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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A1 by Reedy Boy (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 20:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Become a porn star[edit]

Become a porn star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I was unsure if this article would qualify for speedy deletion, but It's clearly non-encyclopaedic. It's a "how to" guide. BelovedFreak 20:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Blatant advertising trying to pass itself off as an encyclopedia article. The only purpose seems to be the placement of external links to a commercial website. Cosmo0 20:23, 13 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 05:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howden Church Of England Infant School[edit]

Howden Church Of England Infant School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Well, I tried prod tagging, and was reverted. I tried redirecting, and was reverted. I've speedy-delete tagged other schools, been reverted and told schools can't be speedied execpt for copyvio. Here is a very short page on what Americans call a pre-school, utterly non-notable. As I have stated elsewhere, there are on the order of 1,000,000 elementary schools in the world. Sorry to clog up AfD with this one also. SolidPlaid 19:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note/Comment - I didnt get round to replying to you regarding the change to redirect. The way you did it - ie just change it, then didnt mark the talk page for speedy deletion. There was then circular redirects - Howden pointed to Howden Church Of England Infant School... Which is pointless. Reedy Boy 20:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn and wpnot:nfo, wikipedia is not the yellow pages. --Victor falk 00:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 03:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Victor falk. Stifle (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless something really significant appears. DGG (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:41, 14 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International broadcasts of Criminal Minds[edit]

International broadcasts of Criminal Minds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Blatantly fails WP:DIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not an Electronic program guide. Per MoS style guideline, avoid statements that will date quickly. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Closer broadcasters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International broadcasters for 24 (TV series), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Smallville broadcasters and home video releases. -- Wikipedical 19:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 19:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DIRECTORY. At most, the list of countries (and maybe the dates) should be moved to the main Criminal Minds page to illustrate the wide international appeal of the programme. Cosmo0 22:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. The existence of an article isn't what fails WP:DIRECTORY, its the content. Broadcasting history is different than providing current TV listings. -- Wikipedical 01:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research. Stifle (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and extensive precedent. Otto4711 12:54, 15 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 delete as A7, G4, G11... Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C. evan sackett[edit]

C. evan sackett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not seem to be notable. The only external link is to VisualCircle, which is "maintained and designed by Evan Sackett". Google search returned matches, but not the same person. Rjd0060 19:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - "Due to Sackett's low amount of publicity" just screams WP:COI to me. This article seems to be only written to promote him and his works and does not explain his historical significance or influence in art. → Hot Dog Wolf 19:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no independent reliable sources available to demonstarte notability. The article "C. Evan Sackett" has been deleted before under AFD and speedily deleted. (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evan_Sackett). --BelovedFreak 20:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per (WP:NOTABILITY). Self-published author who, in the words of the article itself "is not yet very popular", is "virtually unknown to the literary world" and has a "low amount of publicity". Several pages on this subject have previously been deleted (Evan sackett,Evan Sackett 3x), as admitted in the article. Cosmo0 20:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 22:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. To wit: "[h]e is so unknown that Wikipedia, itself, has rejected numerous articles posted about him on the grounds that he isn't "notable enough." Give him credit for creativity. He's notable for being unnotable! If that's a new criterion, I'm starting an article on myself. Freshacconci | Talk 23:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So being so unnotable is in itself notable. That would be something, wouldn't it? Nice comment, gave me a laugh. - Rjd0060 00:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Doesn't this qualify under CSD G4 as a recreation of a previous deleted article? Whether or not it does, I also suggest salting the space when it is deleted. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would agree that salting may help, but each time the page was created, there were slight variations to the name, so it may be pointless. - Rjd0060 01:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've rarely seen an article offer up its own deletion opinion like that... Speedy delete and salt, for what it's worth. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:40, 14 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 Nonsense or G7 or A7 or something. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LazyTown 2.0[edit]

LazyTown 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a hoax article. There are no references, no mention of the new show on lazytown.com, and no google matches for 'Lazytown 2.0' other than a YTMND link. Stephanie/Sportacus sex is a popular troll meme, so this quacks like a hoax in every reasonable regard. CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a blatant hoax, consisting of nothing more than fanon at best, and should be deleted immediately. --HamatoKameko 19:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Additionally, this user has vandalized LazyTown-related articles in this fashion repeatedly, and should be dealt with accordingly. -HamatoKameko 19:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G5, article was created by a banner user. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Danny Daniel. Creator is a known hoaxer. Admins can check the users deleted history, at least three articles were created this weekend and deleted under the same criterion. Yngvar 19:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: It was tagged for A7, but I changed it to g5. - Rjd0060 21:35, 13 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 12:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic X: Curse of Raven Radix[edit]

Hoax article that was created and speedied four times on October 1. Now the indef-blocked creator is back with a slightly different user name, doing it again. Can we get a salt on the article and a block on this new incarnation of the user, please? See also the AfDs for other hoaxes by the user, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scooby-Doo 3: Return of Monsters and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Green. Deor 18:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, hoax created by indef-blocked creator who I have just reblocked as an obvious sockpuppet. --Coredesat 18:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nobody likes hoaxes. --Nehwyn 19:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per deletion log, obvious hoax/vandalism. - Rjd0060 19:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree it should be salted. - Rjd0060 02:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt-per nom TonyBallioni 22:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mmm, hoaxalicious! Now with extra salt, hopefully. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:46, 14 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. Being married to someone notble or having written two regional history books of unclear notability is not a valid notability claim. Also, the article has no reliable sources except for one regarding her marriage. MaxSem 06:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marion van de Wetering[edit]

Marion van de Wetering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is completely unsourced. A google search doesn't come up with any noteworthy information about this person, beyond the fact that her 2 books are actually for sale. Atlan (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: And tag for sources. - Rjd0060 19:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sign of notability, and having a notable husband and uncle doesn't provide it. Citation tags have been added in the past, without being addressed; prod tag was removed by an anon. I can't even find a single review of either of her books online, so they can't be very notable. Deor 19:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I didn't look into it but by the nom's comment, it seems he can assert that she actually has published books which are for sale. - Rjd0060 19:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that her books are for sale, but she doesn't meet the standards of WP:BIO, which requires that there be multiple, independent, reliable sources about her. I was just pointing out that she can't be considered notable as the author of two books that themselves lack notability. Deor 19:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can write a book and put it up for sale. That in itself does not make one notable.--Atlan (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Her books were published by a major Canadian publisher, Dundurn. If people can't research a bio, they should try harder rather than just kill the entry. If Wikipedia is simply all about what's on Google, why shouldn't people just use Google?209.217.75.209 22:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is not inherited. Thus, neither the publisher her books were released under, nor her being the neice of a notable person, make her notable. Kesh 23:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• MergeDelete While I can't agree with the description of Dundurn as a major Canadian publisher (van de Wetering was published under their Hounslow imprint), I will say that they publish some very fine and significant books. That said, whether the subject is self-published, published by Dundurn, or published by Random House is of no consequence as the article makes no assertion of notability. In short, it provides no indication that van de Wetering has "been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", as called for in WP:BIO. If no such references can be found, I suggest that much of the information be added to the article on her husband Mark Bourrie. Victoriagirl 23:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bourrie article already says that she's a law student and names the books she wrote (although the publication dates in the two articles don't match). What additional information do you think needs to be included there? Deor 23:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apologies, I hadn't bothered rereading the Bourrie article when making the suggestion. I've adjusted my previous comment accordingly. Victoriagirl 23:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Uncertain The book on Ottawa is held by 22 libraries, on Kingston by 13, in World Cat. This includes does not indicate much in the way of notability. Is there any information about sales? about reviews? In these absence of something notable about the books, the mere existence doesn't make for notability. I am a little startled the article has been around so long without such information. 19:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Correction WorldCat does not include Canadian public libraries (unlike for the US) , though it does include academic ones. checking directly, the Kingston public library has 6 copies of the book on it, none of Ottawa. Ottawa has 13 copies of the one on it, and 1 of the Kingston. Toronto p.l. has several copies of each. The 2 medium sized public libraries in Ottawa checked (Kitchener & London) do not seem to have either. Going further afield in some very large public libraries, Winnipeg has a copy of the Ottawa book, Calgary has both. There is a Canadian Union Catalog,[9] but it does not in practice seem to include most public library holdings. I conclude the books are of mainly local interest. I would still like to see some reviews cited, or some sales figures. That might make the difference DGG (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not famous, but certainly notable to a certain regional audience. Dominic J. Solntseff 21:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)— Dominic J. Solntseff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete as the only reference is about her marriage to someone notable. Bearian 20:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, her notability comes from her books. There is some serious sexism happening on this page among people who keep referencing back to her husband or believe her identity should be buried in his by merging the entry.Dominic J. Solntseff 19:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF. It's not sexism on my part, but her books are non-notable, and she has no other cited source of notability. -- Kesh 20:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not to you. But you might ask why Wikipedia has so many pages on minor punk bands and so few on authors. Books that you haven't read may, in fact, be notable and quite important to others. Dominic J. Solntseff 23:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first point is irrelevant. If your second point were true, we'd have verifiable sources of that notability. None have been produced. -- Kesh 23:26, 20 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 per A1 and A3 as the article is only an infobox, and was created by a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user. --Coredesat 18:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby-Doo 3: Return of Monsters[edit]

Scooby-Doo 3: Return of Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A rumoured film that cannot be substantiated -- the film's reputed stars have announced they're not doing it (in 2004) -- the links lead to a completely different movie -- does not meet the WP:MOVIE requirements since I cannot substantiate this is even in production. Accounting4Taste 17:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CBALL. Fails WP:V. Additionally, aside from an infobox, there's no content. --Dhartung | Talk 18:23, 13 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 00:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator etiquette[edit]

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

Rather sweet in a way. Reminds me of Victorian etiquette books. But totally unencyclopedic surely? I did suggest a move to Wikibooks but the author disagrees. -- RHaworth 17:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, even for behaviour in an elevator. Plus, it's unsourced; such an article could only be appropriate if it was a sourced study of typical behaviour in elevators. Nyttend 17:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is somewhat quaint, I agree. But as above, not suitable for Wikipedia and unsourced. Trebor 17:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Prescriptive and unencyclopedic essay. I would second your suggestion for a transwiki to Wikibooks, but the content seems to be largely cribbed without attribution from elevatorrules.com, thus WP:COPYVIO. --Dhartung | Talk 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Vgranucci 19:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:HOWTO. Shame - it made me smile - but as Nyttend says, it's inherently unverifiable. Encyclopaedia articles describe what is, not one person's opinion on what should be. Cosmo0 22:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yikes, fascism comes to riding an elevator. Polite is a matter of opinion; I like the idea of not holding an elevator door open for someone approaching unless there's a "consensus" of the riders. Consensus here is that this article ain't gonna catch the car. Mandsford 00:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - definitely how-to material and unencyclopedic. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwikify This is a nice essay based apparently on the author's personal observation and expressing a definite point of view. It is prescriptive, where an encyclopedia should be descriptive. Transwikify it. There could be an encyclopedic article on elevator etiquette, but this isn't it. Please stand clear of the closing AfD... --Ssbohio 15:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some content was found on a humor page at St. Olaf College & on ElevatorRules.com (as previously mentioned). Placed a ((db-copyvio)) tag on the article. --Ssbohio 23:57, 17 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 05:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triskelion (sport)[edit]

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

Article gives no reliable sources, and a Google search revealed no other reliable sources. Nyttend 17:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up on the soccer field one day when you have too many people (or whatever). --Dhartung | Talk 18:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Is there any evidence that anyone has ever actually played this game? The inventor doesn't seem to make any such claim. If not, it's just non-notable fiction. Cosmo0 22:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sources, questionable notability, possible hoax. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 14 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 Merged and redirected to Seelie Court (Dungeons & Dragons). What happens to that page after this is unclear. CitiCat ^♫ 03:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emmantiensien[edit]

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

Contested prod for a single sentence article about a fictional god. I am also nominating the following article for the same reason:

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

These articles have no content, context, analysis or secondary sources to demonstrate sufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia.--Gavin Collins 17:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is there an appropriate article about gods in D&D that these can be merged into? I agree with Gavin that they probably don't warrant their own article, but I'm not familiar enough with D&D articles to know where these might be merged rather than just deleted. Rray 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & fantasy deletions. --Gavin Collins 17:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both into Seelie Court (Dungeons & Dragons).--Robbstrd 18:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Redirect These don't warrent seperate articles. Sources need to be added, and links to the Scottish mythos they are based on, but that can be done with an article cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turlo Lomon (talk • contribs) 19:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Robbstrd & Redirect per Turlo Lomon. BOZ 21:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Following a prod, I attempted a redirect earlier today to List of Greyhawk deities and was reverted on it. Then the prod was removed, and hence the AfD. <shrug> No skin off my back. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As fair warning, I would suspect that Seelie Court (Dungeons & Dragons) has the same notability problems that this article has. --Craw-daddy | T | —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:27, 13 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 00:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Dominion[edit]

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

New article about an alleged secret society, to which religious intolerance and clashes with notable secret societies are attributed. Complete lack of sources, which are of course particularly important in this context. Prod deleted by author. Nehwyn 17:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Well, if they're secret, there will be no sources. Likewise, if they're secret, they surely don't want their secret blasted out all over the internet! Yngvar 17:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then the Skull and Bones and Bavarian Illuminati must be pretty mad at us - their articles do have sources after all. A friendly FNORD to anyone listening in!  ;-) --Nehwyn 17:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete yet, all I'm asking is for some time to get "more Valuble" information. I do think it's shitty that you guys want to delete an article on something that you guys didn't have any information on beforehand. But I tried TXguy2608 17:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment comes from the article author, of course. Articles on Wikipedia must meet minimum quality criteria, including citing reliable sources, which are absent in this case. Can you provide any verifiable source that this alleged secret society indeed exists, and that it is in any way notable? --Nehwyn 18:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do got a source who is the guy who first told me and showed me proff of this societies exsistance. I will give you hsi name in e-mail personaly if he agress to it. That's why I said please give me a day to get in touch with him. I'm sure he wouldn't mind speaking with you. I just don't want to throw his name on a public website without his permission do to privacy. --TXguy2608 18:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you shouldn't make his details public, but that's not the point - even if you did, that would be your own research into the matter, and not an acceptable source on Wikipedia. Please, do take time to read the WP:RS page! --Nehwyn 18:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the info I got is my own research and even if i got some other sources it would still be my own research. I've tried finding information on the internet and even with local Police Departments. So far nothing other than the info I've already got on these guys, I'm sorry I couldn't live up to your sites extream standards and I do apologize if I'm coming across as rude to you it's not my intentions. But like you I to was skeptical when I was first told about them because I'd never heard of it before. However I've seen the proof and will add what i know about them in my book. I use this site all the time when looking up information and since i saw that it was not on here I decided that I could finally contribute something but seems thats not the case. My source is a man who's sister was a member of this organization back in the 1990's before she died in a car acident in 2000, He showed me a ring that apparently they all wear along with some cloths that they suposevly use in some kind of ritual. --TXguy2608 18:22, 13 October 2007

I see your point, but really, Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for original research; we only accept secondary sources. If you want to expose these people on the web, create your own blog (it's easy to do today). Feel free to recreate the article if you do discover verifiable sources, or if your book gets published (that would make it an acceptable source under Wikipedia policies). In the meantime, you can still contribute to Wikipedia by making edits to other subjects of your interest - I'm sure you'll find plenty. --Nehwyn 18:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The author admits it's original research so no reason to keep the article.--Atlan (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete OR per author. Kesh 23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete for a lack of notability and verifiability. Also seems to be OR-y too. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR and completely lacking (and never likely to include, from the soudns of it) reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, admitted OR. Stifle (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Surprised this was not deleted as per CSD or as made up nonsense. Phgao 08:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that all I was trying to do is contribute to thsi site. But seeing as how I've been treated by staff and other members I've lost some respect for this place. I'm sorry and not trying to start a fight but this ordeal could have been handled better than it was. Thats all I've got to say TXguy2608 1:00, 15 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TXguy2608 (talk • contribs)

We do believe you were in good faith, and appreciate your will to contribute. Unfortunately, the verifiability requirements cannot be waived, and if you post original research, it will always be handled in this way - a deletion process. Should your articles meet the quality criteria, feel free to post them again! (In the meantime, please remember to sign your comments using four tildes!) --Nehwyn 05:39, 15 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 12:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Green[edit]

This is a complete hoax -- IMDB gives no citation for this individual, let alone her claimed appearance in any of the films or imaginary television programs or claimed awards. Accounting4Taste 17:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Yes, it seems to be a complete hoax. I can't find any reference for a "North Pole Elementary" TV series either, although a real school of that name does exists - even more suspicious. --Nehwyn 17:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this non-person before she becomes a former child actress hooked on drugs, which would be sad. --Dhartung | Talk 18:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The user has been making several fake articles and was blocked over this, but is now back for more. -- RattleMan 18:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, blatant hoax, creator has been blocked. Possibly speedy this since it was created by a sock of a blocked user. --Coredesat 18:53, 13 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 05:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

José Raeiro[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Of the two possible claims to notability, I can't find anything to show any significant contributions to either the OLPC project or astronomy. Pak21 17:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. No obvious claim to WP:N either. --Dhartung | Talk 18:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 22:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, can't see him meeting WP:BIO, chatty tone, possible autobiography. Stifle (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Currently still a graduate student. No published papers, no RSs. The involvement with the OLPC project might be notable, though, if there were any evidence for it. DGG (talk) 00:02, 15 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 05:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoBug[edit]

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

Non notable program, part of the walled garden created by Jorgon, probably the developer of said programs. J Milburn 16:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No attribution of notability to credible independent sources. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dhartung. The article does not assert notability. meshach 00:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless citations from reliable sources are provided to comply with verifiability. Stifle (talk) 17:55, 14 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 05:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoLink[edit]

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

Non notable linking program, and a rather spammy article. Google shows some first party sources, some unreliable sources, some trivial sources and some unrelated sources. In fact, everything apart from reliable sources. J Milburn 16:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just noticed that this was written by the same apparently single purpose account that wrote the recently deleted GoAsm, with a username similar to the developer of said programs. As such, I am also suggesting there is a conflict of interest. J Milburn 16:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No attribution of notability to credible independent sources. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of citations from reliable sources to establish verifiability. Stifle (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above - violates WP:CORP, WP:WEB, and WP:RS. Bearian 00:13, 17 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 05:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goive[edit]

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

Spam Cheesemaniam 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No attribution of notability to credible independent sources. Fails WP:WEB. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possibly merging some content into Notions (Winchester College)) - Much as I would like "goive" (either the word or the website) to be considered notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, I don't think this point has been reached yet.Gingekerr 19:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete just 68 hits when searching Google for goive + proxy. None meet our requirements for WP:WEB and WP:RS. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unattributed and non-notable website. Carlosguitar 21:54, 13 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. GRBerry 02:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoRC (resource compiler)[edit]

GoRC (resource compiler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Spammy article created as part of a walled garden of related pages by Jorgon, who has a similar username to the name of the developer of these programs. J Milburn 16:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No attribution of notability to credible independent sources. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems to be a non-notable software. I failed to find WP:RS for it. Carlosguitar 21:59, 13 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 noted by a large part of the users here, all the given references (news articles) are basically reworks of Mensa dispatches regarding the subject; in addition, the subject is an evident example of what is described in WP:BLP1E and is therefore non-notable yet. --Angelo 01:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Brown (child prodigy)[edit]

Georgia Brown (child prodigy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Recreation of a previously deleted page on a 3 year old child prodigy. Subject has not distinguished herself in any field and her only claim to fame is a high score on an IQ test, and even this is not unusual: American Mensa, for instance, has 1300 child members (there aren't only 30 worldwide in Mensa, as claimed in the article). Mensa does not usually use any members as "poster children" for the organization and does not actively publicize "youngest members ever," so these arguments (presented in the original AfD) are also invalid as a claim for inclusion.

Additional comments: While the article provides citations, the references noted rehash the same press release from Mensa-UK, and do not provide any unique information on the subject--most repeat the same interviews word for word. Googling does not provide any further evidence of notability. Miss Brown has not even received significant attention within Mensa, outside of her own national group, and has not been included in the Mensa International Journal. DanielEng 16:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Merely being smart is WP:NN.--Evb-wiki 17:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — read WP:NN#General_notability_guideline before you cite it, will you guys/gals? The child has received sufficient independent media coverage to satisfy both WP:NN and WP:V. --Agüeybaná 17:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that the subject was in the news does not mean she is notable, as per WP:NOT#NEWS: Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news. What "historical notability" does this child have right now? She is already noted on the Mensa International page as being the second youngest member, which is fine, but she hasn't done anything in her own right to warrant an article. DanielEng 17:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<WP:IAR> Well, I happen to think anyone at Mensa under the age of 4 is notable enough to have an article here. </WP:IAR> They should really ban deletionists here... --Agüeybaná 17:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, WP:IAR? encourages WP:CIV rather than circumvents it. --Evb-wiki 17:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How was my comment uncivil? --Agüeybaná 17:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption that an editor is a deletionist. And the proposal to ban deletionists. IMO. --Evb-wiki 17:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're the one forgetting to AGF here. 1.) I don't really think calling someone a deletionist is an insult 2.) I did not allude to any specific editor 3.) Deletionism hurts Wikipedia 4.) I was joking (yes, I know; my sense of humor is atrocious) :-) --Agüeybaná 17:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Joining Mensa isn't an accomplishment, though (and I say this as a member of Mensa myself). It means you scored high enough on an IQ test to meet the cutoff and you can afford the yearly membership fee. There are literally hundreds of thousands of kids, if not millions in the world, under the age of 4 who would meet that criteria, and it is not anything notable in itself. I'd add that no other Mensa groups besides Mensa-UK do anything at all to publicize their younger members, and that this particular child was not even considered notable enough to make it into the Mensa International journal or receive attention from any other Mensa group. DanielEng 18:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is very well written and referenced. You may also notice that there are two other language versions of the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "references" all just news items which repeat the same content from an interview with a psychologist and the Mensa press release over and over again. The writing of the article is not in debate here. DanielEng 20:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What does that mean? Then why are you trying to delete it? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe Daniel is stating that the quality of the writing is not in question, the historical notability of the subject and the application of WP:NOT#NEWS is in question. --Evb-wiki 03:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you Evb-wiki: that is exactly what I meant. Someone put a lot of time into that article and I agree that it's well-written, but that does not mean the subject is appropriate or notable enough to be included in Wiki. It's not about the quality of the work, but about whether it belongs on this particular website. DanielEng 04:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Adequate notability and references. Colonel Warden 20:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete From child prodigy: A child prodigy is an individual who masters one or more skills or arts at an early age. One generally accepted heuristic for identifying prodigies is: a prodigy is someone who, usually around the age of twelve, displays expert proficiency or a profound grasp of the fundamentals in a field usually undertaken only by adults. — She doesn't satisfy these criteria so the crux of the article is flawed; as far as I can tell, her claims to fame are along the lines of: Being able to crawl and walk early (has this got anything to do with intellect?), being able to draw a perfect circle (a sign of insanity), and using the words 'mean' and 'arrogant'. I was expecting to read a list of all the mathematical theorems she had solved ad nauseam, the most nauseous thing about this girl is her revolting parents. Ca woodcock 23:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Non-notable child, press releases are not reliable sources, possible WP:BLP1E issues Kesh 23:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Mozart was a child prodigy. Miss Brown is merely a toddler who reportedly got a high score on a test, and who someone has seen fit to enter into an organization for which 2% of the people in the world qualify, which would be a select group of about 120,000,000 people. Not even the youngest Mensa member. Edison 02:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Classic case of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. Crazysuit 02:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My nephew who at the age of 4 could sing all 16 Aussie Rules club songs, could name all players simply by asking him their jersey number, rattle off stats like you wouldn't believe, etc doesn't have a page, so neither should this one. If thats not a good reason, perhaps WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E will work. --Russavia 09:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete-Notability is not temporary, will this little kid be notable in 30 years,probably not, speedy because it is recreation of previously deleted material. TonyBallioni 16:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems notable enough to me. Stifle (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The absolute IQ given is I think correctly stated as the highest 1 in 500, which means there are millions of people with the same or higher. That is not enough for notability. Any notability would depend on the early identification of the value, and that seems like a very marginal basis for inclusion. 21:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's true, the IQ given is high, but it's also a very run-of-the-mill gifted score. A 152 IQ is absolutely nowhere near the profoundly gifted or genius level, and on some IQ charts, is the first category after "above average." DanielEng 22:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, because article is referenced and asserts notability in first paragraph. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that asserting notability is only good for avoiding a speedy deletion. Unless notability can actually be shown through verifiable sources, assertion is of no consequence. -- Kesh 17:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The BBC is not a verifiable source? Damn those sneaky Brits, I'm canceling my subscription. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See WP:NOT#NEWS. Just because there was a one-time article on the BBC and other articles repeating the same information in other news outlet, as a curiosity or human interest story, does not mean she warrants a Wiki page. DanielEng 18:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The article makes a rather clear and strong claim of notability, all backed up by ample reliable and verifiable sources. No matter how much people stamp their feet and shout to the heavens, the claim of notability based on achievement and age is undeniable, and the sources are unimpeachable. You don't need a 152 IQ to see that this article clearly satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 18:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clear violation of WP:BLP1E. She is only known for being smart, no other claim of notabilty, one article in the BBC doesn't claim notabilty. Jbeach56 01:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please read the article as well as the discussion, the article has 7 references. Here in the discussion we are chatting about the BBC. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And all 7 references simply regurgitate, sometimes word for word, the same information as the BBC article and press release. They aren't unique.DanielEng 02:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NN#General_notability_guideline: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works." --Evb-wiki 02:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am sorry, per Jbeach56. Bearian 01:16, 16 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. GRBerry 02:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RadASM[edit]

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

Non notable computer program. There seem to be a good few mentions online, but none of them are reliable sources, as far as I can see. J Milburn 16:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Virtually no context of this NN program. - Rjd0060 19:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - advert, no references, no context. Stifle (talk) 18:00, 14 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christians in entertainment and media[edit]

List of Christians in entertainment and media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am submitting this page for your consideration per WP:NOT, wikipedia is not a directory. In particular, for consistency with the section on "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations." For this page I see no "clear grounds for deeming [this] cross-categorization (as compared to similar others) to be suitable content." Note that there is already a Category:Christians by occupation to cover such weakly-related correlations. So a reluctant delete. — RJH (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. WP:NOT#INFO. --Evb-wiki 17:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm against all articles like this because it baisicly exists for no other reason then to segregate people based on faith alone. Deathawk 21:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Wikipedia is not a directory TonyBallioni 22:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Essentially unsourced, but the bigger problem is the criteria for inclusion. Is it limited to people like Willard Scott or Gavin MacLeod who speak about their faith in Christ without being asked? Is it more inclusive of people who professed to going to church in a Christian denomination? Regularly received communion or got saved? If it's a matter of a person using their celebrity status to promote the interests of being a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, etc, I can see where that would be relevant, in the same sense that a list of vegetarians or Habitat for Humanity volunteers would be relevant. If it's simply that they went to a church, synagogue, mosque, reading room, etc., I would agree with Deathawk that that's segregation Mandsford 01:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, another nn intersection of categories. Stifle (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not good list material (not a directory, unmaintainable), definitional problems per Mansford. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete not reluctant at all. Bulldog123 04:04, 16 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. W.marsh 03:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivo Heuberger[edit]

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

Autobiography of a low-level pro tennis player now marketing sports goods. WP:NN, WP:SPAM. Evb-wiki 16:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: NN, spammy autobio. - Rjd0060 19:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Represented Switzerland in the Davis Cup [10].Nick mallory 23:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nick Mallory. The article's in a dreadful state, and hopefully someone will improve it out of sight, but the man played at the highest possible level. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but needs improvement per WP:BLP. Bearian 01:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have rewritten it as best I can. Fosnez 10:27, 16 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. A non-notable topic, and nobody has been able to provide evidence to the contrary. If some of the very well-researched background information from this article is required to merge into another article (such as Minsi Trails Council or to start an article on Pocono Summit, contact me via my talk page and I will userfy the article. Neil ☎ 09:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Minsi[edit]

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

A scout camp. There are no independent sources which cover this camp. There is such a thing as a notable scout camp - I have been to one, Gilwell Park. But this is just... a scout camp. Cruftbane 16:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merge - It is a good article with a lot of history in it. Though the camp may not be particularly notable, there is a lot of interesting history behind the history of the camp. It also has a neutral POV, so it isn't an advertisement for the camp. It also doesn't meet any category in Wikipedia's Deletion Policy. Mike6271 16:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just because something is interesting does not make it notable. As you said the camp is not notable if the history is notable then it should have a seperate article to itself not be lumped together with a non-notable scout camp TonyBallioni 16:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if we merge the camp information into Minsi Trails Council, but create a separate article with the history of the geographic area? Mike6271 19:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The debate of merging the article has already been discussed here and the conclusion was that the articles' importance and notability to stand independently has already been established. MinsiPatches 20:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment before forming an opinion: Delete - If the scout camp is not notable, it does not deserve an article. If most of the interesting stuff happened centuries before the opening of the scout camp (and before the foundation of the Boy Scouts themselves), then one should convert it into an article about that geographical area or, if such an article already exists, merge the material in that article. --Goochelaar 16:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article is full of weasel words about the "proud traditions" of the camp, which makes it read like an advert. While the history section is interesting and well-written, it has zero citations. It also doesn't need the dozen scout badge images (aren't those designs copyrighted to the BSA anyway?). Delete as non-notable, and adcruft. Kesh 23:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the badges are not copyrighted, owned, designed or even made by the BSA national; they are the property of the camp but have been released into the public domain by the camp. MinsiPatches 20:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - This article is an important component of the WikiProject Pennsylvania and WikiProject Scouting. The decision to create the article was carefully considered, and it was previously agreed that the article strongly merited stand-alone status. That continues to be the case. Some reworking to remove any "weasel words" and to add cititations (or citaiton needed tags) should be done to improve the article. But it should not be deleted. There are many independent sources that cover the camp, included several print sources, books, and other publications on the history and current state of Pennsylvania and Scouting. The subject's notablity has already been established; and it does not meet any category in Wikipedia's Deletion Policy. CampMinsi 04:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think there might be a conflict of interest here. While you have the right to participate in the discussion it should be noted that out of your roughly 220 contributions all but nine have been related to Camp Minsi in some way and that your username is the same as the articles TonyBallioni 16:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Any claim to notability happened before the camp was formed and has no relation whatsoever to this camp TonyBallioni 16:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Amazingly detailed but still of questionabe notability. Furthermore, there do not appear to be any references to verify the article. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The article has been deemed a notable and important article as part of WikiProject PA and WikiProject Scouting -- it is just as notable as many of the other individual camps or schools or parks that have their own articles. If references are needed to verify the article add ((fact)) tags to indicate what exactly needs citing. If things are POV or read like an advert, reword them (or remove them). If "too much" of the article focus on the pre-camp history of the land, clean it up. The article may not be to the "perfect" Wiki writing standards right now, but it should be improved and fixed rather than deleted due to its few current faults. It is a notable subject matter and just as important and notable as other subjects, camps, schools, parks and locations with their articles' existence being supported by the Wiki community. MinsiPatches 20:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC) — MinsiPatches (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment Please do not engage in votestacking by sending a mass message only to people who support the notability of this article (as is seen in your contributions) TonyBallioni 20:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • If this is the case, please show us what shows the camp's notability. Because it is not apparent in the article. -- Kesh 20:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks for notifying me about this discussion. --evrik ^(talk) 19:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A good case for projects not having total autonomy. The article is mostly about the history of the general area before it became a scout camp, and the material on the camp is purely routine. No assertion of more than local importance in the Bethlehem Pa. area. As for adding reference tags, every paragraph in the article needs one. But they still wouldn't show importance. DGG (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is notable and passes the google test. As to the merge, under the guidleines set forth at Wikipedia:Notability - Non-commercial organizations, it merits its own page. I also doubt the objectivity of the nominator (whose name gives away his bias). --evrik ^(talk) 19:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)::[reply]

• Comment How does it pass any of the standards Wikipedia:Notability - Non-commercial organizations? Also it is important to note that you were recruited to comment on this page by MinsiPatches TonyBallioni 19:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment First, I think the article need a lot of work, but the authors have clearly put some effort into it. It could also use some referencing and some copyediting. That being said … there is sufficient information here to make the article notable, though not all the information in the article needs to be there.

Wikipedia:Notability - Non-commercial organizations talks about how "Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. If the parent article grows to the point where it may be split to a new article, and notability can be demonstrated using the general notability guideline, then it can be split. This should occur as a top down process."

The Minsi Trails Council article would be cluttered with the introduction of the information from the camp. Rather than deleting this article, it should be heavily copyedited so that it presents the facts and not sound like a brochure. --evrik ^(talk) 20:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Minsi Trails Council article has all the information that Camp Minsi should have if we deleted all the history that has nothing to do with the scout camp(the history might be notable in a separate article of its own, but should not be stuck with a scout camp whose only connection is geographic area.) After the irrelevant history section is taken out of the picture it is clear that this article is not notable and could easily fit within the Minsi Trails Council if anything more than what is there now is needed. TonyBallioni 20:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment The history does not have nothing to do with the scout camp - it has everything to do with the camp. Many of the buildings in the camp are from the lumber and ice industries. The cabins of the 1700-1800s have been used for camping and other programs since the camp opened. The events and culture of the Native Americans, Sullivan, the area hunters, lumberers and icers are a large and central part of the camp's culture, program and facilities. Campers visit the Indian burial sites, the march the path of Sullivan, they visit the remote cabins of the area hunters, visitors explore the extensive ruins and facilities from the ice industry -- the camp embraces and brings the history to life in its programs and activities. The history of the land is a huge part of what the camp is and what they focus on - and anyone who has gone to the camp would say the same. CampMinsi 23:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I find the history of the local area to be the most interesting part of the article - though it needs to be sourced. --evrik ^(talk) 20:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As I mentioned yesterday interesting is not the same as notable. Yes the history might be interesting and might be notable in another article. This does not mean that the camp is notable and the notability of the camp is what is at issue here. TonyBallioni 20:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's notable, and it's interesting. You keep saying, "interesting is not notable." WP:INTERESTING is just an essay. Could you please cite some policy here?" If you can't you are expressing your opinion, and that is not policy. --evrik ^(talk) 21:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:ONLYESSAY (also an essay) nowhere in the notability policy is the word interesting mentioned TonyBallioni 22:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article may have some faults (which should be fixed rather than deleting the whole thing), but I truly think the subject is notable. It is as notable as any other individual camp and any individual high school. I think the subject is worthy of encyclopedic coverage (if fact, Camp Minsi has been given coverage in two printed encyclopedias that I know of), although the current coverage here could use some help to be brought up to Wikipedia's standard. I think tagging the article to be cleaned up and improved (and then improving it) would be better than tagging it for deletion (and tossing the whole subject out). CampMinsi 23:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that schools and camps are note inherently notable themselves. How does this article meet our guideline? -- Kesh 01:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject - including (that I know of) two printed encyclopedias, 3 books on history of the Poconos, at least 1 popular guidebook to the Pocono Mountains, many newspapers, several national Scouting publications, many websites, and other sources. The article might not be well sourced right now, but it is a notable topic. CampMinsi 02:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Squamate 05:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Note User was recruited to contribute to this discussion by MinsiPatches TonyBallioni 14:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Your tagging of people's comments is discourteous, and an obvious attempt to discredit them. Please stop. --evrik ^(talk) 14:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not an attempt to discredit anyone they have a full right to participate in the discussion however I do believe it appropriate to note if someone takes place in an afd because of canvassing because that could be consider a conflict of interest and should be noted. TonyBallioni 15:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Pointless, mind, since WP:JUSTAVOTE won't count in the final reckoning. Cruftbane 20:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Canvassing is just a guideline and is not set in stone. It is perfectly reasonable to let people who have worked on an article know of some impending action. Your continually noting how people found out about the AfD is a form of abuse and does not WP:AGF. --evrik ^(talk) 16:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think MinsiPatches did anything wrong by alerting others that have contributed to the article about this. I was alerted with a message and the deletion tag even says to alert people invested in the article. But that issue is not really our focus here.

As for the deletion of this article: the first part of the deletion policy covers "Alternatives to deletion". I think it would be more prudent to have placed a ((notability)) and/or((npov)) and/or ((verify)) tag on the article or even made a comment stating ones concern about the article on the talk page rather than jump directly to proposing deleting the entire article. This nomination came as quite a shock to me, as I did not think that the subject would ever be in danger of losing all coverage on Wikipedia. I've been working on the article for more than a year and have seen the article defended and survive a prior deletion proposal - so I thought that despite some faults the subject could still be covered by Wikipedia. The article needs some work done (possibly by people not personally invested or involved in the camp). There is research that can be done, the camp is a large part of the community of Eastern PA, and the Scouts of the NE region – it has been mentioned and featured in many PA, national and Scouting documents, books and publications. The notability and supporting information exists out there. The subject can be brought up and covered appropriately under wikipedia’s standards and criteria - although it may need some polishing and cleaning up. I think deleting the whole thing would be a step in the wrong direction here. I think that following some of the "alternatives to deletion" would be the more appropriate choice to foster growth and improvement of the subject and its coverage here. CampMinsi 02:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While I can assume good faith for the people who were contacted by MinsiPatches I cannot assume good faith on MinsiPatches because of the fact that he only contacted those people who were on record opposing the merger and asked them to participate ignoring the two people who did not believe that the camp merited its own article; if he had invited these people I would be willing to assume good faith on his part, but her did not so this is a clear example of WP:CANVASSING. TonyBallioni 12:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is nothing in the article to establish that the camp is notable. Move the history section to appropriate homes IF it is referenced rather than OR. Nuttah68 12:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Article is too big (the badges need to go, for instance), but a brief synopsis for a camp of this vintage and history is OK. - Richfife 22:22, 21 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. W.marsh 03:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despondent Transponder[edit]

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

Fleeting Joys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A self-released album and the "independent" (read: unsigned) band that released it. No independent sources, no evidence of importance. Both essentially untouched since November last. Cruftbane 15:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all: Per nom. Doesn't assert notability by saying "independent" and there are no independent sources. - Rjd0060 16:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V and WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 18:06, 14 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 all. because this was a batch nomination, I will consider undeletion of individual articles if anyone can present arguments/sources on my talk page. W.marsh 03:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Hawkins Elementary School[edit]

Barbara Hawkins Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable (nor does it assert importance) elementary school. Rjd0060 14:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bel-Aire Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ben Sheppard Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hialeah Gardens Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ojus Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Twin Lakes Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Van E. Blanton Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Village Green Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vineland Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

- Rjd0060 14:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps somebody can fix this please. The links from the main Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 13 link to the old AfD, not the new one. However, the AfD templates on each page do go to the correct place (2nd nomination). Nevermind, I corrected it. - Rjd0060 15:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All Every single one is eligible for CSD/A7.--Victor falk 15:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Also "wikipedia is not the yellow pages" and "wikipedia is a collection of ecncyclopedic knowledge, not indiscriscriminate information"--Victor falk 15:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would have tagged them all a7 but thought there may be problems since they have all been here for a couple years. And a few of these were in a previous AfD (here). - Rjd0060 15:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, all give bits about enrolment, location, and principal, but other than a butterfly garden at one there's virtually nothing of note — and surely having a butterfly garden doesn't make something notable. Nyttend 15:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would also like to mention that I pulled all these from the Miami-Dade schools template, and there were several more elementary schools there, but I didn't list them because I felt they may have had some notability, therefore should be listed in separate AfD's. - Rjd0060 15:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all for a lack of notability. Just run of the mill schools. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, but not every school needs its own article). Bfigura ^(talk) 01:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 03:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. We're paying for the "all schools are automatically notable" attitude that we had in times past. Stifle (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Stifle and Bfigura. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all as schools have an incredible impact on the development of all of their students throughout the years and are their notable to large numbers of people and in significant ways. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think anyone is saying that schools haven't had a huge impact on a number of their students. Rather, the question is whether the schools are notable as defined in WP:N. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all As mentioned before, the attitude that all schools are notable should change. They provide an important service that does not automatically translate into a standard of notability which would include them in an encyclopedia. --Stormbay 20:51, 19 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 WP:SNOW as not notable and without independent sources. However, in the odd chance it will become so, I am not salting right now. Bearian 00:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto: the abridged series[edit]

Naruto: the abridged series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable YouTube fan series. TexasAndroid 14:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: NN - Rjd0060 14:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fanfiction only on youtube. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete TAScruft. JuJube 15:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as web content with no notability asserted. May or may not be related to a similar bunch of youtube videos now deleted and salted under about a trillion different titles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if YGOTAS isn't notable, then NTAS definitely isnt Will ^(talk) 17:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I thought something like this had been canned earlier --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean these? Similar concept, different show, big steaming heap of salt building up. :) - TexasAndroid 14:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per my similarly colored friend. Burntsauce 17:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt Non-notable and no coverage in reliable sources - just like every other article created about a fan-created "abridged series". NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:55, 16 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. W.marsh 03:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chelmer Valley High School[edit]

Chelmer Valley High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

does not meet Wikipedia:Notability and a google [11] produces nothing of note Valenciano 14:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Does not appear to be notable in any way. - Rjd0060 15:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak Keep: Based on new information on the Gymnastic Display Team. I don' think that is extremely notable; weak because there is no other notability present. - Rjd0060 17:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment American high schools are considered inherently notable. Could someone please find a policy statement on British high schools? Nyttend 15:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, there is no policy at all for schools, be they high, American, elementary, Tanganykinan, or whatnot. The community has failed to reach a consensus on that. See Wikipedia:Schools So, there is only the general criteria (wp:not, wp:nfo, wp:n, wp:rs, wp:v, etc) for inclusion available. The fact that high schools tend to not get deleted is that their pupils make more of a fuss when they are nominated than ten-year olds.--Victor falk 16:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, no, most high schools are kept because they can be shown to pass WP:NOTE with a little bit of research. Not because their "pupils make a fuss". That said, I'm out of my element when it comes to British schools, so I'll just hope that someone with access to British newspapers can make a fair judgment about this place. Zagalejo^^^ 19:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the "notability" of most schools in wikipedia is that fleeting mentions of them have been made of them in local media coverage. And the vast majority does not even assert such notability--Victor falk 23:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm very sorry, but I'm afraid the fact that "The school are very sad to say that Mrs Godfrey will be leaving on maternity leave very soon and a temporary replacement will be needed" and "that the blue coated Mr Barnard" received "THE UNSUNG HERO AWARD" can not be considered worthy of an encyclopedic article. To be unsung is the fate of a hero. --Victor falk 16:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Remember that we are discussing the subject of the article, not the present content. If we have to, we can cut out most of the fluff and turn this into a stub. Zagalejo^^^ 19:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all fluff. Have you looked at it? You have nothing absolutely to start with, nothing. Just the title. What makes Chelmer Valley not run-of-the-mill? Is it located in a medieval castle? Have pupils or teachers achieved something outstanding? Did a scandal with political repercussions happen there? Just say something that could make an article encyclopedic instead of a mere yellow poages entry.--Victor falk 23:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've looked at the article. The first paragraph, at least, seems to have legitimately encyclopedic information. It needs sourcing and cleanup, but it's a start.

A school doesn't have to be located in a castle or the site of a political scandal to be notable. As long as it's received non-trivial media coverage, it's notable enough for Wikipedia. This particular school has received some attention [12], although again, I would apreciate if someone with access to more English sources could chime in. Zagalejo^^^ 23:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

non-trivial? 42 google news hits? from the archives?!--Victor falk 01:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being...? It's hard to respond to a series of exclamations. Give me a real sentence or two.

In any case, I'm not saying those articles establish notability. I don't know much about the nature of those particular sources, which is why I'd still like for someone with more expertise in this area to chime in. I was just throwing the link out there to show that some coverage exists. Zagalejo^^^ 01:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was a bit stumped. In one sentence, "do you consider 42 hits from google news' archive non-trivial coverage". --Victor falk 04:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, newspaper articles are better than random mentions on the web. The fact that they're archived is nothing to *gasp* about; they're just as valid as any other sources. I do wish that there were articles from a broader variety of newspapers, which is why I haven't actually recommended to keep this article. But it is possible that more coverage exists somewhere, so I'm hoping someone with access to additional English sources could stop by this discussion.Zagalejo^^^ 04:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we've learned so far is that if that school was a news story, its headline'd be "dog barks at man".--Victor falk 06:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. —trey^{omg he's back} 21:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Based on improvements. —trey^{omg he's back} 21:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• there is nothing wrong with it, keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelmsfordcityfc (talk • contribs) 21:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An article on Chelmer Valley HS could be written but this is definitely not it; there's barely a single salvageable piece of information in it. Sam Blacketer 23:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC) As rewritten this should now be kept. Sam Blacketer 09:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep based on WP:AFDP. — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realize that that is no different than saying "Keep based on WP:ILIKEIT"? That essay (meaning just the opinion of those who wrote it, it is NOT a policy or even a guideline) is just saying what the common outcome for articles are (and even that I would debate, since high school articles are no longer kept most of the time).
    • Just curious, when was the last time a high school article was deleted? (For notability reasons, not copyvio or something like that.) Zagalejo^^^ 02:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, and a rather key one at that. Sure, WP:AFDP can be modified by anyone, at least in theory -- so can almost any policy or guideline. Precedents aren't strictly binding, but they are relevant in evaluating consensus, especially in cases like these -- high schools tend to share relatively similar degrees of significance, so the precedent is very much pertinent to the discussion. AFD has seen many hundreds, perhaps thousands of high school nominations, so the discrepancy in sample sizes of this particular AfD and the much broader precedent is significant. So no, my rationale wasn't WP:ILIKEIT, or anything of that sort; it was WP:ILIKEFOLLOWINGCONSENSUS. And do note the weak keep. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing notable about the school. TJ Spyke 01:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Multiple sources exist to write a credible article on a notable school. I've started to tidy the article up, though there is lots more to be done. The school is particularly notable for its Blue Gymnastics display team which seems to have a place in the Guinness Book of Records. References are still needed but will no doubt be available. Will try and do some more later if no one else gets there first. Dahliarose 11:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've now tidied up the article and added a section on the World Record-holding Blue Falcons display team. The notability of the school is clearly established. It's a potential Do You Know candidate for the front page if anyone has the time to expand the article five-fold within the next four days. Dahliarose 11:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 03:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Victor and Rjd. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn school. Eusebeus 23:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dahliasose. VivianDarkbloom 21:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Notable school as shown by the Blue Falcons world record and public appearances. Rated Outstanding by Ofsted. Multiple sources meet WP:N. TerriersFan 17:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, as written and referenced, notability is not asserted (and I don't by the inherent notability line), however if it's a specialist engineering school, that might confer some notability if good refs could be found, especially if any awards or special competitions have been won. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - rewrite has established notability based on the gymnastics team notability. I still feel that further notability based on the engineering school is likely, and the article could use better references, but that lack is not, in itself, a reason to delete. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep LordHarris 19:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep One of Wikipedia's goals is to attract younger users. We have templates for high schools with bunches of red links waiting for articles to be created. Nothing will turn off a fledging Wikipedian faster than to delete his or her high school. Older Wikipedians can help the younger ones by showing them how to do it. If you delete an article, chances are it will never be recreated, because whoever tries will get messages such as "You're are trying to recreate an article that has been deleted," etc, and will give up. So why not help them out. Suggest to the students that they dig into their local libraries to see what they can find out about the school, I've done this in the high school I graduated from as well as others that I came across only by a link in an article on the locality they were in. clariosophic 21:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-sourced and marginally notable. I don't buy into the whole "all schools are notable" nonsense, but this article passes in my book. ➪HiDrNick! 22:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nice research, people! Zagalejo^^^ 23:10, 18 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 05:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haxor Radio[edit]

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

Possibly nn show; name does not look real. OSborn^arf 05:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Some evidence it is real, no evidence to the contrary. AGF with reliability. KeepJJJ999 04:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable radio show. Some of the guests were notable, the show itself is not.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please...or update with more relevent info about hosts and it's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.73.181 (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I initially closed this as a deletion, but relisting was requested on my talk page, so people can look for reliable sources on this topic. I don't see the harm in allowing another few days. --W.marsh 14:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unreferenced, no assertion of notability, this article is little more than a list of episodes. /Blaxthos 14:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NN & Blaxthos ↑. No WP:RS and no context. --Evb-wiki 14:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as violating them all - WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. Bearian 00:31, 17 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 04:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Autrey[edit]

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

Non-notable author, tagged as an orphan since October 2006, Stub since 2005, no references in a BLP Toddstreat1 14:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No assertion of notability; BLP's must be properly referenced (regardless of content). /Blaxthos 14:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per above (NN). - Rjd0060 15:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable as an author, his books are self-published. [13] [14] Bláthnaid 15:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I traced both novels to their self-published origins with iUniverse and thus they confer no notability. Doesn't meet WP:Notable. Accounting4Taste 17:38, 13 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 - or it was a no consensus for deletion. Changes were made seen by the discussion but sources and some expansion would be needed to improve the article.--JForget 22:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional diseases[edit]

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

Yet another collection of trivial fiction-listcruft. Fails WP:N and WP:FICTION, specifically:

...fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. For articles about fictional concepts, "reliable secondary sources" cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is "real-world content".

— WP:FICTION

.

With no reliable sources, no "real-world content", and no notability, this list is original research and indiscriminant information. Wikipedia is neither in the business of summarizing plots nor cataloging fictional plot devices. For precedents, see AFDs here and here and DRV here.

• Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 13:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An interesting collection of information, but doesn't meet the guidelines listed above. - Rjd0060 15:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Patient discharged Reliable, notable, verifiable sources are found in each opus' article. Delusions of source absence is a case of in-linitis, an obsessive crave for inline citations due a deficiency of hypertextual cognitive processes. A dose of ((Citations missing)) is sufficient as a palliative for this article symptoms--Victor falk 16:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is an interesting and useful list. Just because it comes from multiple sources does not make it original research. If sources are needed, they can be added to the individual entries as has been done with List of longest suspension bridge spans This is a feature article yet the following statement is unreferenced:

So the top 23 bridges on this list are also currently the longest 23 spans of all types of vehicular bridges.

Where does one draw the line between referencing and over referencing.

One must be careful where one draws the line between original research and the simple compilation of existing research that has not previously been assembled in the same form. That is the purpose of an encyclopedia, to pull together existing data in a concise summary format. This list does exactly that. Additionally every entry is link back to one or more other articles which is in itself a type of reference.

Carrying the point forward, if this list is considered not notable due to its fictional content, then what of the 45+ articles in Category:Fictional diseases? Or do we say that if there is a category then there should not be a list. Lists provide a way to pull multiple entries together in a way that categories can not. Both are useful and serve their own specific purposes. Dbiel ^(Talk) 18:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. You completely bypass the reasons given for deletion, namely the complete lack of "substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources" that deals with "information [that] describes the real-world aspects of the concept". A collection of non-notable items does not automagically become notable when grouped together.
2. "Interesting" and "useful" are generally not germane AFD arguments.
3. See the previous AFDs and DRV referenced above for a more complete dialogue of these points.

Cheers! /Blaxthos 19:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it is exactly on point per your references but it should be noted that there are numerous sites that have made reference to this Wikipedia list. I agree that does not meet the notability rules but it does show the value of the list.

This compilation of fictional diseases was made possible by yet another great list from Wikipedia: List of Fictional Diseases. Posted by Marie Linder at: http://marielinder.blogspot.com/2007/03/will-bad-case-hypochondriacs-worry.html - 73k -

List of fictional diseases - Indopedia, the Indological knowledgebase. This is a list of fictional diseases, named medical conditions that do not exist. These include naturally evolved, accidentally man-made or intentional: http://www.indopedia.org/List_of_fictional_diseases.html - 19k -

Will work on finding better examples, out of time right now Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that the article does not meet our requirements for inclusion, but you assert we should keep it simply because some blogs and other sites reference it? /Blaxthos 20:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not agree, but I am going to need a bit of time to develop the point but for now reference to the requirements of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) which seem to me to have been met. Dbiel ^(Talk) 00:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you don't agree? You just said: "I agree that does not meet the notability rules". /Blaxthos 01:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not flip flopping. You twisted my statement which was a reply to "does not meet our requirements for inclusion". My agreement was on the point of notability rules for articles, that though they apply to list, they do not apply in exactly the same way. And even if the list does not fully meet notability rules, notability is not the ONLY reason for inclusion or removal. It needs to be balanced with the other rules. Categories are not notable, but they are an important part of Wikipedia. Notability can be interpreted from many points of view. I simply acknowledge your POV regarding notability, not its application as to inclusion or removal of this list article. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And back to the issue of notability; List of longest suspension bridge spans (a featured article) entries do not have any external links to "notable" sources only to self promoting sites, though nearly all do have their own article, does that mean that those without separate articles should be deleted; I think not.

Nearly all entries link back to other Wikipedia entries, where in most cases the referenced "fictional disease" is an important element in the article. This list pulls together all these similar Wikipedia entries that are not otherwise linked. Dbiel ^(Talk) 12:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:FICTION and the numerous precedents (previous AFD/DRV) for the community's interpretation of your argument. /Blaxthos 14:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not only are nearly all entries in this list completely trivial/nonnotable, but there isn't even an article to go with this list (==notability issues as a whole). All notable diseases are already included in the said category, so that information is not lost by deleting this list. Someone write an article first; then this list can be recreated with the non-trivial entries. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean that there is no article to go with it? It links to numerous articles, It has an opening section. It is broken up into different groups of lists. This seems to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)

Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles, and as such are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.

It seems to me that you are pushing the and others to a greater extend that should be applied to lists in general. It appears to me to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) Dbiel ^(Talk) 00:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have also stated that "All notable diseases are already included in the said category.." Which would imply that at least some of the contents do meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). I may be reading too much into your statement, but it appears that you are saying that since the category is there, that the list is not necessary or needed to which I strongly disagree. Dbiel ^(Talk) 00:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, there is no article Fictional diseases (it's just bluelinked because it redirects to this list) that explains the notability and cultural impact of the concept. The intro basically says "Diseases are [insert definition], and the following are fictional," a trivial dictdef of the article title. I do not doubt "Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view etc" of this list but WP:NOTABILITY (or in this case WP:FICT). This is always a problem with fiction, because it already serves as its own (primary) source that satisfies all core policies, and wikipedia has no lack of knowledgable and eager fiction-editors (I am one). But everyone can make up fictional diseases in exponentially increasing numbers compared to real diseases, and with the exception of a few, all are non-notable. As I see it, WP:FICT applies before we can judge this list with the standards of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Even if this topic may satisfy WP:FICT once an actual article is written, this list is excessive and is in my eyes nothing more than a trivial dumping ground for "hey, there was a fictional disease in the book I just read, and no-one can delete my addition to this list as it's true." I also had a better look at the linked diseases and the diseases in the category, and I am surprised to report that even those article would have a hard time surviving AfD unharmed, as they are completely in-universe, with no assertion of real-world notability. This reinforces my !vote. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Dbiel's point that there is a category for fictional diseases and that there are 45 entries on it is well-taken. Unlike fictional chemical elements and compounds, which are usually mentioned in passing, fictitious diseases can be (a) analogs to real illnesses (b) the bases for a larger plot such as the Andromeda Strain, Outbreak, etc., where the fictional illness is used to describe current medicine and (c) a reference for later medical crises. Mandsford 01:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with that, but, surely, if these diseases have such significance, they will have been mentioned in third party sources. This list does a lot of things that a category does not, and is also more accessible to the average reader, but I think it should be trimmed down to only entries mentioned in third party sources, or possibly v(although I prefer the former option) cut down only to diseases deemed notable enough to have their own entries. J Milburn 11:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with this list, it's riddled with fancruft that should be trimmed. Also I don't like how it's organised (alphabetical by disease name), it should be by the work's title. But you can bet there are for the ones I name in my comment below.--Victor falk 15:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I removed the ((Citations missing)) I had put when casting my vote above. There is no need for citations in this list, those should be available in the disease's article (Rage (fictional virus), Closed Shell Syndrome), or in the article about the work where they play a major role: The White Plague, Snow Crash.--Victor falk 15:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't care how this page has been redone, it's still not a notable topic for an encyclopedia, the elements can be merged to respective pages. Dannycali 06:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - massive unending compendium seekign to capture every made-up disease ever mentioned in a work of fiction. Implicates WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR, WP:OR, WP:TRIVIA. One in 100, maybe one in 1000, made-up diseases warrant encyclopedic coverage and those that warrant it should have articles. Otto4711 16:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was apparently the original intention, and I fully agree that we cannot have such a list. Please note how I have modified the inclusion criterion: [15]--Victor falk 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep with proper documentation, more of these would be notable. btw. if they have an article on wikipedia... aren't they notable? so the not notable argument fails here. the list is strongly organized and delimited. this is also solidly encyclopedic. --Buridan 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even now, adequately documented. Since when are major plot elements in major works not notable? The advantage of a list is that it can be organized in multiple ways. I personally agree that the original article on the work should be sufficient documentation, but i think the present consensus may be to actually cite it in every instance in the table. I think that's a perversion of the generally sound rule of not documenting WP from WP--articles like this are a list and summary of the basic articles. I think each one of them could be documented as important from reviews of the work, if that is thought to be necessary. The collection of this material is unique in extent, and useful--and useful is one ofthe considerations for a list. some of the items are misplaced or erroneous or dont belong--but that's an editing problem. DGG (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Plot elements are notable when they have "received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources" that "describes the real-world aspects of the concept". I'm not sure "since when" this has been part of WP:FICTION, but does the timeframe really matter? We're not in the business of cataloging plot devices; truely notable items will qualify for their own articles, which can be serviced by a category... the rest should be nuked. Notability is not inhereted. /Blaxthos 23:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as really well put together article that successfully links together a common thread in fiction and that will provide readehttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png

Your signature with timestamprs with a comprehensive and organized reference. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep((sofixit)) I have re-organised it according to media and removed a crufty entry or two. I think it should make clear that in principle this list is perfectly non-objectionable: [16]--Victor falk 02:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD should probably be closed and reopened, or simply closed based on the fact that the article (list) has been drasticly rewritten since the start of this AfD, which in itself requires an entirely new look at the current state of the article in relationship to this AfD. Previous points may or maynot apply. I restored the AfD tag on the article as until this this closed the tag should not be removed Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sry for removing the tag, I forgot about it when copypasting from my sandbox--Victor falk 06:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting might be a smoother solution than closing and opening again? --Victor falk 06:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No - No matter how much you've trimmed, the article is still completely void of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources, as noted in the AFD rationale. Closing and re-opening (or re-listing the AFD) won't change that fact; the delete comments all deal with those issues directly (and those concerns/objections have not been fixed). This is not, by our own rulse, acceptable content for a serious encyclopedia. /Blaxthos 22:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't mind about the procedural details. The sources are in each's disease's article (you don't expect List of Oceanian countries to have any sources, do you?) It provides information the category cannot, a short description of each disease, and a thematic grouping. I cannot help but believe that people want to delete because they fear it could be a cruft magnet. And, assuredly, it was designed as such when nominated. Its aim was to include every fictional disease that ever got mentioned in even the most obsure computer game or tv series. That would be unencyclopedic. And yet, it did not have entries for major works such as Outbreak, The Andromeda Strain, or Snow Crash...--victor falk 02:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this article is clearly not needed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - that's your personal opinion of the subject. Others, like writers and readers of fiction, may find the subject informative, entertaining, and useful. Wikipedia has a little of something for everyone. Viva la difference! The Transhumanist    21:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Firstly, there is a category for the articles contained in the list. Second, fictional diseases may play a huge part in advancing books' plots, one example I can think of off the top of my head is the Descolada virus in the novel Speaker for the Dead. Neranei (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. /Blaxthos 00:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment as it happens, this aticle is not a lot summary--as even the title makes evident. And the link for Not inherited does not mention that term. The true link is WP:NOTINHERITED which is an essay, not policy or guideline. There is no rule prohibiting this sort of article or this content. And. per WP:N, only the general subject must be notable, not the individual items. They just have to be relevant. DGG (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Could someone (or closing admin) please check for WP:Civilty issues on this page. We can disagree and remain civil if pleasant just isn't possible. Benjiboi 09:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Congrats on the re-write, I'll save the frustration of looking at the earlier version. Article seems to assert notability and be well-written as a bonus. Benjiboi 09:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article, which was once useful and interesting, has been totally gutted by exclusionists to the point of insignificance. All of Wikipedia will go this way eventually as the Agents of Order enforce their narrow world view on the entire project until it contracts into an internet black hole, mentioned in passing in geek conversations five years from now as an experiment that failed. Captain Infinity 22:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ... I agree in part that the list was trimmed a bit too hastily and thoroughly. Regardless of the outcome of the AfD discussion, would it have been too much to ask to migrate entries chopped en masse to the list's associated Talk page? Should the list continue onward, salvaging fitting entries has become a mess of poorly commented diffs. D. Brodale 01:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain, agreeing on this, wouldn't it be better to keep what we have, even as a stub, than to give up altogether. i suspect most of the material will be able to be re-added properly sourced. perhaps you really mean keep and gradually restore. DGG (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing my opinion to Keep per The Transhumanist and Restore per DGG. Captain Infinity 16:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, most diseases currently have articles on them, therefore creating a list of them seems entirely appropriate. Those who wish to delete this list should consider nominating separate articles on fictional diseases for deletion. MaxSem 06:59, 21 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.