria yet and having them here on the basis of what they might achieve in the future is in violation of WP:Crystal. A1octopus 11:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis 23:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just released 6th album in 6 years; also received flattering press from [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].

Also selected as the 2007 Madison, WI Youth Ensemble of the Year. The band is "up and coming," expected to do reasonably well on college radio in 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.209.129.174 (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe they'll be notable one day, but they've been going for years so it's unlikely.--Bedivere 19:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as basically a dicdef-only article--JForget 22:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Techno-philanthropy[edit]

Neologism. Does not appear to be a well used term or to cover concepts not already easily covered using conventional language. SiobhanHansa 22:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.Kww 23:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of neologisms. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 23:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and as a coatrack for a foundation. Bearian 19:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently not widely used.--Bedivere 19:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A demonstrated source trumps a claim of unverifiability. Notability has not been discussed. GRBerry 15:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Court[edit]

Sources show existence of members, but not of "The Royal Court". Grouping of these people together is unverifiable.Kww 23:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I also noticed that most of the "sources" are music videos. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 23:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's a perfectly good link: [8]--Bedivere 19:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AVA Solar[edit]

Not quite spam, but certainly is using a crystal ball Kww 22:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Burn — definitely spam. --Ag ü eybaná 00:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I added a category before I logged out last night but delete ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 11:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It shouldn't even be nominated. A speedy dletion would be ok. -- Magioladitis 23:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The ones who wanted the article kept provided sources, and winning the Murrow award could be sufficient for WP:N Wizardman 03:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Alhart[edit]

Contested prod, about a minor market (Rochester) news anchor with no claim or assertion to notability. Rackabello 22:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:INHERITED; being a news anchor for a TV station doesn't automatically make them notable. There are many major market (i.e. NYC, LA, Philly, DC) anchors who don't have articles. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WHAM-TV since there is much that assert its notability. Here in Ottawa, he used to have the Rochester channels before both Rogers and Videotron had switched to the Detroit market and I believe he was not the evening news anchor before the change although it seem to have changed since then, but still not notable enough.--JForget 23:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Article You say: "There are many major market (i.e. NYC, LA, Philly, DC) anchors who don't have articles." But your argument is flawed. Perhaps the others did at one point, but they got deleted. Because it is not likely that all news anchor pages won't be added at once, following your logic one can assume there will never be a page for ANY anchor.

I was looking for information on Don Alhart and when I found that his page was blank, I thought I would create it and others would add more information later on. Also, doesn't the fact that the 200,000 people of Rochester could easily recognize him on the street cause him to be noteworthy? --Corgana 01:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has been with the same network for over 40 years now [9] [10]. People seeing your face every night for that long is pretty notable. A^RendedWinter 07:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's plenty of news coverage of the guy in google news archives. [11] [12] [13] Of course, it's all local coverage.--chaser - t 04:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, sourceable. Wikidemo
Delete. Local small-market news anchor. Fails WP:BIO Cap'n Walker 18:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2007 Michigan budget crisis. Fram 13:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Michigan State Government Shutdown[edit]

Article was created before the true effect of shutdown could be known, only 16 minutes after it technically began. Wikipedia does not report the news. Since the whole event lasted only 4 hours and does not appear as if it will have much long term impact (besides higher income tax and an expansion of the sales tax, which may only be tempoary), the paragraph (which is more detailed and referenced) in Michigan#1900s to the present should be adequate as this is not likely to become more than a stub. Mr.Z-man 22:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A1 (no context). Just not much to write about. If the article was expanded to a reasonable size, then it could be merged with Michigan. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With 50 US states this happens somewhere almost every year. It doesn't affect a whole lot and is usually pretty short-lived. A federal shutdown is another matter. Basically news, appropriate at Wikinews (but we can't transwiki there due to license incompatibility). Alas, only a very expansive reading of CSD#A1 would label this as having "no context". Not speedy eligible. --Dhartung | Talk 01:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was over before everyone woke up, so beyond the future tax impact, only campers, stranded motorists, and anyone with an urge to buy a lottery ticket at 2am was affected. If it had been longer it would've been a keep, but this was just a close call that was dealt with. Nate 06:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. News story without any evidence of lasting impact considering that everything is back up four hours later. About as significant as a traffic jam. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: - I'd like to point out this article, which has a bit more info on it. --UsaSatsui 14:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of context and WP:NOTNEWS, it is not notable enough for an individual article - better to be sent to Wikinews if there are more details though.--JForget 00:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect: To 2007 Michigan budget crisis. - Rjd0060 23:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2007 Michigan budget crisis -- Magioladitis 23:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can it be moved (transwikied?) to Wikinews?--Bedivere 19:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikinews uses a CC-BY license which I don't believe is compatible with GFDL licensed text. Mr.Z-man 20:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2007 Michigan budget crisis. It is important that this issue be recorded because the tax increases are likely to have a lasting effect on Michigan. However, considering the shutdown lasted about 4 hours, the aftereffects themselves are what made the huge impact.Bradkoch2007 22:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The subsequent expansion of the article was unsourced, thus doesn't affect the debate. GRBerry 15:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thein Onn Ming[edit]

Autobiographical article that isn't suitable for WP:CSD because it asserts notability. I'm not a photographer and I don't live in the UK, so I don't know if he's well known there or not. The three 'features' cited in the 'awards and honors' section are blogs and the NikonCafe link is a forum, but completing degrees at age 16 is an accomplishment. Is he notable or not? I say no, and it should be deleted. KrakatoaKatie 22:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable vanity bio. On a different note, his name makes me want some onion rings. Useight 00:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 04:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NikonCafe is a serious award but insufficient to establish notability. I'd like a little more evidence of his Oxford University career.--Bedivere 19:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Cryptic 04:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Das Weiße Band[edit]

Fails future film notability guidelines, external link is broken (and thus can't be verified), and consists mainly of speculation - including news that the intended lead has died, which increases the odds of a stalled production. But to be brief, the notability guidelines are clear that articles shouldn't be created without production confirmed to have started. Any useful and verifiable info can be merged into the Michael Haneke article. Girolamo Savonarola 22:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The external link had a typo, fixed now. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as the source does not confirm production, so it's speculation. Bearian 19:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The source indicates he's beginning production next year. We can restore this article when production starts.--chaser - t 04:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahter Sönmez[edit]

This is, to a very high degree of probability, an autobiography. The creator is a user called Uplifting, and the subject is stated to be a "significant pioneer" of uplifting trance - to which article, of course, the user added a link to his own article. It has had no significant edits from anyone other than this single purpose account. The tone of the article is poor, several sentences are almost worthy of Private Eye's Pseuds Corner. The sources are: the subject, the subject's agent, and the subject's workshops. Cruftbane 22:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTOBIO and WP:MUSIC. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Autobiography or not, nothing has been presented in the article (and I cannot find anything on the internet either) that suggests this personage is notable under WP:Music. A1octopus 16:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This edit convinces me that User:Uplifting is trying to game wikipedia. NN, advert. --Tagishsimon (talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Per CSD request. Tawker 22:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald A. Carson[edit]

Tagged for speedy by another user, but that was denied. From what I gather from the article, the author seems to think that working on a couple presidential campaigns is notable enough. I don't think it is. I do not believe this page meets WP:N. Rjd0060 22:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Police Camera Action! 2007 series criticisms[edit]

Contested prod, so here we go... I can't imagine a purer piece of original research than this, and I can see no possible way a neutral version of this article could be created — even in the unlikely event sources could be found, it would simply change it from a piece of original research to an indiscriminate collection of reviews. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:NPOV; if there's no sources it is likely one's own opinion, so it counts for both. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete About as unencyclopedic as it gets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redfiona99 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't like the ITV News at Ten Thirty. Should I through together an article about that? Regan123 17:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete textbook example of WP:OR Will ^(talk) 23:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the epitome of WP:OR. Who is making these criticisms other than the author? TreeKittens 00:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SOAP, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:MADEUP, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N... whew. How many policies can you cite?--WaltCip 18:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dashup[edit]

Non-notable neologism for a software API. The few external refs I could find are straight back to the product. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of slang or neologisms. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per neologism. -- Magioladitis 23:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable word.--Bedivere 19:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker 22:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NeedThese[edit]

I'm not sure whether this is in violation of WP:CORP. May well be worthy of a speedy. RyanLupin (^talk/_contribs) 21:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. I've added the template now. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (nomination withdrawn) (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wake no Kiyomaro[edit]

~~Doesn't provide context. Looks like the subject is also non-notable Phoenix 15 21:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

It looks like an AFD nom can vastly improve an article. The article now says exactly who Wake no Kiyomaro was and why he was notable, unlike before, where there were no references and no context was established--Phoenix 15 19:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, that means Keep--Phoenix 15 19:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, definitely NN. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more than likely non-notable, and there is barely any context whatsoever. Also, there are no sources in the article. *Cremepuff 222* 22:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as it stands but entirely without prejudice; it's certainly possible a Japanese speaker could expand this substantially. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have sourced and expanded the article based on three out of the hundreds of English GBooks hits this man's name gets. He also appears on old 10-yen notes, making him a rather likely candidate for encyclopedia searches. cab 00:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. cab 00:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable. Article has been improved, too. Fg2 01:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wonder if having a statue of you makes you notable automatically. -- Taku 01:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Having your likeness on a nation's bank notes certainly does! Fg2 01:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can think of examples where that's probably not the case, e.g. the lower-denomination renminbi notes ... cab 02:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request The article currently says "Wake no Kiyomaro was a Japanese high-ranked official". If "high-ranked official" was adequetly explained (What exactly does it mean?) then I would be willing to withdraw the nomination--Phoenix 15 17:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I found another source which sheds a bit more light on this and added it to the article. I'm still not sure about before his exile, but after he came back (in 770), he was appointed kami (official) of Bizen Province (vaguely analogous to a state governor, for example). Cheers, cab 02:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep following expansion. For someone who lived 1200 years ago the sources aren't going to be perfect & we just need to accept that. — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 05:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squared Designs[edit]

Non-notable company, reads like an advert. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Does assert some notability, but without specific cites for those NYT/etc articles, no way to verify that they actually support the claims of notability. DMacks 21:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying it myself, I get zero hits at NYT's archive search or at Newsweek's archive search. DMacks 21:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~It probably would have been best to contact the editors who edit this article for some sources. The article wasn't even tagged with a needs more sources template before this Afd. Surely it can't be that hard to find sources of the NYT etc articles. I'll try to find some sources and if I can't find them then I will change my vote to delete. AngelOfSadness talk 21:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay. I'll try to remember next time I AFD an article as I'm new to this. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I slightly new to this aswell but the deletion policy says to consider other alternatives to deleting before marking the article for CSD, PROD or Afd. One of them is the cleanup tags like the "needs more sources" one I mentioned earlier. AngelOfSadness talk 21:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Added ((refimprove)). Looks like I jumped the gun. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Delete per AngelOfSadness, below. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too late I think…already several comments support deletion, so at best you could (as you seem to have already done?) change your mind and add a comment about why you now support keeping. DMacks 22:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Delete - I can't find the NYT reference or any of the indications that it's been the subject of multiple, non-trivial reliable sources. The article reads like marketing copy, as well - it's a bullet-point list of achievements and new product releases, with no indication of why it's important. I don't see it meeting WP:CORP. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any sources that back up the claims in the article. AngelOfSadness talk 22:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to strike your above "weak keep". Tony Fox (arf!) 22:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I forgot about that when writing my delete comment AngelOfSadness talk 22:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding a bit of notability for Kamarin Lee (won several awards for entrepreneurship ([14] in addition to the Ernst & Young local competition already cited in the article), even if this particular venture isn't notable on its own merits). Maybe could rewrite as Kamarin Lee, and have a paragraph about Squared Designes (one of the ventures noted in the award PR pieces). DMacks 02:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even editing this article for wikistyle doesn't help...there is nothing notable about this company at all. Flowanda | Talk 08:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 11:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal at work[edit]

generic-sounding expression, self-declaredly somewhat amorphic meaning. Only cited source for its use doesn't use it as article defines the term. Doesn't really fit any speedy catagory well, so here we are. DMacks 21:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of slang or neologisms. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't transwiki - Wiktionary would turn their noses up and send it back. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, somehow I doubt people really say this. --Dhartung | Talk 01:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX and/or WP:SYNTH. The only source refers to identity theft, which is not even mentioned in the text. Violates WP:V, WP:OR, and common sense. Possibly made up one day per WP:NFT, or from an urban legend email or chain letter. Bearian 19:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at Wikipedia. Burntsauce 18:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It's a kind of humor I think. -- Magioladitis 23:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowrun timeline[edit]

This history of the future is litterally unfinished, but also non-notable and just too in universe to be classed as anything other than original research based on original research.--Gavin Collins 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction deletions.--Gavin Collins 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Speedy keep per below. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 23:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep It's not original research as there have been several time lines produced by Shadowrun's various publishers, from which the data on that page is culled. I'll add references to the page. EvilCouch 23:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not a history of the future, it's not fiction, and it's not original research. --UsaSatsui 23:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Not fiction"? I'd better re-write my history essay. :-) Axl 11:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The legitimate problem is that the article is written in too much of an in-universe style. (I'm surprised that it didn't get tagged as such when Gavin started adding templates to it.) At any rate, we should err on the side of keeping stuff if it's "borderline" rather than erring on the side of deleting it. Rray 00:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not original research (something that has been a point of contention with Gavin). This page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Fleet Universe timeline) gives a long debate on fictional world timeline articles.--Donovan Ravenhull 01:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an interesting question. Take for instance The Shape of Things to Come, which is a work of fiction which contains a fictional time line. If I were to create an article entitled "Timeline of The Shape of Things to Come", and then to list all the dates and events in my own words, that would effectively be original research, a type usually refered to as a content fork. For without secondary sources, it cannot be proven timelines of fictional events are not original research. --Gavin Collins 11:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, you misunderstand me. When I said that the information in the article was culled from the official timeline, I meant it literally. FASA produced and published actual timelines of key events in the Shadowrun canon. In fact, until I found and started editing the page, it was a verbatium copy of one of them. I could understand criticising the article for WP:COPYVIO, but OR isn't even on the map here. It cannot possibly be OR, because until about a year ago, it was a word for word copy of the primary source. EvilCouch 12:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So you are saying the article has been plagiarised? If so then is that not an admission that the article content is a type of original research refered to as synthesis? --Gavin Collins 07:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You're still misunderstanding WP:OR, and I think you're confusing the text in the example in WP:SYN with the actual policy. Synthesis is taking sources and making a conclusion from them that is not made by any of the sources, while plagiarism is using material without crediting its source. Pinball22 12:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Plagiarism is the exact opposite of original research. You need to come to a complete halt with AFDs until you actually understand the policies. At any rate, as I already stated, there has been about a year's worth of work done on the article since it was a plagiarised copy of official material. EvilCouch 10:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's probably overly detailed, and could use more sourcing and a less in-universe style. But it's not original research. Your example shows that you don't understand what WP:OR says, since that would be a perfectly good use of primary sources according to the policy. It's not original research to state things that can be verified by anyone reading a primary source. It also has nothing to do with WP:POVFORK -- if you do just what you said, you haven't "forked" anything, just summarized an aspect of a work, and you haven't introduced a point of view anywhere. Pinball22 14:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abandon this AFD and get someone else to relist it properly "Original research based on original research" wouldn't be original, now, would it? I don't think this article does meet WP's notability criteria, but I can't vote for the nomination. Percy Snoodle 14:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per many above and timelines are encyclopedic and useful tools. Web Warlock 15:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is notable background to the game. Axl 11:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above. --Raistlin 13:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JoshuaZ 15:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy in science fiction[edit]

Many problems. For an article that was created in 2003 (spinoff from Pregnancy), it is in a really poor shape. It's basically an unsourced list that is close to failing WP:NOT#IINFO. The inclusion criterion isn't really outlined, and quite a few entries in the list don't even deal with pregnancy but infertility. With 1000 google book hits, I guess a real article about this topic could be written, like Sex in science fiction (pretty good for all its failings), Nudity in science fiction and Gender in science fiction (both acceptable for a start). Maybe this AfD will create some substance for the article that it failed to include in the past four years. Because without it, deletion can't be much worse. (To clarify: I am not attempting to misuse AfD for cleanup work, but I ask whether there should really be an article when no-one cares to write about it - Dogs in science fiction, Food in science fiction, Music in science fiction,...) – sgeureka ^t•c 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction deletions.--Gavin Collins 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless secondary sources are found which discuss the subject (as opposed to discussing specific instances of pregnancy in works which are categorised as SF) and establish its notability. This article is, if not indiscriminate, an arbitrary collection of information. ~~It's one step up from [[Green spaceships in science fiction]]~~(e/c: original poster beat me to it). Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - not exactly an encyclopedic subject addressed in a scientific manner, more mutterings and rattles of a collection of notes. Rgds, - Trident13 21:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic list. How many people will come to Wikipedia looking for a list of sci-fi books with pregnancy in them? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NascarFan. Jonathan ^{t - c} 22:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sex in science fiction. Artw 22:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' yep again another trivia dump.--JForget 23:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Horrible, horrible, horrible. As it stands this is entirely listcruft and OR - virtually none of the stories listed are about pregnancy or deal with the subject as a main theme (there are very few sf stories that do, and the ones I can think of - such as "Randy's syndrome", by Brian Aldiss - aren't even mentioned). A real article on this topic should be possible, though I can't for the life of me think of any published articles on the subject - for now the best thing would be to redirect this to Sex in science fiction. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but massively clean up as I think a topic could be there (maybe sexual experimentation in science fiction or something?). I'll see if references do exist in any case. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't understand the argument that this is any more or less OR than Sex in science fiction - If anything, the OR arguments make a great deal more sense in the latter. This article makes no pretense to being anything but a Wikipedia:List. Also don't understand the comment that infertility and pregnancy are somehow separate topics. Prose could use a bit of cleanup for tone and style, but there's nothing more offensive here than at any other list. Could obviously use some coverage of Wikipedia:Reliable sources discussing the topic, as can Sex in science fiction, but deletion's no more warranted here than it is in half of Category:Lists. Personally, I'd say keep it. MrZaius^talk 09:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC) PS to NascarFan: This reader has, in the past, coming from Children of Men.[reply]
Keep I agree with the above comment; there is precious little comment and analysis of pregnancy or infertility in fiction and if we aim to be encyclopaedic there should be. Pregnancy and infertility are obviously related items. Furthermore, this may be a subtopic of 'sex in science fiction' but the motivation for search may well be entirely distinct. - PS to NascarFan I came here from The Handmaid's Tale and Children of Men —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisonjenenr (talk • contribs) 19:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Honest reply (1) Sex in science fiction at least attempts to write about its subject. (2) If you're infertile, you are not pregnant. So what are those infertiliy entries doing in the pregnancy article then? However, renaming the article into Reproduction in science fiction could solve this. (3) Many lists on WP are deleted each week (think ... in popular culture lists), mainly for failing WP:OR and WP:NOT#IINFO. Is the article in its current state any better? It didn't change in the past 4 years, so why should it be expected to become a somewhat fleshed-out article in the next few years? – sgeureka ^t•c 22:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Sex in science fiction does attempt it, but it is one of the best examples I've ever seen of OR. Seems like it would be considerably less so if it were formatted like this article. There are essentially no unsourced assertions of controversial statements in this article, just one-line summaries of the relevant aspects of their plot. (2) The purview of a list is defined by its lead, and its lead currently refers to both of the very much interrelated topics. That said, the name you suggest would be more apt. (3) Might be - I generally just monitor the Actors, Education, and Sci Fi sorting lists, so I'm a little out of date on the topic as relatively few lists come up for discussion there. In terms of it becoming a fully fleshed out article, the very fact that it begins with "this list" should make it clear enough that its staying a list is not a particularly negative thing. Might warrant a move to a List-type name. MrZaius^talk 06:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the compilation of this list is original research. Percy Snoodle 11:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this compilation of pathetic original research. These are exactly the type of articles that make Wikipedia to be the laughing stock of the internet. Burntsauce 22:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Sex in science fiction (which should then be moved to Sex and reproduction in science fiction). Much of the material here is verifiable in principle even though it it currently unreferenced like many otherwise good articles. This is an editing concern in my opinion. TreeKittens 00:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. There is potential here. If the article were Pregnancy used as a plot device in science fiction or otherwise qualified it could easily be a good read and actually have something to say as well. What I don't know but I'm not into Sci-Fi yet have seen plenty of pregnancies used to launch storylines. Benjiboi 12:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. There is certainly a valid topic here, and several of the items which mention infertility do actually focus on pregnancy. A merge with sex in science fiction followed by a rename also seems a possible option. Espresso Addict 06:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one could synthesize any XYZ topic in ABC genre and populate a list - but it is essentially OR - has there been significant coverage in 3rd party WP:RSes that discuss this topic to give it notability, and more so that The definite article in science fiction, which could list nearly every sci/fi that uses a definite article and cite to the source to show that indeed it's verifiable that the definite article was used. Carlossuarez46 17:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, It doesn't seem to meet the notability requrements (No books or articles). 68.163.65.114 19:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an uninformative list on a non-notable topic. Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/proposal Again, these lists are not devoid of value because this is currently the only way to find these like-themed works, and the content of this one is no more OR than any categorization or plot summary. Also helps keep the linked article's see also sections to a reasonable size. When an article is split from those or used as to prevent those from growing overmuch while not restricting the flow of that information, I see no problem with it and still do not favor deletion. - That said, how about blowing it away and replacing it with a cat? No reason to have a static page that has to be maintained this way when it could just as easily be replaced with a category of like name or Category:Fertility in science fiction, per the quite common Category:Science fiction themes - here's a good example of a subcat, with subcats for novels, short stories, et al Category:Post-apocalyptic fiction. There's plenty of precedent for it. MrZaius^talk 16:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support suggestion as nom. Anyone else? – sgeureka ^t•c 19:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds like a fair compromise to me, at least until such time as someone actually writes a proper encyclopedic article on the subject. Grutness...wha? 22:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Redirect the article to Sex in science fiction to preserve page history and, thus, valuable data for someone trying to write a better article. --Kizor 23:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That works - As long as the history's accessible, I'd be happy to help with the conversion, if the closing admin doesn't have a way to automate things. MrZaius^talk 02:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections? --Kizor 01:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do. categories simply provide a list of articles with no other useful information as to why they are related and thus will make wikipedia worse, not better. This is a list that needs editing to become a real article. Just because many folks here don't envision that doesn't mean there is no hope. Article should be improved with regular editing.Benjiboi 02:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe it can be a fully fleshed out article, provide sources - We wouldn't want it to become another OR-laden, crufty article like Sex in science fiction. Again, there are at least a dozen examples of similar categories, so that really does seem like the most appropriate action to take in the meantime. There's almost no data that would be lost by the switch. MrZaius^talk 12:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not my job to provide sources or even prove they exist and I'm no expert on the subject so i wouldn't even know where to find them or who writes on the subjects. I stated I object to this article being eliminated in favor of adding layers of categories to clump articles that have something to do with the subject together. I believe the article should be improved through regular editing. There is interest and material on the subject - now we need someone who has some knowledge in the area to start the process of turning the current article into a decent one that makes sense and, of course, it should adhere to wp standards. Benjiboi 16:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we're judging this article as an article, rather than a list, then we plainly require sources to demonstrate the notability of the topic and prevent it from turning into something like Sex in science fiction, which seems to be wholly and entirely original research. MrZaius^talk 20:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually we're not judging the article as it is, we're rendering judgment on what it can become. Can the article become a good article or is it beyond all hope? Of course it shouldn't be wholly and entirely original research but we can look at those less reliable sources to see if they, in fact, reference sources we can use.Benjiboi 00:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it though - noone's brought any references to bear, and I wasn't able to find any when I blew a couple minutes looking before. The proposed redirect would leave the list intact, and the category will probably be populated either way. There really isn't any content in the article as it stands that wouldn't be covered, other than the redundant summaries of the plot summaries. MrZaius^talk 13:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really object to this as a category; it will certainly get deleted. Very few works have pregnancy as a defining element (Naomi Mitchison's Memoirs of a Spacewoman, maybe a few others), and it's just not suitable for a category. It is, in fact, suitable for an article, with appropriate examples. Although it's not there yet, it doesn't seem really helpful to delete it in the hopes that someone, someday, will start from scratch to achieve the perfect article. Better to have someone go in and do major clean-up after this AFD closes, and write an assessment in the Talk page leaving guidance for more development. --lquilter 21:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list cruft. Alternatively merge with Sex in science fiction. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A list article, like this, is of much less value than an article which enumerated the major variations on pregnancy (or more properly, reproduction) that have been explored in science fiction -- parthenogenesis, artificial wombs, cloning, eugenics, dystopian controls on reproduction, etc. I'm not going to comment on the value of the article as it is now, but an article which surveyed what science fiction has explored on the subject of reproduction would in my opinion be worth keeping. -- 192.250.34.161 15:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that it's not very good right now, but the topic (whether limited to "pregnancy" or expanded to "reproduction and fertility") is actually of significant interest. Science fiction is one of the only literary genres that actually considers pregnancy -- various types, social implications, metaphoric. Yes, it's not a good article right now; but deleting it so that someone else will start it from scratch and do it better isn't really that useful. Far better to include this discussion on the Talk page, let someone synthesize the useful points, and give editors something to start with. --lquilter 20:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I like the idea of this list, as it shows the development of this theme in SF writing. However, without secondary sources, it perhaps qualifies as OR, as it is essentially an essay based on a thematic list. "It is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources[15]." --Gavin Collins 08:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is notable. Wow, is this badly sourced. :-( I would clsoe and keep but for a my potential COI. No time to fix it, monkey on my back. Bearian 19:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 05:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Asian Man[edit]

Non-notable topic; no legitimate sources support the article, sources are made up by personal websites and blogs, violating WP:OR and WP:NOT#BLOG. Chris! _{my talk} 21:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate this redirect for deletion.Chris! _{my talk} 06:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory of slang or neologisms. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It appears to be quite a well known sterotype, including a article about the blog at the Washington Post, see the links. It turned up over two million ghits, I know I know, WP:GHITS, however I say it should be kept, but sourced more so. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You know, blogs are not reliable sources according to WP:RS. And if you know about WP:GHITS, why would you support it? I don't understand. Chris! _{my talk} 23:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:OR. Possibly WP:NOT#BLOG. The article simply violates too many policies. Chris! _{my talk} 23:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = WP:NEO says it all. --Markdsgraham 00:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't about a stereotype of angry Asian men -- it's about one Asian man, angry about stereotypes, and attempts to WP:COATRACK, or something, their self-chosen labels into a stereotype of its own. None of the sources really supports this. --Dhartung | Talk 01:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete this is also in violation of the no advertising category, it does not meet notability standards, NPOV and violates pretty much everyother basic principles of WP, i agree with every other delete comment and why, grossly violates the no OR rule.Cholga^talK! 02:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' I think this should be kept. Angry Asian Man is pretty well known webpage and specially asian people know about it. This article is well developed though. Keep it or otherwise someone is going to create it again, so this point is moot. 75.166.55.118 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment well known to whom? it doubt it has significant enough traffic to merritt an article. It has to be proven its well known, have any sources? I could write a well developed article on my blog too, it would also and should also be deleted, because its not notable enough. Articles which are deleted are always easily and quickly redleted again and again, so that is not a problem. This has happened before and theres ways of dealing with it. In fact if it is recreated too often, it can be disabled from recreation entirely. I think its a subltle threat from you over recreation of the article. The burden of proof lies with anyone which wants to save this article. I suggest the creator of that blog try to attract more readers if he wants an article on wikipedia or that he begin a wikia project or find some other encyclopedia to become a part of.Cholga^talK! 05:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cholga is right. Also we can prevent an article from recreation by banning the article name in case you didn't know. So try recreate it after it is deleted, and see what happen. Chris! _{my talk} 06:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, borders on WP:ATTACK. --Evb-wiki 13:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a serious article.--Bedivere 19:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone wants to close this. I think we have a consensus. Chris! _ct 01:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, G11. Sandstein 21:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dj raff[edit]

Claims of notability, but no reliable sources can be found. I assume "has appeared with" means "played music by". Lots of MySpace hits, but I went through several Google pages without finding anything that could classify as a reliable source. Corvus cornix 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete per WP:CSD#A7, no sources, no links, no nothing. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The House Of Prayer[edit]

Prodded as WP:CRYSTAL, prod was removed, so I'm bringing it here. In addition to the prodder's concern, this is so hoax-y it's almost funny (Michael Jackson as a guest star? Riiiiiiiiight). UsaSatsui 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete <sarcasm>Did you hear? I'm in it too!</sarcasm> No references, definitely in violation of WP:CBALL. Also, the supposed "actors" are all redlinks, except for John Johnson, and there's no actors on the disambig page. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:HOAX. SkerHawx 21:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per others and per failure to turn up anything in google. --Markdsgraham 21:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While this is an elaborate hoax (as opposed to a 1 line stub) it does appear to be a hoax. Deathawk 21:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per everyone. Also, if you look at the episodes it says "List of The Hose of Payne Episodes". Hmmmm???? Jonathan ^{t - c} 22:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete although I am the prodder. I just hadn't thought of the hoax and thought it seemed credible, but in clear violation of WP:CBALL and also seemingly WP:NOTE. However, it's clear now that it's a hoax. Michael Jackson, though? Hmm. That guy right now would probably accept any job going, so it was less obvious than it would have been had 50 Cent or Dave Grohl or Bono been mentioned.--Vox Humana 8' 13:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Kiu[edit]

one of thousands, who learned under Yip Man. Not important

Should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.230.86 (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs many things to be a notable article. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. One of many students. There doesn't seem to be anything to distinguish this one.--Sethacus 16:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sethacus. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 20:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 20:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No important informations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.231.50 (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 05:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathon Ware[edit]

Yet again another non-notable Youtube "celebrity". Yes, he's been interviewed on television. Yes, the Washington Post has talked about him. But even the post called his interview his "17 seconds of fame". Everybody who gets interviewed on TV does not a Wikipedia article make. Find something else that he's noted for, find reliable sources that you can write a biography on, or else he's not notable. Corvus cornix 20:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Non-notable meme. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. --Dhartung | Talk 20:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It satisfies all the notability guidelines. If it was just that he was popular on youtube, that'd be one thing, but he's gained national coverage. Notability is not temporary. Also, the "17 seconds of fame" is a reference to his initial video being 17 seconds long.--CyberGhostface 20:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And to the Post's columnist's reference to "the golden age of inanity", which this "article" would cause to be applied to Wikipedia if kept. Corvus cornix 20:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean it wasn't already when we got an article on Chris Crocker?--CyberGhostface 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed. Corvus cornix 21:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ware had an article devoted to him in The Post, which is a major newspaper in D.C., and a large portion of Virginia and Maryland. The Post is a very notable newspaper. Also appeared on Jimmy Kimmel Live. Though I know that notability is not inherited, I think that's enough to satisfy WP:N. I mean, it's not like someone went and created an article about an obscure wannabe "celebrity". NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Delete per nom. Corvus has a point. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Being the subject of one article is hardly the sole basis for it. Its that, along with numerous other media coverage as well as the merchandising with his likeness, tv appearences and general fandom surrounding him.--CyberGhostface 01:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we have articles on Sylvia Blackwood? Joshua Calloway? Peter Mullenhard, Steven McCormick, Gregory Toms and Ronald S. Sheinson? Why not? There are Post columns about them. Corvus cornix 21:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Washington Post is hardly the only published source Ware has been found on.--CyberGhostface 21:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. 17 seconds of fame is not enough, guidelines clearly state notability is based upon a full 15 minutes. Okay, seriously, I don't think a single article is quite enough. If it were, I could get my brother an article, he's been in paper a few times. If this is still getting buzz in 3 months (or at least in 14 minutes and 43 seconds), then we can re-create.--UsaSatsui 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per UsaSats. NN. I too like turtles Tiptopper 10:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - not notable. Notability is not established by a cute, we have no news tonight, so we will tell you about this youtube kid... Iamchrisryan 14:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without more WP:RS, this is subject does not meet WP:BIO. Add a few more (maybe The Oregonian) that are not trivial coverage, and then it would meet the guidelines. Aboutmovies 22:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You mean like this? Obviously he's not going to be the subject of a major news story.--CyberGhostface 22:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually that wouldn't work, as that would qualify as trival coverage since the kid's name is never mentioned, as it is about the incident, and not about him. Aboutmovies 23:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Doesn't coverage in the Washington Post carry some weight?--Bedivere 19:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Ong[edit]

Non-notable. No references in article. This person is only notable for his death; nothing else. Davnel03 20:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. DrWarpMind 00:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Delete He's only a trainee wrestler, notable only for his death. The info isn't important enough to stand on its own. Merge any info to Great Khali or APW. DrWarpMind 20:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it can be covered in The Great Khali's article. Nikki311 20:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly even WP:CSD#A7. Not a memorial. --UsaSatsui 21:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a pointless article. Gavyn Sykes 21:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of the worst failures of the notability policy I've ever seen short of newpage patrolling. The Hyb rid 22:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Also fails WP:N. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Khali's or APW's article *only* if a reliable valid source can be found for the info. If not, delete it as libel. --Naha|^(talk) 00:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything important from here is already in The Great Khali's article (with a source). GaryColemanFan 03:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge as per above. MITB LS 04:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Iamchrisryan 14:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is only good for a trivia answer User:SpeedyC1 SpeedyC1 19:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, we're not a memorial site, etc. Burntsauce 22:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should be speedy deleted as libel unless reliable sources are provided immediately. Even if the sources are found, at best this should be a footnote in All Pro Wrestling and/or Dalip Singh. Corvus cornix 20:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Limited coverage found, primarily Bay Area, though there were a few wire stories. If sourced merge to All Pro Wrestling, but a separate article probably isn't supportable. --Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Cryptic 04:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parted Magic[edit]

Non notable software. Prod was removed by an anonymous editor without explanation. J Milburn 20:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. Wikipedia does not have to have an article about every single software program in existence. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete no sources to establish notability. --Hdt83 ^Chat 02:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article isn't perfect, but I came here looking for a concise description of Parted Magic and this page gave me that. Counsell 10:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an informative article, linked from comprehensive comparison of Linux LiveDistros and as an entry in the useful list of partition utilities. haz (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems NN -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable independent sources to establish notability. Cap'n Walker 18:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G11, blatant advertising. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brand Aid Design[edit]

Clear & Blatant Advertising for a company and non-enyclopedic / Author removed speedy delete and PROD tags SkerHawx 20:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was just about to delete the large amount of copyright-violation material that was in the article which would have left a minimal amount of content, but the user has blanked the page, and it has now been marked for speedy deletion as such. If it comes back and we have to go through the whole process, speedy delete G11 - it's spammy and the company doesn't appear to be notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's back ... SkerHawx 20:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay. *gets out the copyvio axe* Tony Fox (arf!) 20:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work Tony Fox in removing the copyvio content from the article. :D AngelOfSadness talk 20:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's like a hydra, though -- you chop it off and it magically reappears moments later. :-) SkerHawx 20:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here, is a failure to communicate... Tony Fox (arf!) 20:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be very true with this user. I've had to place a hidden message in the article requesting to not place the hang on tag(Hang-ons are only for CSD articles) on a Afd marked article. And so far it has worked. Let's hope for the best I guess AngelOfSadness talk 20:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(After EC)The info has been restored by the user who created the article after they blanked the page three times. It appears that the user wants to discuss the articles deletion on the on the article's talk page. The article itself looks like advertising by a company which hasn't asserted it's significance in the article. Therefore should be deleted unless it can be greatly improved. It also appears we might have a clear COI debate on our hands see article talk page again for details AngelOfSadness talk 20:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam, spam, wonderful spam. The creator seems to be trying to exploit loopholes on the talkpage to keep this alive (I'll post [unsourced material] to [website affiliated with company] then cite it as a source...etc). Also appears to be a conflict of interest and the creator is hinting at the fact that PR made him create this. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (probably even speediable several ways) as non-notable (marginal assertion, no cites) spam by a spammer trying to game the system. Concur with strong COI problem, but this thing seems deletable on so many levels I'm not sure we need to worry about COI in particular. DMacks 21:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's too many things wrong with this article that it might be beyond help. The spam, advertising, veribility, COI and non-notable problems make it seem like a pretty good candidate for a few CSD's. Take your pick I guess AngelOfSadness talk 22:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement for non-notable company (no sources proving notability provided). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current version of the page (now that the copyright violations have been removed) would qualify for G11 if the AfD process had not already begun. Existence of a COI is a reason for extra scrutiny though not a reason for deletion by itself. User:Brandaid's frivolous and POINTy nominations of other articles for deletion, like Matrox, Radar Networks and Squared Designs invite a block for disruptive editing. EdJohnston 01:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not withdrawing my previous concern about inappropriate nominations, but Squared Designs is now undergoing a genuine good-faith AfD, nominated by a different editor. I left Brandaid's AfD tag on Matrox since I don't feel bold enough to remove it. EdJohnston 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious, non-notable spam. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 05:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Tierney[edit]

Radio personality fails WP:BIO. Endless Dan 19:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:INHERITED. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attribution of notability to independent sources; fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 20:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO SkerHawx 20:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Bedivere 19:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Users are welcome to merge in the future if there is talk page consensus for that (no need for AfD for merges). I believe this article does not explain its notability, nor does it cite a single source. I have tagged as such. If I was a bit more bold, I would have deleted it. Please bring this article up to standards or it WILL be deleted in the future. (also, I am not comfortable merging this text as it is because it still is unsourced/not verifiable.)-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time loop logic[edit]

This is a theory which appears to have no currency outside of a single paper by Hans Moravec. Fans of Isaac Asimov will note some parallels with The Endochronic Properties Of Resublimated Thiotimoline and may be inclined to deduce that it is a hoax. Whether it is or is not, te author does not use this article title as a term in the paper. Nor does the paper appear to be peer-reviewed. So: amusing as this is, I think it violates policy by promoting a fringe theory or giving undue weight to an idea. The title has no obvious connection to the idea's proposer, so a redirect does not seem appropriate. Cruftbane 19:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No verifiable sources, no peer-review, might be a hoax or OR. --Chuck Sirloin 20:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sirloin. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- real article as far as I can see, and nothing to refute it, or do I misunderstand Assuming Good faith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.65.24 (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The source I used is in the external links, and I recall being prompted to look it up and write an article about this based off of encountering the concept in a popular science magazine (likely Discover or Scientific American) so it's not isolated to just that one original source. I'll go rummaging around to see if I can find what issue it was, but that could take a bit of time. It would have been nice if you'd raised this issue in a talk page or given some other indication of your concern before lunging straight to AfD. Bryan Derksen 23:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It'll probably be a few days before I have the opportunity to dig up my boxes of old magazines or find a suitable index, but in the meantime a little web searching has shown a mention of Moravec's work on this at Nahin, Paul J. Time Machines: Time Travel in Physics, Metaphysics, and Science Fiction. p. 297.. I don't have the book and Google only had one page of the section this is in available, though, so I can't tell how much detail is in there. Also, Moravec's paper got published by the journal Extropy. Don't know what sort of peer review that entails. (Moravec, Hans (July 1992). "Time Travel and Computing". Extropy (9): 15–20.)
Keep- I've heard of it, and it seems logicall verifiable... needs some sources and to be sorted, but not deletable. Dunno about the title of the article...JJJ999 02:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If no suitable title can be come up with, perhaps it could be turned into a section of Novikov self-consistency principle. Section headers have less stringent requirements. Bryan Derksen 09:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Delete the sourced coverage may be non-trivial, but it isn't independent and it definitely isn't multiple. As such, the article fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle 15:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
would still stick with my keep...JJJ999 06:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

move to keep- no consensus. Clean up.JJJ999 00:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated by Cruftbane. No verifiable sources, no keep. --Gavin Collins 09:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge to the general article on the Novikov self-consistency principle. JoshuaZ 15:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. -- Jreferee t/c 16:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Forge[edit]

Component of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. However, while the game is notable, there is no assertion of this locale's notability. This un-sourced article is just plot summary that delves into minutiae. Suggest restoring redirect to video game in which it appears. --EEMeltonIV 19:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There is a wealth of material which could easily stand as its own article were it not for notability concerns. --ForbiddenWord 19:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Forbidden. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 20:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above.--Bedivere 19:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, I'm sure we can find a good home for it somewhere. shoy 22:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tentmaking[edit]

"Tentmaking" appears to be a neologism describing missionary christians who maintain secular employment instead of accepting donations for compensation. The concept may be very old, however I feel this article should be deleted based on the following:

WP:RS - It is completely unreferenced, except for sermon-style references to bible verses and a self-support "how-to" for evangeicals (neither of which really meet with reliable source guidelines).
WP:OR - As a sermon would be, it is original research.
WP:NEO - Use of the word ("tentmaking") seems mostly confined within the community to which it is applicable (namely christians, especially evangelicals) and has not taken on this context from an objective perspective.

Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 19:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the term "tentmaking" is not a neologism, and this article is not unreferenced. Today's Tentmakers (listed in references) was written by a respected evangelical scholar and is still in print today, decades after it was written. A brief search on Google Books results in dozens of books on the subject, all using this term. Regardless of whether or not the term is "objective" (whatever that means), it is widely used and best describes the subject of the article. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 20:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An ancient and useful metaphor which applies to many editors here, I fancy. Colonel Warden 20:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The religious usage far outstrips any canvas-sewing. The word dates to the 19th century. --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Super strong keep, this is far more than a dicdef, and the religious usage is the primary use of the term. I'd (maybe for the first time) go so far as to disagree with Dhartung here; depending how you translate the Hebrew, you can trace this term (or similar) in this context clear back to Exodus. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)--Bedivere 19:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Holden Special Vehicles[edit]

Lists are a navigational aid. This list, however, has no links. The category Category:Holden Special Vehicles has only two members, this and the article Holden Special Vehicles. HSV makes performance variants of standard Holden vehicles. As such, there will be a (usually small) number of HSV variants made for most Holden vehicles, which will be pimped up but otherwise not distinct from the base vehicle. If any meaningful number of these cars had separate articles then a category would do the job, but as far as I can see they don't. The clincher is that the HSV article lists the variants already, with the addition of some text that describes them (which this list lacks). So: it is redundant, not navigational, and if it were navigational it would be a job better done by a category, unless descriptive text were put in, but that's in the HSV article (and so round again). Cruftbane 18:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Lists provides three purposes for lists, only one of which is navigational. If this article is truly redundant with another one then go ahead and merge them, but AfD isn't needed for that. Bryan Derksen 00:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bryan Derksen. A merge may be the best option depending on discussion on the talk page. Capitalistroadster 02:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is vital for providing easy access information for people wanting to find information on the HSV range. The models are clearly presented to everyone for finding the cars. In the main HSV article you have to read through the article to find the cars, but in this article it is presented clearly without having to read through lot's of info. It should not be merged with the main HSV article because it would be to bigSenators^{Talk | Contribs} 06:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 02:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Holden Special Vehicles. The list itself is completely redundant and unnecessary. Someguy1221 07:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Someguy. Twenty Years 08:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree w/ Senators; this article makes reading about the HSV much easier if you are trying to source the models of the HSV range. HarrisonB Speak! 02:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Senators. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1 nonsense, or at best a7, event with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 21:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falltoberfest[edit]

Yahoo and google [16] [17] return only three sites that even mention this holiday. Doesn't seem to be notable outside of Kent State University. A^RendedWinter 18:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Grumpy's Downtown? One specific bar? Sounds like this article in an inside joke. JJL 18:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam, nonsense, whatever you want to call it. It sounds like something made up whilst bored at school one day. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 20:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Chuck Sirloin 20:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks to be a local thing that has no wider level of notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Richard 07:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Businessmen of Kerala[edit]

Unsourced list consisting entirely of redlinks. --Finngall ^talk 18:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hell, why stop at this location? Let's list every businessman/woman and millionaire in the world! This is a completely uncontrollable and unsourced list. A^RendedWinter 19:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft, everyone there is non-notable. Just because they have 50m rupees doesn't make them notable. (WP:BIG) NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Listcruft. Carlosguitar 20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arendedwinter and the others. --Richard 00:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sigh Yet another pointless and unmaintainable list. Axl 11:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I rolled back the last edit. It still makes no sense. Bearian 20:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author an dsole contributor of the list. If you all want to delete it, I have no objection. No need to wait others. Do it as soon as possible. BYE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babumon (talk • contribs) 15:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nobody wants it, apparently not even the author.--Bedivere 20:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 11:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico City Airport People Mover[edit]

Martial BACQUET 18:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martial and I were editing the same article at the same time. This article appears to be a stub to me (BTW - I am not involved in this articles creation in any way!). The writer appears to be attempting to create a legitimate article. My take on it was it needs references, to show notability and a bit of polish. But otherwise, it's not a copyvio, spam, attack page or anything else. KoshVorlon
".. We are ALL Kosh..."
18:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but the article need to be clean-up seriously. Martial BACQUET 18:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what little sense can be gleaned from the article, this is about a small, high-speed train for the Mexico City Airport? Denver International Airport's got one of those. Nice, but definitely not notable enough for its own article. Can't see this as being a useful search term or redirect, so just delete. humblefool ® 19:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written, non-notable. A lot of airports have these things. I can't imagine anyone looking on Wikipedia for information on this. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 20:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an airport people mover, nothing special.[18] At worst merge and redirect to Mexico City International Airport, but I don't think it's a very plausible search term. --Dhartung | Talk 20:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N miserably. Chris! _{my talk} 00:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People mover cruft :-) --Bedivere 20:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 03:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Southwick[edit]

Non-notable actor-singer; IMDb page only lists one- or two-episode roles. Show that she was formerly host of does not have a Wikipedia article. Only other "claim" is that she's the wife of Larry King; however, notability is not inherited. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:INHERITED. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Larry King. Worth a mention of her career there. --Dhartung | Talk 20:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AaRON[edit]

Originally speedied by me but I restored it after a DRV to send it here. Band does not appear to meet WP:NMG and definitely does not have sufficient, or any, citations to back it up Stifle (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally a pair of interwiki links (fr. and de.) go a long way to convince me of notability. However, based on my rudimentary knowledge of French, the French article doesn't say much beyond the English one. Delete this article, and let the French speakers worry about their own wiki, since there's no unity among wikis in deletion process. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of the article is not reason for deletion; inherent lack of notability is. A notable subject with a bad article should be cleaned up, not deleted. This is a notable subject, which should have been clear at the DRV but which was restored by the admin and nominated for AfD without any cleanup. Chubbles 18:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Shalom. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—ⁿ⁾ 18:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For some reason, the nominator is ignoring the reason for the DRV. The band has had a gold record in France and a major chart hit; I just added references. Easily meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles 18:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references added by Chubbles prove the notability of the subject (double gold, and chart peaks) Pumpkin 18:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Pumpkin is the author of this article. Chubbles 19:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chubbles Jcuk 23:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well established and famous band in their native France, easily notable under WP:Music. A1octopus 16:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chubbles puts it well, the state of the article doesn't have anything to do with notability... neither does the state of the French article. And a certified double gold album meets the established criteria (see #3).. #2 and #10 have also previously been shown. Oyejorge 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Undoubtly Notable article, and they have a great song "U Turn". CG 15:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jack Thompson (attorney). A mention there may be in order. JoshuaZ 14:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelante[edit]

Weak establishment of a neologism, might(?) be in vio of WP:BLP. Mdbrownmsw 17:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of reliable secondary sources on this term. (Don't trust Google on this one -- it's a word relating to gaming, of course it's all over the internet.) - Che Neuvara 18:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism, it seems far away to be a protologism. Carlosguitar 19:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jack Thompson (attorney)#Relationship with industry and gamers --Perplexing 06:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jack Thompson (attorney) Will ^(talk) 23:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jack Thompson (attorney)#Relationship with industry and gamers --3rdTriangle 14:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC) - its a term that is fairly well used. people will want to know what it means, its not inherently apparent. outright deletion i feel is unnecessary.[reply]
Delete If people want to know what it means, shouldn't they use Wiktionary?--Bedivere 20:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jack Thompson (attorney)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by M2Ys4U (talk • contribs) 16:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram 13:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jai guru de va om[edit]

Contested prod. The individual words are partly referenced, as would be expected in Wiktionary. However, the article is original research guessing at a meaning (of which the article admits there are many) of a phrase the artists choose not to explain. A search for any sort of dicussion in reliable sources merely returns blogs and forums. Nuttah68 17:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary of original research. Stifle (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICT and WP:OR. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless we need to keep it around as a textbook example of synthesis. --Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I sugget to keep it because it a lot of people are looking for meaning of this phrase. In fact I was not a creator of this page and have been looking to this meaning for 3 years until I found this one and it is disturbing for me that you are going just to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.32.14 (talk) 08:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It's interesting, and can't possibly be doing any harm. --63.25.100.198 15:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect into Across the Universe, for which it is an alternate title. I'll start the process. Bearian 20:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its good information, why would you want to restrict that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.171.142 (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Across the Universe. Also, why is the word "deva" spelled "de va"? Paul B 00:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 05:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional bars[edit]

Delete - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional restaurants. Vast numbers of works of fiction contain a fictional bar or at least a mention of one. A listing of every one of them is a directory of loosely associated items. Those very few fictional bars that have notability apart from the originating fiction should have their own articles and be categorized in Category:Fictional bars and inns. The presence of a bar in a work of fiction tells us nothing about the work of fiction and nothing about the work's relationship to other fictional works. "It has a bar in it" is not a theme or in the vast majority of cases a central or even an important plot element or point of commonality. Otto4711 17:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:LC, points 2, 3, 4, 6. Stifle (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Overcategorization (which is incorporated by reference in WP:L). Trivial and inherently unmaintainable, and therefore could never be a useful or meaningful. Note to Stifle: WP:LC is an essay, but all the concerns you raise are included in WP:L and/or WP:NOT. - Che Neuvara 18:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we really need a list of fake bars? No. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—ⁿ⁾ 18:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real use to anyone Chandlerjoeyross 19:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete potentially infinite list. JJL 18:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with the "fictional restaurants", the article is a guide to tracking down the origin (and in some cases, the owner of the rights) to the name of a business. New restaurants and bars are launched every year, and this serves a greater purpose than simply "places where you can't really buy a drink". Many of us cultural illiterates wouldn't automatically link "The Blue Parrot" to Casablanca (though even we would know Rick's Place). Looks like this is on the way to deletion, but worth saving to one's hard drive. Mandsford 20:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jbeach56 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford. Lists help provide organizational structure to the encyclopedia and are sometimes easier to follow than categories, although I'm not opposed to having both. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting and useful. Battle Ape 03:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should read WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL. 193.95.165.190 08:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

two paragraphs in an essay. Not even a flexible guideline, just some peoples' opinion that does not necessarily have consensus--Almost every point of that essay is subject to disagreement, see its talk page. Interesting & useful aren't alone enough, but they certainly don't hurt. 15:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete- this is a balatant attempt to circumvent the deletion of the fictional restaurants article, and move for a snow delete. It is a bad faith article, which will soon no doubt resemble much of the deleted article anyway, exact same logic for delete anywayJJJ999 03:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just another list full of insignificant information. --Slartibartfast (19 92) 21:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It might be WP:INTERESTING but it sure isn't encyclopedic. Burntsauce 22:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_stuff - this is how bad these lists have gotten... and some of the same old faces still vote keep!JJJ999 05:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment You may want to interpret their keep votes in light of the existence of humor. --Buridan 13:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keepI do not see this as loosely associated, were they loosely associated, i would think that we could substitute a similar term, like monkeys and find that related to that term is sufficiently similar in strength. no, in this case that they are all a bar matters. beyond that the bars on the list as a whole are more notable than the bars individually, so the article provides material to wp that in deleting it degrades wp. --Buridan 13:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am unclear what monkeys have to do with anything. Actually, I'm unclear what your comment means at all, as it does not appear to be in a grammatical or syntactical style with which I am familiar. Otto4711 17:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the argument is they are not loosely associated because the central term matters and is a strong association. the central term is bar, let that be x, were we to take any other term y, and substitute it for x, and find that the lists are the same, then x would be replacable by y, and thus would have no significant associations. yet, we cannot substitute in this case, substituting y=monkeys for x=bar yields a significant misunderstanding because that items on the list are all bars is what matters. it is not a loose association between each thing and its category, it is a function of identity, which is perhaps the strongest relation. so your argument is that they are loosely associated, my argument is that if they were, we would easily be able to test that by the method of substitution, yet, the method of substitution which would show that the central term of association would not matter fails. it fails because the term of association is in fact, a significant property and really that term is an identifying property, and because of that relationship of identity, the items on the list are all related as the set of things that are bars, and identity relationships are not what we mean by loosely associated. what one means by loosely associated is the set of things that are bars and monkeys, where for any given thing in the set it could be related to either something it is 'a bar' or something that is not 'a bar' like 'a monkey'. loose association this is not. this is a set of things that are strongly identified with each other by their very nature. so if you choose any two things on the list and ask anyone who has been shown these two things, they will say clearly and likely with a forthright tone, 'those are bars, they are similar, and they are related in kind in several clear and substantive ways which are necessary by their nature as bars' this is different from say people named 'dorothy parker' which would in fact likely only share one characteristic, their name, and unless someone is particularly cruel, they probably also would be also possess certain secondary sex traits, but we cannot discount cruelty. so the set of things in the world called dorothy parker is a very loose association, where the set of things that are bars, and fictional bars no less, is a fairly strong associaiton. nominative relations are weak, identity relations are strong. --Buridan 00:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But monkeys have nothing to do with bars. It's easy to prove your argument saying that "bars" isn't replaceable by "monkeys", it's just like saying, I dunno, that fairies exist because they're more rational than flying TV screens with legs that shoot bananas out of a screwdriver for example (yeah I know that made no sense but it's just an example). Besides I don't exactly see how replacing "bars" with something else will make its content less loosly associated. No matter what name you give it, it's still a potentially gigantic list where all items have nothing to do with each other except that they're fictional bars. --Slarti (19 92) 01:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeys have nothing to do with bars? WRONG!! Monkey bars redirects to Jungle gym Mandsford 15:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I kinda thought somebody would bring that up lol. But jungle gyms have nothing to do with fictional bars except the homonym of bars as in "monkey bars" and bars as in "have a drink at a bar". --Slarti (19 92) 15:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but the logic is that loosely associated must tie things together that have little association? if this were a list of bars and monkeys and catfish and women named olivia, it would clearly be not well associated. so it is not that, but it is somewhere closer to strongly associated, now then the question follows from your post of 'does the identity fictional bar sufficiently delimit the list to be manageable?' is that yoru concern? because then your concern is really one of appropriate rules for inclusion, so the list just needs to be fictional bars that meet some standard of notability? then you have to hold that for all lists, no? and then don't all lists get turned into categories? so we can either have a list that is inclusive and notable as the expanded collection which would include items not having an article or mention in wikipedia, or we just have categories? because if the former is the case, we can have lists that are more expansive than categories, then this list just needs cleanup doesn't it? why isn't being a 'fictional bar' suffiently delimiting in your mind? to me it seems a solid way to describe an association of items that are in fact 'fictional bars'. --Buridan 03:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right... I didn't get most of that, but from the part I was able to understand, I'm guessing you're saying that loosly associated things are things of varied naming. In that case, I say that still "Fictional Bars" is a loose topic because it can include loads of fictional bars and types of fictional restaurants that have absolutely nothing to do with each other except they're fictional bars. Instead, one could place the bar in an article about the fiction work it belongs to, or something of the sort. For example, The Leaky Cauldron is included in the list of bars. It is also in Diagon Alley. There's no use for the same information (actually more on the Diagon Alley article) twice. Now, where would you search for the Leaky Cauldron if it doesn't show up as an article on your search? In List of fictional bars or in Diagon Alley? --Slarti (19 92) 22:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i'd look for bars, then that would likely link to fictional bars, where i would find it. Since i have no idea what diagon alley is, for all i know it would be another bar. in searching, you can't assume that other's share the deep knowledge of harry potter. nor do people who are unfamiliar with the topic know enough to choose which salient features to search for, so they wouldn't know necessarily in 5-10 years that 'harry potter' is a main character. --Buridan 13:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... your way of searching is definitely unique... how would you know that it would be listed in List of fictional bars or that said article even exists? And why would anybody unfamiliar with the topic of Harry Potter even know about The Leaky Cauldron? I mean, OK, worst case scenario somebody asks you to researh on The Leaky Cauldron and you know nothing about it. How would you even know it's a bar? Now, if they tell you it's a bar, I'm guessing they'll be king enough to tell you it's in the Harry Potter series. OK, you go to that article. You click the link to the first book. You look at the second paragraph in the beginning section and there it is! You follow the link to Diagon Alley. That opposed to randomly guessing a list of fictional bars exists, taking a chance, searching for it, somehow finding it, wondering "what's all this stuff? There's stuff from lots of loosly related works here, only coinciding in that they're fictional bars!", finally scrolling down, finding it, and following it to Harry Potter, in a way greatly resembling the use of a category. And, FYI: if you search for The Leaky Cauldron you'll just get redirected to Diagon Alley, precisely and effectively as all people who know nothing of the subject should get directed. None of the hodgepodge of either of the two ways I've listed before. --Slarti (19 92) 01:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a decision yet?JJJ999 05:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs remain open for five days, so this should close on October 6. Otto4711 21:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deletion is justified under WP:CSD#G11 as well as the discussion below. Eluchil404 05:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facets (previously known as GemStone-J)[edit]

Non-notable spam. At the very least needs to be renamed/merged. Rocket000 16:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any substantial second-party references to Facets. Non-notable. SkerHawx 18:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram 14:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 school shooting outbreak[edit]

Looks like a neologism for a series of shootings in 2006. It's not a term used by any media or educational outlet, and this article is just redundant material from other articles. Wafulz 16:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research. Artw 17:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence is offered to support the assertion that 2006 is more notable than other years for school shootings. If such evidence were presented, I would change my vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are legitimate OR/SYNTH concerns. Is there any one source that covers the topic?Vice regent 20:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Immediately after the Virginia Tech incident, I think Time magazine did an analysis of school shootings over the years, including a graph that plotted the deaths per year.--User101010 01:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many official studies have shown that violence in schools is stable or declining, and that after one shooting incident or bomb scare there are several copycat crimes. There's no support for a "2006 outbreak" and it isn't the way these things are normally classified (i.e. legitimate social science would look at a range of years). --Dhartung | Talk 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a sad coincidence that there *may* have been a few more incidents than in other years, but this article really is redundant and original research. The section about 2005 and 2007 is a very weak way of supporting the claim of the article. --User101010 01:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be shown that this does not violate WP:SYNTH. Although some of the cited sources claim 2006 as the worst year to date for such incidents, there isn't really a basis for the claim of an "outbreak" in an encyclopaedic sense. All the information is contained in the relevant articles anyway. A subcategory 2006 school shootings may be useful. TreeKittens 00:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete info contained in main articles is sufficient, this is WP:SYNTH and unnecessary. I like the idea of categorizing by year. --Keeper | 76 18:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Articles are not appropriate until after a group has generated coverage. See WP:CRYSTAL. Eluchil404 05:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Playwrights[edit]

Group started meeting less than 2 months ago. No claim of notability in article. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 16:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't demonstrate meeting notability criteria for groups, and doesn't appear to have independent non-trivial reliable sources.
Delete As a newly formed organization, independent reliable sources could not be found on a search engine (Nor are paper magazines likely to have mentioned the group). Therefore, fails WP:ORG.--Alasdair 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alasdair's arguments suggest that we should wait a bit and see what coverage this gets.--Bedivere 20:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 05:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MilkyTracker[edit]

Software application, not notable. Searching for media coverage/independent coverage, even on Google archives, turns up only two hits. Non-notable, delete. • Lawrence Cohen 15:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —• Lawrence Cohen 15:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs secondary, verifiable sources per WP:N. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 19:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 no revisions of the article contained an assertion of notability per WP:CSD#A7 Pedro : Chat 10:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M.c.infinity(rapper)[edit]

Little claim of notability in article; gsearch shows at least two artists with this name, neither of which appear notable in the first several pages of non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 15:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Non-notable MySpace wannabe. Article seems autobiographical. At the least, it reads like a laughable promo piece. "As gruesomely evil combination S.Y.D.E.S.H.O.W. DEFORMITIES will storm the underground scene so whack m.c.'s beware..." Oooooh!--Sethacus 15:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anywhere in that block-o-blather where this article actually asserts notability of any kind. Speedy delete, yo. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete by User:Mailer diablo. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish national party[edit]

Apparently non-notable political party, established last year. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable borderline spam. Bacchiad 17:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per notabilty, verifiabilty. No reliable sources provided (or found) for membership, activities or actual existence. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But Irish National Party (with capitals) would be a reasonable redirect to the Irish Parliamentary Party article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I don't know if it's me but looks like it was copied from somewhere.--JForget 23:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"a nowak"[edit]

Neologism, Non-notable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - author-confessed WP:NFT material. Unsourced, and possibly bordering on WP:ATTACK material. ~Matticus ^T_C 14:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is impossible to verify the contents of this article. A quick google search shows up no relialbe hits for this article. It is also WP:NFT material as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nothing to show how this article passes WP:MUSIC CitiCat^♫ 03:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slowearth[edit]

Non-notable band, see WP:MUSIC --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 14:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google search seems to yield numerous results showing notability. Article needs to be rewritten though for better prose and wikification. However It doesn't seem to be a notability problem from what I'm looking at. Perhaps an assertion of notability might be helpful though Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This group has released four albums so far if I am not mistaken. Moreover, a quick google search shows quite a number of hits for this band. It is also possible to verify the contents of this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3000 hits isn't really much (atleast not in my opinion, and definitely not for a band) and with a tweaking of the search terms (+band) to remove any unrelated results the count is siginificantly lower - here. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 23:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could the above two editors please provide links to the reliable sources that affirm notability? I'm lookin', but I ain't findin'. If you did, I'd like to see what you turned up before I offer an opinion. I do see some indications that they've won local music awards regularly, but whether that meets WP:MUSIC, I'm not entirely certain on. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless claims of WP:RS made above are actually added to the article before the end of this AfD. A1octopus 01:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm not seeing much assertion of notability in the article. The band's albums come from independent labels. Cap'n Walker 18:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\^talk 23:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bentleigh West Primary School[edit]

Article fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Asserts no notability. Former prod candidate, removed by user, saying that a lack of an agreement at WP:SCH means we should come here Twenty Years 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Twenty Years 14:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. —Moondyne 14:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep per awards. —Moondyne 05:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multi-award winning school with sources that meet WP:N. TerriersFan 17:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 18:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is referenced with multiple sources (including some news coverage) on the schools multiple environmental awards - and hence establishes notability. Article needs more sources in areas such as "History" but the article is still a well established encyclopedic entry meaning I do not think deletion is necessary. Camaron1 | Chris 20:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also going to say ~~weak~~ oppose merge to Bentleigh, Victoria - I do not think a merge is really essential in this case, and I hold that a deletion is not appropriate, ~~but as the to-merge-into article is small, all of the information in the school article can be moved into there easily as a compromise~~, the article has now been expanded further and more references added meaning it is no longer a Stub, I support non-permanent mergers in many cases, but I think this article is well established enough to be left alone. Camaron1 | Chris 17:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This would be better served by having a section in the article on Bentleigh. --SRHamilton 22:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the various awards. Alternatively, should be mentioned in the Bentleigh article. Capitalistroadster 02:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Winning non-notable awards hardly makes the school itself notable Twenty Years 08:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple awards and recognition received constitute a strong claim of notability. Alansohn 05:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would this not be better served being placed in the Bentleigh, Victoria article? You could talk about the non notable award that the school won, and mention that theres a primary school there too. Cam even admits that this is all the school can really claim to notability. Twenty Years 16:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - frankly no. A separate page provides the headroom for growth. It is not correct to characterise the school as "the non notable award that the school won". The awards must be taken together with the attendant publicity. We merge articles into their locality when they are not notable and there is no scope for encyclopaedic content. This school has clearly notable environmental achievements and there is plenty of scope for further expansion, as indeed is happening. It well merits its own article. TerriersFan 00:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as currently written, the article demonstrates notability. I see no need to merge this specific article anywhere. Burntsauce 22:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, has references etc. LordHarris 15:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepNotable due to the awards, referenced...why delete? Ben 03:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by User:Neutrality.--JForget 23:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Arce[edit]

Non-notable athlete. Non-wiki ghits don't show notability, little claim of notability in article. Contested prod Fabrictramp 14:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 14:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and lack of resources or available information. Zchris87v 14:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines. A quick google search shows up very few or no reliable hits for this subject. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this subject as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not repository for every single piece of minutia in the world. (quote NMChico24) --Gp75motorsports 14:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable biography. Lacks verifiable sources. Useight 15:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. While notability is asserted, it's for a high school track medal. That's not notable. PROD may have been too generous. Smashville 17:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It's not notable. I've gotten gold medal in track, does that mean I deserve an article? ILovePlankton⁽^L^—ⁿ⁾ 18:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but not speedy. WP:CSD A7 reads "No assertion of importance/significance", not "Lame assertion of importance/significance". Slippery slope. - Che Neuvara 18:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A7 probably does not apply (for a scrupulous admin, naturally). No indication this guy is a ranked athlete who has notable championships or records. --Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also fails WP:BIO by neither playing in a fully professional league nor reaching the pinnacle of his sport. Smashville 22:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. CitiCat^♫ 03:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GPeriodic[edit]

Fails to demonstrate notability; non-notable. • Lawrence Cohen 13:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —• Lawrence Cohen 13:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just a simple program, can't find anything about it in the news that would make it notable. Zchris87v 14:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - no notability. Small (it says so) program released in '03. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 14:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - in numerous F/OSS distros & reasonable popcon results. --Karnesky 05:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Non-notable - I don't see anything particular to distinguish it from the thousands of similar small apps out there. Cosmo0 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (nomination withdrawn) (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned From TV (Band)[edit]

NOM WITHDRAWN SPEEDY KEEP Redirect to Band from TV. Thanks SkerHawx. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem SkerHawx 14:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asserts notability via all the famous members, but I could not find independent, verifaible Sources in Google News Archives or Google news. Not sure the clip from Leno suffices. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 14:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A simple search finds at least one newspaper article on them - http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2998911.ece Red Fiona 15:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Red Fiona. I did not find that on my search. Does this meet "significant" coverage? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The only reason I knew the article was there was because I read it a couple of days ago. I left my comment as a comment because I'm not sure whether being on Leno counts as enough, because lots of bands don't get that far, but at the same time, they had an unfair advantage because of who the members are. Red Fiona 13:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:INHERITED (Just because the members are notable, does not mean the band is as well.) SkerHawx 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Band from TV (it's already there) and Rewrite -- after reviewing the article found by Red Fiona, I noticed that the band's name is misspelled in this afD. It should be "Band from TV", and doing a search for this yields a LOT of significant hits and coverage. SkerHawx 12:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought the opposite was true (or used to be?). I'm SURE I've seen somewhere that one of the criteria for notability of a band is having notable people play within that band. Jcuk 00:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.133.12 (talk) [reply]
Notability for band members usually comes from being part of a notable band. But not always. For instance, I could not tell you the names of all the members of most of my favorite bands. Also, some members come and go without having much influence and are forgotten except as a footnote. Band membership can be fairly volatile. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn, other votes all keep. Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist-Leninist Party of Austria[edit]

The party is absolutely non-notable, never contested an election as far as I am aware, and has no well-known members that I know of. —Nightstallion 13:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an existing party, with a long history and a largish article available on the German language Wikipedia. There's more to politics than contesting elections and when deleting political parties one should err on the side of caution. --Martin Wisse 13:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable feature in the Austrian left. The German article is well sourced, and material could be translated to expand this one, perhaps even make it a FAC? --13:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soman (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 14:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 14:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mh. Okay, fair enough, consider the AfD withdrawn as far as I'm concerned; you've got a point. —Nightstallion 14:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MLPÖ was one of the first maoistic parties in the western world and still exists on a small level. The party contested one election and has several well-known members (former members of KPÖ). For more information see the german article (Marxistisch-Leninistische Partei Österreichs).----Sf67 14:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fairly notable in the specific context of australian leftist politics. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the references provided in the references section are sufficient to establish the notability of this telephone per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. John254 00:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola C139[edit]

Non-notable cellular phone. This product isn't notable; it's just another incarnation of a common object with no discerning features, no sustaining influence on the market or design, and little longevity. Wikipedia is not a Motorola catalog. Mikeblas 13:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep How do you establish notability for a phone anyway? For me, as long as the article is NPOV and not Motorola propaganda, it makes sense to have it listed, as so many other models are also listed. --Martin Wisse 14:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I would say it's advertising as the opening paragraph is worded quite strangely, but the flaws seem to go against an advertisement. Otherwise it seems like just a general information page on a phone. Aside from the "flaws", most of this information could be found on a site for cell phones. To answer the question asked above, something like the V120c is notable, since it was a standardly offered phone for Verizon and Alltell, and was one of the highest radiation-emitting phones. The iPhone is notable because of the news hype surrounding it. That's why I only propose a weak delete - there's no real guidelines for cell phone articles. Zchris87v 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm not sure, It seems to be notable enough. What exactly does a notable cellphone mean anyway? Maybe a cleanup of that whole list of motorola cellphones would help though, but that specific one doesn't seem any less notable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick google search shows up more than 2 million hits for this model. It is also possible to verify the contents of this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:GOOGLEHITS Jbeach56 21:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The number of search hits is irrelevant as the vast majority are listings on websites offering them for sale. People asking how a cellphone can be notable are really offering an argument for deletion: if it's not notable, it shouldn't have an article as per WP:N, and more specifically WP:CORP. The fact that there are other articles on other non-notable phones is not an argument to keep this one, but rather to list the other ones as well. Phones can be notable, as per Zchris87v's comment above, but this one isn't, and the fact that the article doesn't look like an advertisement does nothing to change that. Thomjakobsen 16:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Guess it is notible enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandlerjoeyross (talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain why? Jbeach56 21:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Although it's a product of a large mobile phone company, it doesn't seem to have any unique or revolutionary design, features or sales or marketing campaign (or mentions in popular culture etc.) that gives it notability.--Alasdair 17:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep Without a cell phone guideline, we return to the primary notability criteria - are there multiple non trivial reliable sources? In this case trivial is the key word. A million listings for sale are a million trivial sources. What we need are specific articles (not from the manufacturer!) describing the merits of this phone or its cultural impact. We have a few days to find some. Update: my logic stays my conclusion changes with the great sources now added.Obina 18:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cell phone with no claim of notabilty. Jbeach56 21:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable cell phone. Keb25 15:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm not a big fan of cell phones, but a lot of people own them and Motorola is a familiar company, so I reckon this could/should be kept in some capacity. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In some capacity could be a list - is that OK with your view? We are struggling with sources to show this phone needs a full article.Obina 23:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is no doubt an abundance of third party sources about any given Motorola phone. Burntsauce 22:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAny phone? Takes us into a scary place - but no worry - we are discussing this phone. Please share the multiple non trivial reliable sources and truly we will be happy to agree.Obina 23:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is indeed covered in reliable sources and therefore passes WP:N and WP:V. In addition to the three reviews cited in the article there is also this, which I will add to the refs. Does 4 count as multiple? Mr. Google News shows 84 more here but WP:N no longer claims that particular requirement anyway. TreeKittens 00:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC) [Edit] I have added this source as a reference in the article. TreeKittens 01:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is also a much more detailed review published in PC Magazine here by Sascha Segan, PC Magazine, 14 March 2007. It claimed it is the cheapest unlocked GSM handset. I have expanded the article with this. Thanks TreeKittens 01:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - allthough I could live with this just being a redirect to an article dealing with it. There is no other reason than me just thinking Wikipedia should have articles on every cell phone there is, as long as this articles can be properly sourced (then you will of course lose some of the tiny brands). I think it would be great to find an article here if you wanted to know about a certain cell-phone. My impression is this is the old include/exclude discussion all over again. Greswik 14:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Though it would be nice for this to happen, there is no real reason as the information on this page can be found on most websites offering the phone for sale. In that case, wikipedia does not need to be a mirror of another site, since its purpose is to be an encyclopedia. Zchris87v 14:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an argument for expansion rather than deletion - all the information in Wikipedia must be available elsewhere in order for us to comply with WP:V. If third-party sources have commented in detail on this phone (as demonstrated by the cited sources) then there is no reason to delete that information. --TreeKittens 14:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:V is so important, then why are so few articles adequately referenced? -- Mikeblas 15:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. This one is referenced, but is still listed for deletion. --TreeKittens 15:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KOS | talk 13:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EnergyWIKI[edit]

Contested G11 speedy of an article that amounts to no more than blatant advertising Rackabello 12:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No doubt about it. The page even looks like an advertising pamphlet. Eternalmonkey 12:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question to the nominator: a CSD tag has been placed, why did you go through this AfD discussion again with G11 speedy reason? — Indon (reply) — 12:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply my understanding was that continuous removal of a CSD tag should be referred to AfD for consensus. Rackabello 13:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - no claim of notability, borderline spam. - Mike Rosoft 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EroomX[edit]

Non notable company, verges on spam. Rackabello 12:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definite adspam. 67.81.139.52 12:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- .whoops. thats me. Mystache 12:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Verges on spam, then falls right in... Robertissimo 12:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 14:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per violation of adverising/spam guidelines. Zchris87v 14:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ads of a non-notable company. Keb25 14:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my inital nomination to Speedy Delete under criterion G11 Rackabello 18:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11. Sneaks up on spam then backstabs it... --Chuck Sirloin 20:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G11 or A7. Carlosguitar 20:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Dread[edit]

This fictional island is long on plot summary, but is short on independent sources required to establish notability.--Gavin Collins 12:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction & fantasy deletions.--Gavin Collins 12:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Keep Notability is mentioned in the article, just needs sources. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once again the nominator does himself no favors by apparently failing to read the entire article before making a nomination, as notability is asserted in the article. References are provided, yet I do agree that they should be used to properly source the article. However, there are appropriate tags that can be used to indicate this, and AfD should not be used as a "bludgeoning tool" in this manner to encourage clean-up of an article. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep/nom remedied~~*Neutral~~ There's no sourced case for note in the article, and the sources aren't readily available, but there are three borderline WP:RS print sources listed published by a company that, at the very least, isn't said to be owned or partially owned by the publisher of D&D in its wiki article. However, all are from the same publication, and, again, they're somewhat borderline - Are the magazines licensed by TSR/Wizards/whatever really WP:RS? On that same note, is Nintendo Power? If the latter is generally accepted, then these should be, although that doesn't negate that Multiple independent sources should be found, not just multiple citations from different issues of the same source. That said, common sense would indicate that 18 minutes is an inadequate time for a cleanup to be carried out. ;) MrZaius^talk 13:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC) PS: On the case for note - I don't believe that its influence on later works from the same publisher really cut the mustard, although the Dungeon awards does, if a second WP:RS can be found for another point in the article. Is there anything more than circumstantial evidence to suggest that the WoW place-name is based on this, or that it had any other impact on anything outside of future TRS publications?[reply]

Comment - The amount of time that cleanup takes is irrelevant as to whether or not the article should be deleted. Rray 15:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more a matter of courtesy than not. Not a policy thing - just stating that I generally prefer to only AfD an article after they've been flagged for cleanup for some time (weeks or months) when they might otherwise be salvageable. This one likely would be. MrZaius^talk 16:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Downgraded to Weak delete when the only line that made any attempt whatsoever to demonstrate impact outside of D&D was removed in good faith edit. 15:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Agree with Craw-daddy above. Rray 14:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Satisfactory notability. — RJH (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable, since it's an important location within a fictional universe. Just like Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, it's an important setting in which the adventures take place. The sources available further guarantee notability.--Alasdair 17:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's really not all that good an example. It falls prey to the same problem, having only one sourced point that demonstrates that it has importance outside of the Simpsons, and contains less (while stronger) citations. MrZaius^talk 17:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just using common sense with that. A fictional organization or location rarely has influence to the outside world, but if it's part of a notable fictional universe, chances are people are going to hear about it.--Alasdair 21:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable gamecruft. Bacchiad 17:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the pack-in module for the Expert set, it was one of the first modules many D&D players were exposed to. Its place on the greatest adventures list and the fact that it's still being used as an inspiration for new material today further indicate its importance in the world of D&D. More sourcing would be good, of course, but I think it's definitely notable. Pinball22 18:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Craw-daddy & Pinball. As this module came with the Expert box, it has likely received more play than any other D&D module, save for B2.--Robbstrd 00:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps the article is flawed, but deletion is a ridiculous idea. Improve it, or wait for someone else to do so. But deletion? That makes no sense at all. Perhaps the article should make it more clear that its topic is Dungeons & Dragons Gaming Module X1: The Isle of Dread, rather than the Isle of Dread per se.KevinOKeeffe 08:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's been understood from the first Keep above. Still no strong case for note built on third party sources. MrZaius^talk 15:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Keep this is another example of Gavin's self impossed Quioxtic misson to remove RPG articles from Wikipedia. The mere fact that he does not even know what this is makes him wholly unqualified to recomend a AfD here. The article may need some work, but it is referenced and it is notable. Web Warlock 15:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT is no more an argument in an AfD than it is for the nom. The article lacks adequate references and no longer makes any attempt to demonstrate note, aside from the awards given by a magazine that is officially "authorized" by the publisher of the book/topic of the article. MrZaius^talk 15:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, The mere fact that he does not even know what this is makes him perfectly suited to judge the article based on its merits in an encyclopedia. What notability does this have outside of D&D? What published, third party sources can you use to back it up? That particular argument is bunk. Its notability should be as plain as the nose on the author's face in any article here. MrZaius^talk 15:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a weak argument. People generally reference encyclopedias because they don't know anything about a particular subject. Otherwise, why have an encyclopedia at all? If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, it would be perfectly fine for me to nominate the article on Finnegans Wake for deletion, because I know nothing about it.--19:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbstrd (talk • contribs)

Arguably, Finnegans Wake (the article, that is) deserves a ((nofootnotes)) template, but that's an argument for another day. ;) --Craw-daddy | T | 23:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book could use a ((nofootnotes)) too. ;) Pinball22 14:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expertise is required to author a decent article, but the audience of an encyclopedia is the layman. If an article doesn't make a clear case for note and contain valid citations to back it up, it raises serious issues. I know nothing about the half-dozen Indian software engineers I've flagged for prod - They still don't meet WP:BIO, just like this article only makes a borderline case for note, based on the awards that were given by a company just one step away from the publisher. That said, changing back to neutral pending the introduction of the sources promised below. MrZaius^talk 15:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fine. Then remove the AFD to give people the chance to get the articles referenced. I have a full time job, teach at night and still have a wife and kids. I also happen to have stacks of references that I could easily add if I had the time. Web Warlock 15:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the nom would be withdrawn if they were added. This isn't eligible for a close, barring snowballing, until October 6th. On a side note, everybody works. MrZaius^talk 16:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not have the time till after the 8th to da anything and Gavin has wasted enough of my time today already. Web Warlock 17:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abandon and relist the nomination is for an article about a fictional island - but I see an article about a game module. Percy Snoodle 15:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on lack of available sources [19] and the news and books searches on Google return remarkably little, and nothing that is usable/that meets WP:RS/is on topic. Does anyone have print sources that they can bring to bear? MrZaius^talk 15:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have older game magazines that are not/were not owned by the same company producing the game. I even think I have a copy of Christianity Today that mentions this module specifically. Web Warlock 15:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are now 12 sources for this article. I could get more, but my Dragon Magazine index is not behaving nicely. How many more does it need? Web Warlock 16:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None. Dungeon and RPGNet were both iffy sources, the one being compromised by their ties to the publisher of the book in question, and the other being a reasonably well established blog - either would have done given one strong source. Space Gamer appears to be independent - more than enough, when taken in tandem with those two. Changed to keep. MrZaius^talk 16:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it concerns an element of a major game series. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I don't believe the nom read the article based on the description of his AfD. I also believe people citing "fancruft" haven't read it either. Turlo Lomon 16:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the cruft point, possibly, but only one other editor used the term. On the other, he may not have, but the key point about verifiable sources was accurate until recently. The distinction between location and book is irrelevant. MrZaius^talk 17:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to verifiability, perhaps, but the nature of the subject of the article is still fundamental. An article about, say, the planets of Firefly is a very different case than an article about a movie set on them, so is one about Glorantha and one about a book set in it, or a RuneQuest supplement set in it. I can't trust someone deeply in the wrong about what an article is about to make informed decisions about it, nor to do even basic research about it - both of which are vital, as the deletion process is by necessity geared towards what articles can be. That's why we require verifiability rather than verification, et cetera. --Kizor 01:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is even more important with the current nominator, because Isle of Dread is emphatically not an isolated case. In the last few days he's voted for the deletion of general lists of Jedi knights because they're not useful "to people who don't play the game", nominated an article about a fictional setting as one about a fictional race (and asserted that it's about a race when asked), and made several nominations that, voters have declared, have little to no bearing on the articles they're about. One even wrote that he'd want the article deleted, but can't in good conscience support a fatally flawed nomination. --Kizor 02:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn as notability has been demonstrated wtih the addition of 12 secondary sources, previously there being none. --Gavin Collins 14:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 15:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Tree Steiner School[edit]

Article on non-notable school in WA, it fails WP:N, and WP:ORG. Asserts no notability what-so-ever. Twenty Years 12:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Twenty Years 12:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the Steiner movement's work in Australia may be notable, individual schools are clearly not - almost by definition they'll be very similar to each other, and very small, and lacking in reliable sources documenting much more than their existence. Orderinchaos 13:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand, from a talk page comment I just wrote, I doubt the history and challenges between one school and the next would differ much (and may well be heavily interlinked), but they'd certainly face unique challenges collectively as a group. A friend of mine has a kid going to a Montessori primary school, so I'm well aware of the potential for an interesting and probably well-sourced article. Orderinchaos 01:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable school and lack of reliable sources. Keb25 13:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nothing especially notable here. —Moondyne 14:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - having attempted to cajole the original writer of this article to provide further information - that is all he came up with - there is notability on the basis of its location and historical context - but once again knowing the school and their own attitude towards such issues - it would be unlikely that I would be able to provide the third party sources in the time that afds run - I would suggest that it seems so easy to join the N issue from the writers inability to understand basic research procedures - once again where the afd system can be used - and show little or no understanding of issues of where some articles come from. cheers SatuSuro 15:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be more than open to the article being re-created, if these third-party sources are found, but find you will not. Hell, its part of EiA - im definately into helping the page out. I think what OIC suggested is quite on the money, i was originally going to prod the article, but being a Steiner school, i thought it deserved an AfD. The school network is itself notable IMO, so maybe this could be covered in that article, when it is created. Twenty Years 15:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - would suggest following on from OIC's comment it would probably be better to have a steiner schools of WA article - it would not fall into the primary school = not N, process and would be more likely to have a few easier to find refs to cope withthe N issue - either merge up or start new SatuSuro 23:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wouldnt go quite that far. Maybe a Steiner schools in Australia article? Twenty Years 08:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 18:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect our readers to Parkerville, Western Australia, per our long established WP:REDIRECT guidelines. Burntsauce 22:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Burntsauce. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 20:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wily Wild West[edit]

School play. No reliable third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 12:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - local school production ("bought the music off i-tunes"?!) - seems pretty definitively non-notable. Robertissimo 12:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For the same reason as above. The "website" is hardly informative either - it was only created two days before this article. Y4kk 13:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Chris! _{my talk} 00:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn, a very bad article but on a decent subject, apparently. Cruftbane 19:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic anthropology[edit]

Apparently "Genetic anthropology is a new branch of scientific study" - which would qualify for a ((fact)) tag if there were any references in this article, but there aren't. I think this might be just a bit too new for us. Cruftbane 12:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of ghits at respectable institutions and science mags. The term is in use and refers to something notable. JJL 13:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep just have a look a the no1 google hit: [20]--Victor falk 13:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did you try a search before nominating? Thousands of references to this. The UCL centre that tops the list was established in 1996, so it's hardly "too new". Thomjakobsen 14:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no I didn't and I should have. I read "new branch of scientific study", speculation about something due in July 2008 and not updated, noticed that it had zero references and assumed that we would have a much better article on the same subject somewhere else. My bad, I guess. Cruftbane 18:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could always withdraw the nomination, I think that'll make for a speedy keep, you can even close the AfD yourself per WP:DPR#NAC if you want to spare admins the work. Best regards, Pete.Hurd 18:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. --Londonkal 16:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 17:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep term in use, see eg. this us .gov hgosted Human Genome Project page , the title of this article in the The American Journal of Human Genetics, and title of this 1991 article in The Economist, etc etc etc. Pete.Hurd 17:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Bacchiad 17:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Blasphemy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A website for wallpapers. Not exactly uncommon, and there are no independent sources cited. It's been kept before, last year, but is still essentially unsourced and lacking a proper assertion of notability. It also reads as a collection of information from the primary source. Cruftbane 12:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even though the article has survived for an amount of time, the site itself has been around for quite a while (as early as I can see, 1999), and I've found some mentions of it on g4tv.com, and mentions of it being one of the oldest digital wallpaper websites around. Zchris87v 14:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why are there no sources in the article? Cruftbane 15:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep being given a "Best X" award in 2001 (see external links) may give it the award criterion in WP:WEB, but I don't know if the award was well-known six years ago. At any rate, if one were to look at DB as a corporation, it has been covered by a reliable source (again, ZDNet for Yahoo) and it has been the Download of the Day on G4 as well. Will ^(talk) 17:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I just tagged the article with ((advert)). If you resolve this issue by tearing out content, there's still an asserttion of notabiltiy by being in the "top 100" by a major news article - plus there is a news report that his work was copied without attribution. --Sigma 7 03:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a very well known and popular website, notable. It's not just random collection of user created wallpaper like many sites - it's all by one very prolific artist who charges for his work - and many people pay willingly. The article does deserver the ad tag however, so submitting for cleanup seems the best course of action. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 18:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 05:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Ashworth[edit]

An actress. Er, that's it. Created by an account whose edits are to this and to Richard Peter Ashworth - almost certainly the account is one or the other individual. Well down the billing in the few things she's been in, with the exception of one indie film which has not plot summary on IMDB. I would say that this person fails the WP:BIO notability guideline, and the article fails to credibly assert notability, also fails to cite any non-trivial independent coverage or any independent reliable source. Cruftbane 12:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - according to yahoo movie, she is one of the stars in a movie "Becoming Jane" from Mirimax films linked below. Starring in a movie from a big production company should be worth at least something, no? I do however fell that the article needs to be expanded, as it stands, it is too short. [21]Iamchrisryan 12:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Though she was billed 11th in "Becoming Jane", she contributed to the soundtrack. She was also billed second in a 2005 film called "Monsters", a possibly notable film.--Sethacus 15:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment/correction Excuse me, it was 2004 and it does appear notable.--Sethacus 16:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Second billing in an underground indie film by a director on whom we don't have an article. Not that notable, perhaps :o) Cruftbane 18:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have articles on a lot of notable people/things. Wikipedia isn't God. By your logic, if we dohave an article on a film, it's notable, n'est pas? :)By the way, if we did have an article on Robert Morgan, it would pass notability as he has been profiled by the BBC as well as he has won a number of awards, including for the film you so callously dismiss as an "underground indie film". Also, I'd like to remind those deleting solely on the basis of possible COI, that's not a very good excuse.--Sethacus 21:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough. Bacchiad 17:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But not quite notable enough for someone other than her or her immediate family to create the article... Cruftbane 18:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is one we should have an article on but there's a problem with the text as it's currently written, rewrite the text. As long as there's something worth salvaging deletion is counterproductive. Bryan Derksen 01:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suspect much as nom. If subject was notable, would article have been created by (by the looks of it) a member of her own family? Looks like a nn 'actress' to me. Marcus22 19:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable actress with minor roles (and one song). WP:COI doesn't even enter into it. --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I also think she seems notable enough. Bryan Derksen 01:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sethicus. notable (small 'n') Tiptopper 01:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable -- third billing in her most recent film -- but needs better sourcing. I found 1,000's of Ghits, but she does not interest me enough to bother going through them all to find the reviews and interviews. Possible agent bio; actors are not that smart. ;-) Bearian 20:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 05:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of books to which Stephen King has written an introduction[edit]

Writing introductions for books isn't that notable. This is very trivial and non-notable. Being a popular article doesn't justify the introductions are notable. RobJ1981 12:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. This is such a trivial list that it doesn't even deserve a category. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JJL 13:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep exactly the type of information Wikipedia should have as well as more 'serious' articles. --Martin Wisse 13:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:USEFUL Jbeach56 21:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or make into a category page, per WP:DIR Zchris87v 14:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. I don't see how this could ever be helpful in any way. Quite trivial. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, will only encourage List of Restaurants at which Stephen King Has Eaten and List of Songs to which Stephen King has Sang Along To Whilst Driving. Too trivial, and not a good idea for a category unless you support similar categories for every notable author who has written introductions. Thomjakobsen 14:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Stephen King bibliography. 96T 15:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list deals with stuff a writer has written. Trivia is not a reason to delete (it's also POV in this case). Rocket000 15:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some capacity, as this concerns one of the most prominent writers of our time (if not recent history in general), but it also could be perhaps merged, i.e. with something like: "Stephen King has written introduction in a number of his books, including x, v, and z." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, far too trivial to even be worth keeping track of on Wikipedia. Pretty loosely associated, too; nothing substantial links these books aside from this. Maybe consider merging to Stephen King bibliography, but I'd prefer to see it gone altogether personally. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People must remember that this is a "list". Vice regent 21:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So?, there are criteria for deleting lists as well. Jbeach56 21:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails multiple listings in WP:LISTCRUFT, very trivial, category will work as well. Jbeach56 21:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at best deserves a section in Stephen King bibliography (which has a number of unnecessary plot summaries). --Dhartung | Talk 21:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. King is eminently notable, the books he writes are likewise, the fact that he has written introductions for other peoples' books isn't by itself. Per Dhartung, a section in his bibliography article might be in order. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People, I think you might be going about this the wrong way. Try not to think of this as just some random popular author's list of introductions . Stephen King is, if there ever was one, an exception. If your not familiar, it would take to long to explain. You may consider it listcruft, and I think it might be if it was some other author, but isn't. I mean there's books on this. It's not trivial. It's all verifiable. It's list of notable books introduced by a definitely notable author. I don't see the issue here. Oh, and here's the last AfD Rocket000 06:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Rocket000 07:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All quite true, but that doesn't necessarily make the intersection of these two variables notable. That's what's being discussed here, rather than the notability of the man or the works involved. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crossover is far too trivial/nonnotable. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not significant enough for an article.. There is a purpose in such lists, in comprehensive bibliographies of the author, but they are not really appropriate on wikipedia. DGG (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I swore all of these stupid trivial lists were deleted months ago! And they just keep getting more and more obscure! I propose a new Wikia project to direct all these listmakers to Doc Strange 16:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE JUST WHEN I THOUGHT I'VE SEEN IT ALL. FFS. Burntsauce 22:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Articles like this are exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia excels in. You can either like that or not, but if we delete all the excellent articles on perhaps slightly trivial, but nonetheless interesting topics, not much will be left here to read. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any salvageable and noteable content into Stephen King, as the information can be better suited there, where people are more likely to search for information regarding the works of Stephen King.--WaltCip 17:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stephen King bibliography. It'll fit in at the bottom quite nicely. Artw 20:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not like these books are notable because Stephen King wrote an introduction to them. It can probably be mentioned in his bibliography at most. Spellcast 22:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These books are pretty loosely associated. The topic (Stephen King writing introductions to books) isn't notable, so why do we need a list of these books? Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Loosely associated trivia. If this is something that Wikipedia excels in, then we can and should correct that problem. RFerreira 18:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Glass-bottom boat by Deltopia. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glass bottomed boat[edit]

This article needs to be deleted as per WP:NoteCarter | Talk it up 10:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly non-encyclopedic content. There was a "Sex moves" article deleted, long about the end of January I think this year, that reminds me of this -- it got speedyed as patent nonsense (G1). Any admins wanna take that route? I've tried to find the AfD for it, but no luck. Deltopia 12:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious redirect to Glass-bottom boat. --NE2 12:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, part of a series of fictional "sex moves" someone made up one day in school. Zchris87v 14:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glass-bottom boat. Rocket000 15:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and boldly made this a redirect. A suitable version of the page before redirection is available here - [22] - and it can always be restored if someone thinks I shouldn't oughta done that... Deltopia 16:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice work, Deltopia. Bacchiad 19:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram 14:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Love You (Celine Dion song)[edit]

This song wasn't released as a single by any of the two singers. It is completly unknown for the public. None of the singers performed this song live or talked about it in interviews. This song is meaningless and there is no reason for making an article about it. Max24 11:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 14:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as listed in I Surrender's deletion discussion (seems to be written by a fan and lacks notability. Zchris87v 14:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the song's album, that doesn't seem to have been notable, unless maybe it was in the Quebec charts but there is not indication of that, and there is likely no archives in any of the radio stations province-wide mentionning that it hit its charts.--JForget 23:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Surrender[edit]

This song wasn't released as a single. It has no meaning in Celine Dion's career. There is no reason for making an article about it. Max24 11:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 14:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same author/fan creating singles about Celine Dion's non-notable songs. Zchris87v 14:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MdlCMS[edit]

Not notable Andreas ^(T) 23:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC) This is a software system that has no google entries apart from itself. The description on the website[23] is entirely in Greek. Andreas ^(T) 23:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has been translated, but the notability and conflict of interest issues are still there. Andreas ^(T) 14:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created by a single-purpose account and we can't even read the article. JamminBen 00:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks like self-promotional spam to me. Cbdorsett 14:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nox's First Studio Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nox's First Studio Album

unsourced crystalgazing article Will ^(talk) 16:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rocket000 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the rapper himself doesn't have an article so that probably means that the album will not be notable unless something big happens.--JForget 23:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball or a place to promote projects in development. -Jmh123 22:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both.. CitiCat^♫ 03:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silvano Raggio Garibaldi[edit]

Genoa CFC youth player with no professional/first team appearance. Non-notable per WP:BIO. Angelo 14:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Angelo 14:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - all three have been officially named as members of the senior team, not just the youth squad[24] (two of them with prominent squad numbers; 13 and 15). As it is a Serie A club that is notable in itself. Lamantia has also played professionally for Novara, Raggio Garibaldi has represented the Italian national team at under-18 level (which shows notablity). - Soprani 15:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Signorini and Lamantia are not cited in the Genoa roster. Secondly, WP:BIO clearly defines a notable athlete as a "Competitor who have played in a fully professional league", not a "competitor who is part of a first team squad". In the end, there is no source stating Lamantia played with Novara's first team, and we already deleted several Under-18, Under-19 and Under-20 players who failed to fulfil the basic requirement of having played in a professional first team match. --Angelo 16:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. None of them have played in a fully professional league. Number 5 7 17:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serie C1 is a professional league, that is the level Mirko Lamantia played last season. The highest non-pro Italian league is Serie D - Soprani 04:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep consensus has it that players pass notability while being first-team squad members at major clubs. This can be reviewed if they leave without playing, and don't join another notable club. ArtVandelay13 18:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two of these guys are not part of the first team at all, and the third was never featured in any of the matches as of today. --Angelo 18:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why do they have numbers? ArtVandelay13 18:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Italy, to have a shirt number does not necessarily mean to be a first team player. There is no limit for jersey numbers, so Italian teams used to assign up to 45/50 numbers, usually including many of their youth team players. For instance, Palermo assigned an official number to all of their Under-20 youth team players in their previous (2006-07) season. In fact, if you look at Genoa CFC website, they do not list Signorini and Lamantia in the first team. --Angelo 18:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most leagues don't have a limit on numbers, but giving a player #13 or #15 must mean something. ArtVandelay13 18:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely nothing, especially in a country where a keeper can play with the #10. By the way, a former Livorno youth player was recently deleted, after he was first kept mainly because of his first team jersey (it was #17, namely); he obviously did not play a single match. --Angelo 19:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Order - individual article talk consensus cannot override WP:BIO, an integral Wikipedia guideline. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~~none of the three~~neither of the two have played at the required level, never mind if they've been given squad numbers. Comment - the current "Keep" votes are whims, and do not reflect correct policy in Wikipedia. Their ages (17 or thereabouts) generally make it unlikely that they will be given games in the near future. Representing their country at full international level is the only guarantee of notability outside this. Articles, if deleted, can however be re-introduced once this has happened. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am dropping Lamantia from the list, as he appears to have made 2 appearances with Novara in the Serie C1[25]. I first nominated it as his article did not prove a source stating he actually played for that team, and the infobox did not feature the number of appearances he made. --Angelo 11:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion I don't know from football, but if the reason that they aren't notable is that they haven't played with the notable team yet, and we expect them to do so soon, why don't we move the articles into the userspace until their first games? Clearly we have an active enough football following that someone will notice when they play their first games, and then we can move them back to the main encyclopedia. Deltopia 12:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't exactly be a hardship to recreate the articles from scratch should it be required, since they only contain two sentences plus an infobox that restates the content of said two sentences.... ChrisTheDude 12:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can be easily restored by an admin once they play in the first team, so I don't really see the issue. --Angelo 12:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the suggestion, as this would set a precedent for anyone wanting to 'store' non-notable articles until such time as they become so - it could run into thousands, all nicely put away in the cupboard for later (unless, that is, the potential of the NN is not realised). Non-notable is non-notable now, and that's what we are giving our thoughts on. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? If I wanted right now, I could create 500 non-notable articles in my userspace and "store" them as you say - you cannot CSD userspace articles unless they violate one of the G deletion arguments (not the A arguments, since they aren't in the article space). ugen64 23:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the two per nom as they have not yet played in a professional league. There's no need to keep the articles in a virtual cupboard somewhere as an admin, as Angelo points out, can restore the deleted article if they should go on to play in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 02:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was fire-breathing keep. Or maybe just a regular keep. It might be time for a more centralized debate on the notability of "in popular culture" articles, since they keep coming to AFD. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla in popular culture[edit]

An unsourced trivial list of Godzilla mentions isn't a suitable article. The important mentions should be in the Godzilla article, and leave it at that. RobJ1981 11:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~delete~~ Keep Godzilla is ~~almost~~ culturally significant enough to overcome my objections, ~~but not quite~~ based on discussion here. JJL 13:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - the usual directory of non-associated items. The momentary presence of Godzilla or the appearance of a clip from a Godzilla movie in the background of a TV show or the mention of the word "Godzilla" in a book or TV show or song does not mean that there is any relationship between the items in which the mention appears. "Someone said 'Godzilla'" is not a theme. Otto4711 13:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep items are associated, and godzilla related popular culture is transnationally significant and notable. this is not about having a theme, it is about having notability and a relationship. My concern is that this will be an immense list though and may need sublists.--Buridan 13:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Items are associated - what is the association between, say, the film Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead and Rob Halford's song "Made in Hell"? How are these things linked to each other other than by the inclusion of the word "Godzilla" in both, and what is your source for this association? Otto4711 14:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment obviously someone hasn't studied mereology or set theory.... to be related to one thing, to hold one thing in common, is to have an association. this is an especially strong one as it has a unity of reference, there is but one godzilla, and these all refer to it. whereas something like books of dorothy parker would be weak as both books and dorothy parker exist nominally in plurality... you see it is not the inclusion of the word 'godzilla' but the direct reference to the transnational cultural icon godzilla that matters. you are looking at them as spurious relations, like you could substitute 'dorothy parker' for 'godzilla' and still have the same meaning and list. If that were the case, then I would agree that it is an unassociated list, however, I think we both agree that doing the 'dorothy parker' to 'godzilla' switch, would not work for these and it demonstrates that there is a substantive relation.--Buridan 15:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Even if there is some association between items that just happen to include a particular word or phrase, the standard for inclusion here is that the association not be a loose one. It is monumentally unreasonable to contend that the association between the items on this list is anything other than loose. Otto4711 15:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no, not nonsense. If there is a significant difference in human understanding between the term provided (godzilla) and a random term(dorothy parker), then the relationship is also significant and likely worth noting. Here we have a clear situation where the actually thing that these disparate things are attached matters in the way that you understand the things listed. If it were not so, I would agree with you. also, claiming 'nonsense' to logic and wp:common is not a generally a good strategy. Granted I will admit some of the things on the list are likely going to be less strongly associated to the central relation, but that many of them are very strongly related is what justifies the keep, the rest are issues for cleanup.--Buridan 16:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I said "nonsense" because I thought that saying "bullshit" would be considered uncivil. But a fertilizer by any other name, I guess. For all of your talking in circles, you have yet to establish that the mere mention of a single word in a two-hour movie means that the movie is in any way meaningfully associated with a song that mentions the same word in its lyrics. The film is not about Godzilla in any meaningful way, the song is not apparently about Godzilla in any meaningful way and the association "they have the same word in them" is not meaningful. Nor have you demonstrated that someone's use of the words "Dorothy Parker" is any more or less significant than the use of the word "Godzilla." Otto4711 16:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

are there things in the list that are tied to godzilla in a meaningful way? yes. are they notable, yes. is everything as meaningful as anything else, no. see, we agree, but I don't choose strawman examples to illustrate my point. My point is clear, that the list has a solid point of association. Your position is that it doesn't, which is clearly false based on my argument. --Buridan 16:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge individual items from this list on the Godzilla page, and preserve the rest on a subpage of Talk:Godzilla for further discussion. If films such as Bambi Meets Godzilla and the Blue Öyster Cult song are worthy of articles, they also ought to be at least mentioned in the article in chief. As for the rest, they should be preserved for future discussion. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I support this idea. The new page should probably be renamed Impact of Godzilla on popular culture or something similar to stop it from turning back into listcruft, though. shoy 15:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge with Godzilla. Cut. Cleanup. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep, as even books have been written on this subject, such as IN GODZILLA'S FOOTSTEPS: Japanese Pop Culture Icons on the Global Stage written by university professor. I'll add references/external links to the article ASAP. In addition to the fact that reliable references exist and that even our website's founder thinks we "should relax and accomodate" each other with articles, this particular articles concerns a pop culture icon and the well-organized list format demonstrates the extent of Godzilla's influence. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a book on "Foo in popular culture" does not mean that a laundry list of every appearance of Foo in every everything ever is a worthwhile article. Your quote from Jimbo Wales is wildly out of context. Put another way: if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. This has nothing to do with whether or not we "wish" people wouldn't create laundry lists of passing references to things. It has to do with whether this particular article meets all relevant policies and guidelines. Your blatant appeal to authority notwithstanding, this article does not meet the relevant policy WP:NOT. Otto4711 17:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More than just one book or reference exists, though:

- - IN GODZILLA'S FOOTSTEPS: Japanese Pop Culture Icons on the Global Stage by William M. Tsutsui, Associate Professor of History at the University of Kansas
  - Godzilla on St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture by David L. Hixson
  - Godzilla - Other media
  - The Science of Godzilla on a pop culture humor website
  - Contemporary Japan and popular culture by John Whittier Treat (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1996).
  - Toho Godzilla vs TriStar Godzilla - Pop Culture Battles
  - Godzilla and Postwar Japan - "William M. Tsutsui (Univ. of Kansas) explores the role of the Godzilla film series in popular culture"
  - "J-Pop Goes The Market: In a globalized economy, comic books, toys, and other popular-culture products from Japan are no longer exotic--they're worldwide hits" by Edward M. Gomez in Duke Magazine 92.5 (September-October, 2006) - "Historically, for American consumers, the encounter with Japanese pop-culture products as we know them dates back to the post-World War II era. A major pop icon of those times whose fame crossed the Pacific was Gojira ("Godzilla" in the American market)..."
  - godzilla - "Godzilla is one of the defining aspects of Japanese popular culture for many people worldwide."
  - CFP: In Godzilla's Footsteps: Japanese Pop Culture Icons on the Global Stage (12/1/02; 10/?/04)
  - Donald Keene Center of Japanese Culture - Godzilla Conquers the Globe
  - "Gojira as Japan's First Postwar Media Event," in the book, In Godzilla's Footsteps : Japanese Pop Culture Icons on the Global Stage
  - Godzilla Blows Out 50 Birthday Candles--Incinerating Them By Katherine Moore from Columbia News - "... to a daylong symposium titled "Global Fantasies: Godzilla in World Culture. ... in earlier forms of popular representation and commercial culture in Japan. ..."
  - PopMatters Feature - Godzilla at 50: THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING GODZILLA By Steven Luc
  - Godzilla: Destroying Tokyo and my Social Life - "Further research on the subject reveals just how big of an influence Godzilla still has on global popular culture."
  - Coming soon to a conference at KU: Godzilla returns - "... addition to academic sessions featuring leading scholars in Japanese popular culture, film, literature, history and anthropology, "In Godzilla's ..."
  - East Meets West — Again - "The “Godzilla” half refers to the current fascination with Japanese pop culture..."

Also, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming the AFD doesn't change the simple fact that a bare list of times someone said "Godzilla" on TV does not get past WP:NOT#DIR. Nor is WP:NOT#PAPER a free pass for articles that do not pass relevant policies and guidelines. You know this so I have to question your repeated citing of it. Otto4711 18:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is that "spamming the AFD"? He went and did some research, which is something I'd like to see from more AFD regulars. Besides, the current state of the article is generally irrelevant. This is a clean-up situation, not a deletion situation. Zagalejo^^^ 20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some more sources which may be helpful:

Godzilla/Gojiro: Evolution of the Nuclear Metaphor. The Journal of Popular Culture 29 (3), 53–62.
Millennial Monsters: Japanese Toys and the Global Imagination. The Journal of Popular Culture 40 (3), 563–565.
Godzilla and the Japanese Nightmare: When "Them!" Is U.S. Chon Noriega Cinema Journal, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Autumn, 1987), pp. 63-77
Godzilla on My Mind: Fifty Years of the King of Monsters, by William M. Tsutsui. 2004. Zagalejo^^^ 20:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Strong subject, and I consider the arguments that "X in popular culture" articles are inherently deletable as flawed as ever. Artw 17:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is an interesting article. Needs work but notable enough. Bacchiad 17:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING is not a strong argument. Otto4711 18:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument.Bacchiad 20:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Irony is yummy.--UsaSatsui 21:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep barely notable but it is notable. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—ⁿ⁾ 18:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Godzilla has been influential on culture, but this is the run of the mill "x in popular culture" article that is composed mostly of mentions of "x" in movie and TV dialogue. It's comparable to the "Beethoven in Popular Culture" IPC article that referred to the St. Bernard movies. Mandsford 20:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ludicrous article given that Godzilla doesn't exist outside of popular culture. How on earth can one have an article about a pop. culture phenomenon's pop. cultural significance??? Infinite regress anyone? Bigdaddy1981 20:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not inconceivable. There is plenty of critical analysis about Godzilla's cultural influence and role as a Japanese icon – enough so that we could probably develop an independent fork. I do agree that the current article needs a lot of work, and maybe a new title, but that's outside the realm of AFD. Zagalejo^^^ 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is scholarly work done on Godzilla but that doesn't change the fact that Godzilla himself is a pop. culture figure. If we had an afd on an article on scholarly work on Godzilla I'd agree with your argument but to me this seems an unneeded extension - surely these things (if notable) should be in the main Godzilla article. Bigdaddy1981 23:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Zaga says, it's not inconceivable that a pop culture creation can have a separate influence on culture beyond its original appearance. Godzilla is not exactly the best example, since there have been so many Godzilla movies besides the original. On the other hand, there are some fictional works that appeared once-- for instance, "The Stepford Wives" --which became more famous in later references than they were originally. As another commentor notes below, this type of "references 'n mentions" trivia would usually be fine as part of the parent article (which I would say is true about the hypothetical Stepford Wives example). Mandsford 12:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comment about "x in popular culture" nominations: Why are these even brought to AFD? Every one of these articles could, at the very least, be trimmed and merged to another article. I don't see why we need deletion tools to deal with these pages. Zagalejo^^^ 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people just really like deleting things. Artw 23:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And some people understand that "I saw a thing in a thing" is not a basis for an encyclopedia article or section. Otto4711 17:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But some of these items are substantial enough to be mentioned somewhere. I'd be satisfied with a merge, but outright deletion just seems to be a lazy solution. Zagalejo^^^ 19:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Godzilla.. --UsaSatsui 21:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with the Godzilla article. Godzilla is by definition popular culture to begin with, so why two articles need to exist is beyond me. This kind of article is also, as I've said before, a magnet for people playing "I Spy" with appearances of the entity in question. At most, the best-sourced of these I Spy results should be in the main Godzilla article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 01:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and Zagalejo. This is definitely a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thorough rewrite and keep I usually don't agree with the "X in popular culture" lists, because they are to hard to manage and there is usually little merit in managing them anyway, but I have to agree with the "keep" votes here. Godzilla is a major pop-culture icon, and a user above has come up with more than enough verifiable sources to prove this. My suggested strategy for this article would be destroy and rebuild - there is enough material out there to make this into a real article, not just a list that will inevitably beckon inane aditions of the type: "X character in Y movie says 'Godzilla' at one point". TomorrowTime 05:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Clean, maybe merge if needed... but don't delete I like the idea of this article. It needs to be purged of a lot of things, but the theory is there. If it doesn't make the cut I'd like a chance to try and merge it in to an existing Godzilla article.--Torchwood Who? 08:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Clean. I say this not just because I created this article, but because the Godzilla article is bloated enough on its own and Godzilla's impact on culture outside of his own films is a topic worthy of discussion; as was already mentioned, many books have been written on the subject.

K00bine 10:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per ample preceedent of how the community views "in popular culture" articles [26]. This is nothing but trivia, and if you want/need to explain why Godzilla is important in popular culture, do it on the main Godzilla page, not this cruft trivia spin-off. Dannycali 20:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Godzilla has clearly shaped popular culture by an non-insignificant factor. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles examples more then show this. Fosnez 09:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Articles like this are exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia excels in. You can either like that or not, but if we delete all the excellent articles on perhaps slightly trivial, but nonetheless interesting topics, not much will be left here to read. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Godzilla disambiguous page alone lists plenty of articles on wp and there are books on the subject. The article is a list in dire need but deleting is not the help it deserves. Fix it through regular editing. Benjiboi 13:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Impact of Godzilla on popular culture and then clean up to fit that topic. The added external links added are a start, but the lists could use prosing, or at least the more important items converted to prose by way of providing context. —Quasirandom 23:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Severe rewrite, I think it needs to be written as an encyclopedic article discussing Godzilla's impact on pop culture and then have a few examples here and there. Unless there are other pages like this one for other topics in which case leave it as is. Unfortunately the only thing I have to base it on is Wookiepedia's Star Wars references page but needless to say they aren't wikipedia.--Anguirus111 02:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete kill all pop culture articles in the face. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All pop culture articles? This isn't Britannica. ;) Zagalejo^^^ 02:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real helpful SWATJester... Fosnez 02:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable subject, proper list. Article needs work. No reason to delete. Wikidemo 13:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodlettsville Church of the Nazarene, Goodlettsville, Tennessee[edit]

Non-notable church. This article has had notability and orphan tags sitting on it since May. szyslak 11:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN local church, and also OR. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is impossible to verify the contents of this article. A quick google search shows up only one hit for this subject. It also fails notability criteria as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN and unverifiable. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—ⁿ⁾ 18:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Seriously. I live in Nashville. There are something like 3,000 churches. A congregation of 400 is not in the least bit notable. Actually, it's pretty small. Smashville 19:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 06:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Towson Maimer[edit]

The article itself claims to be a rumour and although it is not a speedy deletion candidate I have nominated it for deletion Y4kk 11:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The external links given don't mention the rumour, so there's no way of telling if this urban legend is notable. Totnesmartin 11:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maim ... er, Delete. Nothing to differentiate this from any other ghost story. - Che Neuvara 18:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard this before... and so has my mother... a grad. so it's legit! im glad someone put it up here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.90.188 (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasNo consensus While I do not believe that the bit of "confusion" by the nominator is enough to abandon the AfD, I can't ignore that there isn't a clear consensus to delete this article. The suggested merge target has been deleted, so that idea won't work. Users are welcome to merge this article elsewhere (that doesn't require the AfD process).-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ket (Greyhawk)[edit]

Not to be confused with the Ket people of Siberia, this article non-notable fictional race is not backed up by independent sources, but is largely an in universe plot summary.--Gavin Collins 11:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction & fantasy deletions --Gavin Collins 11:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above, NN, no WP:RS, and absolutely no attempt to back up notability outside of the campaign/D&D. MrZaius^talk 13:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Realms of the Flanaess; otherwise keep. This article is about a political state, rather than a race or plot summary. The topic of Greyhawk iself is sufficiently notable to be retained. This is a significant detail about the setting and should be retained in some form. — RJH (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. The fact that User:Gavin.collins thinks the article is about a race shows that he hasn't read it.--Robbstrd 00:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response on 15 July 2007 Robbstrd wrote "The native folk of Ket resemble the mix of cultures that crowd the nation's marketplaces......Racially speaking, Kettites are the least typical of the Baklunish folk [27]". If this is not about a race, I don't know what is. --Gavin Collins 08:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response It is not about a race, but a region. Again your lack of understanding and ignorance is doing more damage. Web Warlock 15:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge place this in Realms of the Flanaess as per above. Web Warlock 15:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abandon and relist as elsewhere, the article doesn't meet the notability criteria as I understand them, but the nomination bears no resemblence to the nominated article. Percy Snoodle 15:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure game guide material. --Stormie 02:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abandon, default to keep for this AfD - as above, I can't in good faith support such a nomination. --Kizor 16:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tricia Yen[edit]

Article does claim that this porn actress is notable per WP:PORNBIO. No evidence found from reliable sources. The Arcade Wikipedia article says Yen appeared on their album cover, but it is unsourced and no outside sources found to confirm this I.D. • Gene93k 11:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Gene93k 11:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PORNBIO. According to IMDb, she only appeared in 35 films. The other 40-some seem to be compilations from after her retirement. Not notable in any specific niche. No awards. I couldn't find any reliable evidence for the Arcade cover, either.--Sethacus 16:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since, by the author's admission, reliable sources are unlikely to be found. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony Appleyard. - Mike Rosoft 16:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanifah Yoong Yin Fah[edit]

No claim of notability. Unverifiable bio. Keb25 10:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CITE. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 10:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with speedy delete. So tagged. —David Eppstein 15:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 05:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persona_4[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Persona 4

There is absolutely no proof of Atlus ever mentioning anything about another Persona game being developed. The rumors all started from Magic Box, which is not a reliable source for this kind of information. I believe the article should be removed until Atlus makes an official statement, otherwise the Persona 4 article serves no purpose as its purely based on rumors. Haruyasha 10:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Haruyasha. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—ⁿ⁾ 18:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned in 2005 that Atlus was working on an SMT game for the PS3, but that is the last bit of concrete information. I hardly consider Shane Bettenhausen spouting off a MagicBox rumour as any sort of confirmation. How soon can this article be purged?

Delete per DjSyndrome 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I don't care either way. All I did was clean the article up. --Serph 23:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 rename. Eluchil404 05:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La Rochville university[edit]

Unable to verify this entity exists at all. No GHits except for WP and mirrors; article contains absolutely no sources for claims ranging from 6,000 students to the participation of world leaders in its cornerstone-laying. Claims affiliation with SUNY Concord, an apparently non-existent campus of the New York State University system. Name is a variation on known diploma mill Rochville University. Robertissimo 09:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 10:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS. No reliable sources. Keb25 11:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep need to Google the French name to find Universite de la Rochelle (also found as University de la Rochelle) [28]. JJL 13:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Universite de la Rochelle. GlassCobra (Review) 16:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so American high schools are notable but a French university is not. Christ how stupid. Bigdaddy1981 20:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move / Redirect to Universite de la Rochelle. The contents of this AfD are proof enough that the wrong name is currently being used. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment concur with name change. JJL 22:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep/rename- not a hoax, merely translation error.JJJ999 11:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Make that a speedy keep...JJJ999 05:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Espresso Addict 16:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information and Computer Technology Society[edit]

Non-notable club, filled with vanity pics, user has deleted prod and db templates with no attempt to make any claims of notability. Blowdart 08:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Robertissimo 09:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Non-notable vanity club. Keb25 10:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing admin: If the article is deleted, please delete all related images [29] uploaded by the creator of the article. Keb25 10:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: There's also an infobox created at Template:Infobox_ICTS *boggle* --Blowdart 10:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student club in a single university department. It is probably not a good idea to use the term vanity, butthere is certainly no indication of particular notability. DGG (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Fails WP:ORG, unless some source comes up to prove otherwise. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete- but only if the subject does not demonstrate notability, I'd accept a reasonable bar, maybe 300 plus members per year and an impressive alumni as a starting point.JJJ999 02:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The authors-- Robeonline and 124.104.66.196-- have tried to remove the afd template six times. Keb25 22:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus, almost WP:SNOW. Bearian 21:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mental prayer[edit]

Non-notable religious fancruft. Seems to be a synthesis of very POV ideas on a non-notable topic, impossible to verify or make neutral.SpongebobSchwammkopf 06:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep should be fairly easy to verify (and NPOVise), just needs a rewrite by a non-Catholic - or a catholic who understands NPOV. Totnesmartin 12:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep mostly because no attempts have been made to engage any other processes prior to nomination (e.g. the entry talk page has not been used yet by anyone). In fact unless some off wiki communication was had the entry creator (and it seems pretty much sole editor) hasn't even been notified of this AfD. I do think its possible that if something is salvaged from this entry it will probably also have to be renamed.PelleSmith 17:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs a lot of NPOV work. But notable. Bacchiad 18:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite per WP:NPOV ILovePlankton⁽^L^—ⁿ⁾ 18:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, longstanding terminology with plenty of references; and nominator needs to reconsider WP:CIVIL. --Dhartung | Talk 22:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes certainly, but it does need to be re-written. This is the noms fourt or fifth edit. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Please be civil or someone might "courtesy blank" this discussion. And I'd hate to see that happen. Burntsauce 22:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slow reading[edit]

Original research by User:Johnmiedema. It is a copy and paste from his own blog, and 2 of the references quoted are from his own blog posts. Another reference is from something alegedly written by Nietzsche, but this article really has little to do with it. The last reference is from a single news editorial and has little to do with this article again, besides its title. Here is a copy of his references:

[30] - His blog.
[31]Slow Reading Lists (and the meaning of Slow Reading). Some stuff by Nietzshe, not peer reviewed, it's just a preface from a novel I think.
[32] The news article.
[33] Another blog entry of his.

Althena 07:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Also violates WP:POV A^RendedWinter 08:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I can only see this being notable as part of the Slow movement article, guiven that there's only one decent source. Will also need a POV-purge. Totnesmartin 12:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Neitzsche quote is, in fact, relevant. It adds context. As one person in this debates says the quote is alleged, that can be fixed by a simple citation.

If it would be better to include slow reading as a part of the "slow" lifestyle article, so be it, but as far as I know it is much better to have more information than less. Slow reading as a learning style is being researched by educators even as we speak, and I imagine that it would be a good idea to add research to this page, rather than delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittent (talk • contribs) 13:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC) — Kittent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I do think some revisions are in order, and I appreciate the feedback. Few notes:

Re: content - My intended content changes include: more scholarly research on the subject, better integration with the Slow movement literature, comparison to related concepts such as close reading, and contrast with others such as speed reading.

Re:references - I think the Nietzsche quote is a very appropriate historical reference. It is widely cited on the web, and often used as search keywords to find my blog on the subject. I intend to keep that reference. - Re: news editorial, Waters is Executive Humanities Editor at Harvard University Press, and wrote a very good article on the subject. Unfortunately, her article is no longer available on the open web. I think this link should be kept as a reference to that article. User:Johnmiedema — Johnmiedema (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Merge to Slow movement per Totnesmartin. GlassCobra (Review) 16:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Merge. I am undertaking edits to the article to more clearly articulate the dual origins of Slow reading. The concept traditionally comes from the study of philosophy and literature, long before the Slow movement. The Slow movement has revitalized interest. Merging with just the Slow movement would eclipse the traditional origin. Please look for revisions to the entry in the next couple of weeks. User:Johnmiedema 8:59, 2 October 2007 (EST)

Please see extensive revisions to the current article. Major changes include: complete re-write from objective POV, section on related terms, discussion of dual origin in philosophy/literature and slow movement, annotation of research and related materials from multiple independent sources. I believe this answers all the original concerns. Please indicate if anything further is required to take the entry off the deleted list. Regards, John User:Johnmiedema 16:30, 4 October 2007 (EST)

Keep - I nominated this for deletion because of the reasons listed above (original research). However I think that now it might stand on its own and thanks to the new sources, the re-write, and now it does look like a more notable topic than just original research from a blog. Althena 06:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Jones (editor)[edit]

This article was tagged as unsourced over a year ago and has not been sourced. It asserts that the subject is a "prominent" music journalist but it contains no links to biographical coverage to substantiate that claim. The only links are to the publication he edits and to the blog he writes. Cruftbane 06:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hugely influential editor/journalist/author. I'll add some sources. ((unreferenced)) would have done just fine here. --Dhartung | Talk 08:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You think? It hasn't had any effect in over a year so far (it was so tagged in August 2006). Cruftbane 08:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dhartung. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—ⁿ⁾ 19:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable per WP:HEY. Bearian 21:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I do however strongly recommend that this be combined with the article about Opposition to war with with Iran and give the combined article some NPOV title (like Support and Opposition to the War with Iran). JoshuaZ 14:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support for war against Iran[edit]

The page is a hopeless case of US-centric views and can never be npov. It was a candidate for speedy deletion a while ago but was not deleted. The article is more or less a case of wp:soap. Anything of value can be merged to the article United States-Iran relations. Jayran 06:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear NPOV. Plus which, it's got the wrong name -- if this article must be, it should be titled Causes for war between US and Iran (or something similarly more specific). Deltopia 12:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support reflects the grievances that could cause the war. Causes as a title would violate WP:CRYSTAL. The article is about support for the war from the media and politicians today.--Southern Texas 21:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NPOV, and as stated above the information in this article is better placed in a more general article on US-Iran relations. --Martin Wisse 14:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-POV; agree with nom that anything of value should be incorporated into United States-Iran relations. GlassCobra (Review) 16:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable public opinion subject, and the article is sourced. If someone thinks the article is POV, please add alternative views described in reliable sources. If one can not add sourced alternative views, this is not POV.Biophys 16:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and sourced. May need some NPOV work. Bacchiad 18:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is sourced. I don't really see how its POV since alternate views can be found at Opposition to war against Iran. The article is about support for war against Iran.--Southern Texas 19:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The chief problem of this article is that serves as little more than a reiteration of certain segments of the US government and some of neo-con segments in the American political scene. Anything that this article has can easily be encapsulated in United States-Iran relations - this article functions as little more than a pov-fork and wp:soap - both of which are not good things for Wikipedia. Jayran 20:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. —Jayran 20:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how. I don't see anything in it that is opinionated in any way. You may disagree with what the politicians and some in the media are saying but that does not mean that it shouldn't be on wikipedia when it is based on fact. The fact is that some support a military attack on Iran and its wikipedia's job to present this fact.--Southern Texas 20:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly bollocks, as it entirely consists of quotes from politicians taken out of context, with no consideration of anything else they might have said. 199.71.183.2 21:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The anon user is correct, for instance, here is a quote from the source for Hillary Clinton - "Clinton, who's running far ahead in New Hampshire polls, Obama who's second and Edwards third, also agreed on Iranian nuclear weapons, but none threatened war." She says that all options will be considered can hardly be construed as a case for supporting a war against Iran. The authors of the article try to defuse the appearance that this is little more than a soapbox by forcing Clinton in to the article. I would like to see a case for why any relevant info from this article, if any, can't be folded in to the already existent article on US relations with Iran. This article besides being a case of pov and wp:soap, is also a case of wp:syn. Jayran 03:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the only problem is the quote with Clinton then I'll remove it. I didn't even add it in the first place. It would not be practical to merge it into the already huge Iran-American relations page since this page is a very specific article about Support for military action against Iran. This isn't even about relations between Iran and the United States but sentiments that support military actions against Iran. Do you contest that these sentiments exist? That would really be the only reason to delete the article. I still haven't gotten an explanation of how this is POV.--Southern Texas 03:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOV, the sources are just opinions, which violates WP:RS Jbeach56 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't give a good explanation. How are the sources just opinions, explain this. Some sources include NBC and the New York Times.--Southern Texas 21:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename as current name cannot comply with NPOV. It is a POV fork of "Attitudes / Opposition to war against Iran". Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with the name? Do you dispute the fact that some support war against Iran? You make no sense and you are not being rational.--Southern Texas 21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Opposition to military action against Iran. Classic WP:POVFORK. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this: WP:POVFORK#Articles whose subject is a POV--Southern Texas 22:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That argument could, if desired, be applied to any POV fork. The case in point is less like the case of Creationism/Evolution (where "schools of thought" have developed that hold opposing views based on different theories, models or belief systems) and more like Level of support for evolution which documents opinions, on one quite specific issue, which may be held for any reason. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other other appropriate points of view

All the above guidelines have been met. This article is giving information about a point of view that supports military action against Iran just as Opposition to military action against Iran gives information about a point of view that opposes military action. The article must not be merged since it is not about US-Iran relations but support among people in the United States and Europe. I ask that the nomination be withdrawn on grounds that the article follows policy as has been demonstrated.--Southern Texas 19:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should actually read the examples of acceptable examples of pov based articles. This article is nowhere near those examples. Despite your claims that this can't be deleted and merged with the relevant articles doesn't make an ounce of sense. US-Iran Relations could easily mention that US politicians have been sabre-rattling. Just about any media source, especially ones from outside the US - like Le Monde, the BBC, or the Guardian, will take this in to account in their stories about relations between Iran and the US. The UN resolution article could mention that there is, under certain circumstances, a willingess to go war among some citizens in the West. The article does suffer from wp:syn and povfork. It is an effort to disregard the other side by claiming that is like the creationism/evolution debate. Jayran 20:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to delete. Would you also like to delete the opposition page? The fact is that this exists and I really don't see your point in trying to censor this fact. You can go and make claims that this article "suffer[s] from wp:syn and povfork" but you don't cite how. All guidelines are followed this article will stand despite your efforts to censor it remember Wikipedia is not censored. Please follow Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you.--Southern Texas 20:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of always referencing idontlikeit, actually look at the page for United States-Iran Relations, Nuclear program of Iran, and the UN resolution page. They all have sections dealing with what is discussd in this page and with better context. There is a lengthy section in the US-Iran article on the US attitude, sabre-rattling, and attitude towards a war with Iran or such movement towards one. It mentions relevant politicans, public support, and posturing by various factions in the US political establishment. It provides a wider context versus this disparate collection of views from various figures in the US political scence and that one poll of Europeans that really says nothing. This isn't censorship but an effort to achieve NPOV and avoiding such problems as povforks and wp:syn. Jayran 19:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is in other places then the information can be added to this article and make it easier to see all the information in one place. I now understand why you feel it would be best to delete the article but I would disagree and point out that the article can be expanded and wikified. If we have all this similar information spread all over different articles it would harder for a user to understand the support for military action and harder to go more in depth. A separate article for "Opposition" made it easier for readers to understand the issue and users were also able to go much more in depth about the subject. The need for this article is just about information distribution and organization. The subject matter of the article is POV but the information is presented neutrally, opposing views are linked and therefore it cannot be cited as a POV fork. Just give it time to expand and let the article grow.--Southern Texas 22:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article doesn't even define what it means by "war". Discussion of this outside the scope of U.S.-Iran relations and general policy considerations is meaningless. Wasted Time R 00:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOV (especially the pov-fork section) Chris! _{my talk} 00:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No real reasons for deletion have been given other than that people just don't like what the article is talking about. Sorry but these are the facts. Absolutely no "POV" has been pointed out and if you actually read the article you see there is absolutely no bias but just a presentation of the facts.--Southern Texas 01:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I renamed the article Support for military action against Iran, maybe this is a more appropriate name for the article.--Southern Texas 01:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't noticed, most users here agree that this is an article that falls under wp:soap, wp:syn, and wp:povfork. It does as there are numerous relevant articles where anything of value here can be merged in to. Why on Earth this US-centric article can't be folded in to United States-Iran relations or United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 hasn't been explained. The article takes comments from US politicians and runs with it in such a way that is misleading for people reading the article. WP:POVFORK states "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion." This article inherently fails at this test. Jayran 14:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was already explained above but I guess I will explain it again, "This isn't even about relations between Iran and the United States but sentiments that support military actions against Iran. Do you contest that these sentiments exist?" Since when is it wrong to have an article that talks about sentiment from the Media and Politicians supporting an action, along with polls from the United States and Europe. The article is about "Support" if one wants to read about "Opposition" they can find the appropriate page. The article is fact and would inappropriate to delete or merge per the reasoning I stated above.--Southern Texas 20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if people want to read about opposition they can find the appropriate page. Isn't that the definition of a POV fork? A neutral name needs to be found if the article is to comply with NPOV. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not trying to convince people of a point. It is giving information about those who support a point. The article gives information about a movement to support military action just as the other article gives information about a movement to oppose military action. The movement exists and people must be aware of it.--Southern Texas 22:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you don't like the title of the article, then place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I've learned this the hard way. Burntsauce 22:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't help but agree with Burntsauce. If you dislike the title, then why don't you just put a request on the requested move page?? Anyway, the page needs a damn good cleanup. Davnel03 16:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando De la Flor[edit]

Non-notable actor whose only appeared in one episode of one television show. Possibly speediable as A7. Sasha Callahan 05:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete utterly unnotable. Looks like he's too recent for WP. Totnesmartin 12:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - even if he was notable, which I don't think he is, there would at least need to be an article to keep. There is nothing here. Iamchrisryan 12:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actor without content. Maybe speedy under A3 or A7. Carlosguitar 03:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jewel Aich. Non-admin closure. GlassCobra (Review) 16:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewel Eich[edit]

The "Banglapedia" article cited is the single Google hit for this name, or for the last name combined with words like "magic", "magician", etc. If he's internationally famous as claimed, the name would show up somewhere but it doesn't even appear in English-language sites in Bangladesh. Accounting4Taste 05:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non notable, no reliable sources, possible hoax. --Oxymoron⁸³ 05:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your input. I figured out what the problem is. I've spelt the name as Banglapedia has - "Eich". But an alternative spelling is "Aich". Wikipedia already has an article on him (as Jewel Aich). I was not aware of this when I created the article. Anyway, sorry for for the confusion. Please proceed to deletion and arrange to redirect a search for "Jewel Eich" to "Jewel Aich"- as I don't know how to do this. Thanks. --Thinking-ape.

Hi Thinking-ape, thanks for your comment. I will redirect your article for you. Totnesmartin 12:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blades of Thunder II. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Hawks 2[edit]

Game doesnt seem to exist, it has been "released" for a year and i can not find infomation on any sites about this game Salavat 03:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blades of Thunder II they're the same game. ChrisLamb 04:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If thats true then, i support redirect. Salavat 05:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect According to IGN and other game guides, they are the same game. --Hdt83 ^Chat 05:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless you can Google or Yahoo something on this game. Otherwise I'll just have to deem it OR. --Gp75motorsports 14:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge Per ChrisLamb. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—ⁿ⁾ 18:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed ghits. Besides, it also fails WP:CORP as it doesn't exist.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 20:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overtime (TV series)[edit]

An unnotable biography program (or Biography clone) about league players produced by the NBA using archive footage and airing on the league's cable network. One reference to the show can be found on the NBA TV site and is a copy-vio of the content on the page. Otherwise no others can be found. Nate 04:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable show. Keb25 05:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It may not be as notable as, say, Sportscenter or even NFL Films, but it's a show on a nationally-seen network, involving a nationally-known league, and that's notable enough. -- azumanga 14:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 03:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I know a bit about the NBA, and frankly any show of it is probably large enough to justify a page.JJJ999 11:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not keep as a copyvio from the site. Secret 14:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio? Evidence? Can't it be fixed?JJJ999 00:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See the link to the NBA TV site above, it's word for word. All other results for Google under "nba overtime" lead to sites dealing with game overtimes. Nate 01:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - surely this can just be rewritten to not be copyvio...JJJ999 02:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JoshuaZ 14:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob cuba[edit]

Not a notable band. Google results show nothing notable; just some non-reliable sources that don't prove notability. — i ^said 01:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable to me. Did a Google Search myself and found more than enough notable websites. -Domthedude001 02:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you think you have good references there, please put them on the page so we can see them. When I followed your link, I saw a lot of monkey-spank. MarkBul 04:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey-spank? What'd the poor monkey do? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The text of the article confirms that the band's work does not establish it as notable. Unless several sources are found and added to justify notability under the general guidelines, this needs to be deleted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable band. Keb25 05:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having a song used in a t.v. show is within the Wikipedia criteria for notability, though it would not be enough in and of itself for the band to have it's own article. However, References to sources such as NME clearly indicate the band has been well documented by other major media. The article could use better citations to those sources, but that is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Dead-Air 05:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Album of the week choice by a major UK newspaper (The Sun), song used in a TV programme, seems as though they have toured the UK, multiple reliable sources given. That's WP:BAND's criteria #1, #10 and possibly #4. Bondegezou 14:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 03:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. His own website is listed as a reference, and then as an external link. The band is produced under their own label as well, which further hurts their case for notability in my opinion. Also, most google hits are coming from self produced sources like myspace, indiestore, and youtube. Self-publication and blogging doesn't make for notability Iamchrisryan 12:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear case of WP:SPAM and WP:AUTO. See contribs. - Che Neuvara 18:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JoshuaZ 14:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Lennon Artificial Intelligence Project[edit]

The article describes (in too-glowing terms) a chatterbot that was (is?) little more than a celebrity-themed ELIZA: just another non-notable Web toy. (For context, see Triumph PC's page about their other "Persona-Bots", and try out "Saucy Jacky", their Jack-the-Ripper-themed nonsense chatterbot.) Delete as non-notable and possibly no-longer-existent. --Quuxplusone 03:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of chatterbots or Delete. Essentially non-notable, although there are lots of lazy bloggers who think it's witty to go there, have a conversation and transcribe it into their blog. Not more than one reputable arm's-length third party source found (I think the Austin link on their site is a kind of blog too). I think the whole thing can go under the entry at List of chatterbots. Accounting4Taste 04:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I added a feature from the Evening Standard (a major London newspaper), and the other article from the Austin Chronicle isn't a blog, that's multiple non-trivial independent sources, so this passes notability guidelines. Masaruemoto 05:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP- notable, links prove that, especially in light of the subject. Maybe some editing, but it seems worthy of a page unto itself.JJJ999 08:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of chatterbots or Delete. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but the official site doesn't allow visitors to converse with the chatterbot, right? I'm not saying it's a hoax, of course, but it seems awkward to have an article on a non-notable software program where the only evidence of its existence is a few lines of transcript from a couple of newspaper columns. AI programs in particular attract inflated claims; see the article on Racter for a historical example. If we remove all the unverifiable stuff from the JLAIP article, is anything left? Compare to Triumph PC's Saucy Jacky,[34] which is equally non-notable, does verifiably exist, is verifiably not much of a chatterbot, and (rightly) has no Wikipedia article. --Quuxplusone 04:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The link was incorrect, it took me 10 seconds to fix it. Please familiarize yourself with WP:N and WP:WEB before continuing to claim this is "non-notable" as there are three articles from reliable sources about this project. Also, everything in this article is verifiable, so there is nothing to remove. By Wikipedia standards it is clearly notable. (I notice you added a "citation needed" tag to a statement which has been easily verifiable since January by looking at the Austin Chronicle reference. Such tags are for unsourced claims only). Masaruemoto 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with List of chatterbots. Absolutely trivial Doc Strange 16:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; There are three reliable published works which confirm the notability of this project. I don't believe the people suggesting "delete" understand the notability requirements, which state, The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. No reason to merge either, it is a short article but it can be expanded, and I am trying to find the comments Yoko Ono made about this project in an interview several years ago, which would add more notability. Masaruemoto 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 has been listed for 19 days with only 4 relevant comments outside of the nom. Of course it would have been great if there was a lot of discussion and a clearer consensus. But what is clear is that there isn't a pull to delete this article, and that it has been on AfD for a long time. I'm boldly closing instead of relisting. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliation Quebec[edit]

AfDs for this article:

procedural nomination Previously considered at AFD and Deleted; current content is substantially different from originally deleted content, but remains concerned with the same topic and was subjected to PROD nomination for deletion. PROD nominator states: "This entry was already deleted August 9, 2003 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affiliation Quebec. Subsequent registration as a political party is not confirmed in any secondary source (including the website of the Director General of Elections of Quebec." If someone can track down the 2003 AFD, that would be helpful to reference here. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- That should say "August 9, 2007", not "2003"., i.e., last month. If you click on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affiliation Quebec you can see the discussion.Galteglise 20:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have searched and also cannot find any sources to show they have obtained the 100 signatures required to register as a political party. Without evidence they have registered I cannot see anything to revisit the previous decision. The press coverage of the launch seems too temporary to really establish notability. Davewild 18:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since the 1st AfD (which was very contentious and should've resulted in a "no consensus"), there have been new secondary reliable sources writing about this entity. [35] [36]. --Oakshade 03:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 03:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but only if someone can ind a source. DGG (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is two months an acceptably long period between AfDs? I thought it was three months. In a case of recentism, [37] shows it's been in the news recently. 132.205.44.5 21:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 15:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endosomatophilia[edit]

An unverifiable neologism that has no assertion of notability. What this subject is not:

A term recognized or used in any medical, academic, psycological, psychiatric or literary field or work.
Verifiable, no reliable source has ever been found on "Endosomatophilia"
Notable, no reason or claim has ever been put forward why this is a notable subject.
Encyclopedic, with no reliable sources or any assertion of relavence to anything this is a dicdef on the level of the Urban dictionary.

This is one of several terms created by a memeber of a fetish internet forum to describe a shared fantasy of some of the members of the discussion board. It's not a real term and this article has been created already once (along with Unbirth and Vorarephilia) by members of their respective internet community in an effort to advertise and legitimize their sexual fetish. This article was already created once and deleted with a Prod. Unbirth was redirected to Vorarephilia the frequent target of soapboxing by the aformentioned internet fetish community. NeoFreak 16:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' I recognize the difficulty of sourcing in this area, but I remain unconvinced that this one has any actual use.DGG (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC). See below for my changed !vote. DGG (talk)[reply]

If weirdness were a cause for deletion Wikipedia would not exist.

Endosomatophilia has become a widely used term on the internet and on IRC (see a Google search). It will not just go away as a term. It deserves a definition that explains its presence as a commonly used term -- by giving the present meaning of its usage.

It is definitely not a pleasant term -- to most people. In a similar sense, atonality in music is not pleasant -- to most people, but deserves (and has) a definition.

Further, because some commonly used term is not a fantasy of mine or yours -- it is not sufficient reason to debase or censor any one of the many thousands of "internet communities".

I am not an ACLU attorney, but am trying to stand up for freedom of speech. In that regard Wikipedia has a fine reputation... up till now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.180.52 (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I recommend you take a look at Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and its policy on original research. Our guidlines on neologisms and reliable sources would no doubt be of help as well. It would behove you to understand what wikipedia is and is not before you add any additional insights. NeoFreak 08:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you NeoFreak, I had already looked at those categories and compared many other terms supported by Wikipedia to the exact same criteria for Endosomatophilia... and found this term as being less a neologism, more reliable, and as well documented as those that are indeed included.

I tried to overlook your misspelling above, as we all make mistakes. I hope your mindset is flexible, as so many people have minds that are closed and stenotic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 03:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are provided for verification to expand this beyond a dictionary definition.-Wafulz 03:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 03:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete the term "Endosomatophilia" has never been used in the Journal of Sex Research, Archives of Sexual Behavior, Contemporary Sexuality, The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, Studies in Gender and Sexuality (or a few other sexology journals I searched). It also generates zero hits in a search of the ISI World of Science. This term is totally unknown to the field of sexology, let alone the broader fields of psychology and medicine, it's a neologism. Pete.Hurd 03:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable, neologism. Keb25 03:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Pete.Hurd is perfectly correct--this is not an academic subject. But possibly there is material elsewhere.DGG (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC) I see a mention in the article on "Unbirth" in Wikifur ; following the links there a little seems to give the impression that this is in fact not very prominent. But whatever can be imagined, someone will find of sexual interest. DGG (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment omd! It has a brief mention in 'wikifur'- that's clearly WP:RS and this should be given featured article status.:) Not serious:) For those who have contributed to this article- you might also like to contribute to a wiki started solely for fetish subjects here, [38] I expect there are some other ones online too. They won't have the same rules for reliable sources, annd words used on messageboards etc might be more acceptable for an article to them.Merkinsmum 10:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave that reference as a lead, not as a RS for a keep. It helps to have some information about how its used to decide & in case someone wants to work on it. I don't really have the least interest or even willingness to explore the necessary sources. DGG (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YEet you want it kept on the off chance that someone else might be inclined to follow an unreliable source and then might be able to find a verifiable fact for what has so far proven to be a made up word for a sub-genre of a sub-section of a nearly unheard of internet born fetish? Come to think of it I'm not sure that this article meets a single criteria for inclusion at all. Can you think of a single redeeming feature of this article besides the vauge idea that this is an area that is "hard to source"? Wouldn't that be a reason not to keep it?NeoFreak 17:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverifiable. Recury 18:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vore is verifiable. Unbirth is verifiable. The tow concepts might even be related. This, however, is not verifiable. humblefool ® 19:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Short of actual, existing examples of secondary source citation, this seems to be a clear violation of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY --ApolloRPL 20:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable neologism - almost meets CSD requirements G4 and A7...James Sugrono_{Contributions} 07:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No shit, Sherlock[edit]

Unsourced for ages, already transwikied to Wiktionary. Verifiability issues. Wafulz 03:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete-per CSD a5 ChrisLamb 04:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page after page of Ghits for blogs, but nothing authoritative and no single source into which it could be merged (at least, none that dates back to when I remember the phrase being used verbally, long before the sources cited). If it's at Wiktionary, that would seem to be enough. Accounting4Taste 04:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under A5 - all verifiable info has been transwikied, and it is extremely unlikely any more encyclopedic content could be added. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - as per above reasons mentioned A5. Iamchrisryan 12:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no shit... ORLY. Lugnuts 15:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and informative. Has potential to grow. Bacchiad 18:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic, already on wikitionary. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—ⁿ⁾ 18:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. Articles like this make me wish the definition of patent nonsense could be expanded.--UsaSatsui 21:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, sherlock. Burntsauce 22:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 unsalvageable advertising.-Wafulz 03:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wycheproof races[edit]

Violates WP:POV, reads like an advert Tiptoety 02:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete as non-notable blatant advertising. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete nonsensical Wychenproofcruft. --Tomgoestocollege 02:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. Wychenproofcruft indeed. Mystache 03:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. JJL 03:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 20:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posterity of Heaven[edit]

This article, which claims that the Koreans are considered offsprings of Heaven, contains original research. It references only two sources, neither of which seems particularly credible. I concede that Korean mythology does contain some people who came down from the heaven, but then that is also true for many cultures around the world. Hence, this does not warrant a separate article in Wikipedia. Moreover, it is patently false that "[t]he Koreans usually believe that their countries are the nation by the Posterity of Heaven." Consider that Christianity and Buddhism are two most popular religions in Korea. Yongjik 02:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see anything wrong with the article, which at least in the intro states that it's talking about ancient Korean religion (i.e., native Korean religion, not Buddhism or Christianity). More sources would be nice, yes. I also see that this article and Gaecheonjeol have had some questionable material on Korean "beliefs" added by User:Drpepper000. If it's only Drpepper000's edits you object to, have you tried comparing the current page with previous versions and reverting to a cleaner copy if you find one? --Quuxplusone 03:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:Drpepper000 created the article. If "Posterity of Heaven" is a legitimate concept in native Korean traditions, then I would hate to see this deleted; but I'm having trouble sorting through the facts here. Ichormosquito 04:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article was solely created and edited by Drpepper000, with only two relatively minor edits by User:Visviva. Yongjik 05:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. —PC78 07:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What's the problem with it? Notable. Sourced enough. Bacchiad 18:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete but without prejudice. "Sourced enough"? Only two sources, both of which are offline and in a foreign language and the names of which aren't available to anyone who doesn't have foreign alphabets installed. Sourcing is dubious at best. "posterity of heaven" korean -wikipedia returns exactly seven hits -- one of which is a broken link and the rest of which are Wikipedia mirrors or rips. If this can be verified by a single reliable and accessible source, I will change my vote, but otherwise this seems to be a clear candidate for deletion per WP:V. - Che Neuvara 18:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD needs an expert. Ichormosquito 02:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as notable per WP:MUSIC. Bearian 21:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misery (Australian band)[edit]

Not notable Nanabozho 02:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Detailed, well-written, but ultimately without any definite claim of notability or any sources to back up such a claim. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete Non-notable australiacruft. --Tomgoestocollege 02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Australiacruft? I love it. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 09:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the disclosure that I am not objective, and that it's a complicated situation with the Misery (band) (Based in Minneapolis, MN, US.) article also being recently deleted. I was involved with defending that article and lost. I guess you should pretty much ignore my vote. However, I looked at the standards, and this article, and while I disagree with the standards, and that's perhaps a discussion for another day, I believe the standards call for a deletion. Nanabozho 03:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you disagree, why encourage this type of action?
Keep. Verifiable by recourse to an independent third party source, which is considered reliable and reputable within the Australian heavy metal music subculture.[39] That's all the notability guideline requires. Hesperian 04:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hesperian - Satu Suro 05:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verified. Notable. What exactly are you looking for? Sources? OK, but that's not a reason to delete, that's reason to add some. Rocket000 07:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:MUSIC criterion 7, as per Hesp. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 09:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How can you avoid Hesperian? Twenty Years 11:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - without verifiable sources, this aticle should be deleted, unless good sources are found. How are we even supposed to know if the discography is real or made up without any sources. All I could find on google were self published sites like myspace... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamchrisryan (talk • contribs) 12:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hesperian, who found one source - others are offline. Orderinchaos 13:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Bad faith nom. This is just to prove a point. GlassCobra (Review) 13:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No reason to delete. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—ⁿ⁾ 18:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would urge voters to please assume good faith when giving reasons for votes. - Che Neuvara 18:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not an "assumption": he has admitted it. Hesperian 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would call the nomination misguided, to say the least, but I think the wording of the message replicated below indicates that this user nominated this article for what he believes are legitimate reasons. That's part of AGF: accepting that, even if something seems far-fetched, it is not necessarily mal-intentioned. - Che Nuevara 00:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've just read this user's blog. I'm redacting my previous comments. - Che Nuevara 00:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and not just because I wrote the article. The original deletion nomination is frivilous: Here's the message left by the nominator on my talk page:
"I have nominated the article, Misery (Australian band) for deletion from Wikipedia. You can access the process by visiting the article. I have done this not because I am deletionist or a senior writer for Wikipedia, or because I believe in destroying your work, as some do at Wikipedia.

I am doing it for a variety of reasons:

To learn how the deletion process works.

As a reaction to the recent deletion of the Misery (band) article. (Based in Minneapolis, MN., US.) I admit this difficult to defend reason but offer up my wish to learn about the internal problems of Wikipedia by responding to the Minneapolis band’s deletion by attempting to delete the Australian band.

As an attempt to review Wikipedia’s deletion policy as it relates to alternative and all bands.

I am blogging on this situation. The blog is accessible through my user page.

Thank you for editing Wikipedia. Nanabozho 02:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)"))[reply]

Articles should not be deleted just to prove a point. The band released four albums and existed for 15 years; unfortunately most of any reference material is offline and can't be linked but the discography is definitely not invented. --BrianFG 00:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::coming upon this by chance, i have warned the editor mentioned that this constitutes disruption. 14:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. They seem notable enough within the Australian heavy metal scene for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Adequate sources and notability to meet WP:Music. A1octopus 22:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Johnson Plaza[edit]

Non-notable, and Wikipedia is not a directory or a travel guide. --Darkwind (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Stubs have guidelines too and this clearly does not meet them. Subject is not notable, and isn't even pretending to be. - Rjd0060 01:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - fails WP:NOTE. per nom, and per Rjd0060. Tiptoety 02:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No claim of notability. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. --Tomgoestocollege 02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article is a directory entry with no assertion or evidence of notability. It's a hotel/motel in a cluster of them. • Gene93k 03:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'm wondering why it was necessary to add that it has "Air Conditioning". Is that notable in Maine? Accounting4Taste 04:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And even if Wikipedia was a directory, there doesn't seem to be any place to merge this into the entry for Howard Johnson's. Accounting4Taste 04:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and NN, you could expand it if you tried. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—ⁿ⁾ 17:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT#TRAVEL and WP:NOT#DIR. Also fails WP:N. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 19:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE as insufficiently notable per Wikipedia:Notability (music). Satori Son 20:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably Abysmal[edit]

Album for a band that doesn't even have its own article. Doesn't seem to be notable. SeizureDog 05:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete google:Old+Pharmacy+Studios = No hits. google:Regrettably+Abysmal+album = No (reliable) hits, although I did find the cached version of the band's article, which was deleted under CSD A7. google:Nobody's+Heroes+band = A whole bunch of hits, but none that are reliable or establish notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Making Music Magazine, Sept. 1993 Fusion magazine, June 1993 - However, both sources are reproduced. It's a EP not an album.↑ Rocket000 08:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable. There isn't even an article here, this would have trouble being classified as a stub. No references. Iamchrisryan 12:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Hersfold, it fails WP:MUSIC. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—ⁿ⁾ 17:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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