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

The result was speedily deleted as vandalism (WP:CSD#G3). -- Merope 19:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick, Derek, and Andrew's Report on the Ethos of Wikipedia[edit]

Patrick, Derek, and Andrew's Report on the Ethos of Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obviously violates WP:NOR, as the article states that it is original research conducted by those three people. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The fact that the subject of this investigation is Wikipedia itself is neither here nor there; what is relevant is that it is a piece of original research and a non-notable report. Sam Blacketer 18:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Previous edits by the user contained vandalism, so either this is all a prank or Wikipedia is being used as a guinea pig. WP:NOT a guinea pig. Guinea pigs are much smaller. Chris Cunningham 18:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And more cute! --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as blatant original research. GlassCobra 18:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:NOR since I suppose as nominator I get to cast a vote too. --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Evb's report on this article's violations in order of appearance: WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:CBALL. Recommendation: Delete. --Evb-wiki 19:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• very funny, but please Delete. Bearian 19:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Korean Demilitarized Zone. There is already a section in the article which discusses the wall. It may certainly be expanded upon with good sourcing and verification. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 12:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Wall[edit]

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

Entire article is unsupported OR wbfergus ^Talk 18:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to DMZ Korea. It's a political term, but not a very notable one, and it's just basically one point of view about the DMZ. --Dhartung | Talk 22:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "merge to Korean Demilitarized Zone" or "move to DMZ Korea"? You can't merge to a nonexistant article. --SmokeyJoe 08:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actually, in this case, it's more than that. North Korea claims that South Korea literally built a wall. I don't know if it's made the news lately, but the Democratic Peoples Republic free press promoted the story back in 1999. Could be sourced to some extent, though there's not much to the story. North accuses, South denies it. Mandsford 22:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to DMZ Korea, as Dhartung had mentioned. More convenient as well. I had somewhat saved the article before the big decision happens (when is the question for it). this is iaN 11:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As I stated for the nomination, as is, the article is 'original research'. The first reference can not be classified as a reliable source, being merely a statement made by a North Korean official (even if reported in a reliable publication), and the images in the article contradict the statements about the construction of the wall. In the first image, there is no wall, just a fence surrounding a military outpost. It can't even be distinguished who's military uses the outpost. In the second image, it very clearly is not a concrete wall. If it's a wal, then is clearly made of earth, but it could also just as easily be a clear-cut area allowing soldiers to observe if anybody crosses the area. It is hard to tell. So neither image supports the claims made in the article, and therefore actually helps to repudiate the claim made by the North Korean official, which then lends to the aspect of verifiablity. As is, this article does not meet the criteria, and even if merged into another article, would have the same problems. The other article could have a paragraph that merely says "North Korea claims.....", but the rest would have to meet the reliable and verifiable criteria, without violating 'original research'. wbfergus ^Talk 11:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is not OR by the author but is an accurate depiction of a fiction created and promulgated by the DRK. The press releases by what are possibily an unreliable sources, can be taken not as verification of the existence of the wall, but as verification that the DRK wishes to promote the idea that such a wall exists, which this article has bent over backwards to make explicit, the very first sentence containing the word alledgedly, and the second disputed. Given that in all probability that it doesn't exist it shouldn't be merged to DMZ which does exist in the flesh. The wall if it can be said to exist, exists as a propaganda concept and tool of North Korea, that it might not in fact exist in the flesh, does not diminish its existence in the minds of the massed North Korean people. There is also the very real possibility that the DRK leadership have convinced themselves that such a wall exists. A thing does not have to physically exist to be notable and to have an influence on the behaviour of people and governments (if you doubt this just remember that the war being fought in Iraq was sold to the public using non existent Iraqi WMDs). KTo288 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if sources can be found. Seems to be writen well with a few sources and pictures, but it really only needs to be wikified and sourced. —ScouterSig 15:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Korean Demilitarized Zone. Not enough coverage in secondary sources to support an article. If there were enough material, a move to an accurate name (Ficticious Korean Wall?) would be necessary as the wall never existed. --SmokeyJoe 08:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect It's an interesting footnote in the rabid propaganda war that's been going for decades, but not really big enough to warrant its own article. It's a good case study of the surreal goings on over there, though. - Richfife 20:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, but strongly recommend that article is expanded and sourced in the near future. Natalie 00:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VolksWriter[edit]

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

Contested PROD. PROD/AFDed because of a lack of any assertion of notability, and for no sourcing/reference to establish notability. PROD was contested under the argument that being "early computing software" made it inherently notable. I disagree with this. That may be an "assertion" of notability, and enough to avoid Speedy if software was eligible for A7 Speedy, but sourcing/references are still required for the article to remain. TexasAndroid 18:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no secondary, reliable sources noted in the article. There seems to be articles written about Volkswriter 3. However, I am unsure if this artcile is references that particular software due to the article's incredibly lack of substance. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 18:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• BlindEagle's second sentence implores me to vote Keep here. He states that there seem to be articles written about VolksWriter 3 (being copyrighted software, you would not have multiple word processors named VolksWriter), and these articles would be the sourcing/references required for the article to remain on Wikipedia. Simply "being a stub" is not reason to delete an article; let's use the sources that BlindEagle claims that exist to improve the article and keep it! Andy Saunders 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Sources are available to verify notability. VolksWriter was a fairly well known product back in the day. A quick Google search brings up a few book and journal hits including the Encyclopedia of Microcomputers (ISBN 0824722795) and a Journal hit [5]. VolksWriter's VW and VW3 extensions are still widely recognized. • Gene93k 20:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notability does not expire. Needs sources, but this was a highly regarded application back in the day though it never really competed at the top level. --Dhartung | Talk 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sourcing may be difficult as it is an old product, but it was a significant presence during its time. a Google news search shows that reviews were written about the product in major newspapers. -- Whpq 17:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andy, but he should source it since he seems gung-ho. —ScouterSig 14:24, 31 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. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out to Lunch (video game)[edit]

Out to Lunch (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Computer game from more then 14 years ago. It wasn't popular then and there isn't anything that I can find that would suggest that it's popular now. Law & Disorder 18:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It looks like a really good article, and I'm sure we have other articles about minor games released for the SNES. --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading up on Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions and your comments seem to fall under a couple of of those sections: WP:PRETTY & WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Law & Disorder 18:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 22:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep being unpopular is not a reason to delete. JuJube 23:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but can you find any good sources to show that this game is in any way notable? Law & Disorder 23:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a MobyGames link. It was published by an established game company (MindScape). A simple Google search shows this game has been reviewed. I think that's enough. Your argument for deletion doesn't hold up. JuJube 00:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is about a notable product so popularity doesn't come into it. The reason there aren't plenty of online reviews is exactly because of the game's age, they're all in print. However, when the amiga version alone is subject to this many reviews and probably more. Here's some summarized reviews, complete with page numbers, issue numbers, reviewer and score. I'd suggest withdrawing the AFD and placing an unreferenced tag on the article. If you're ever unsure about a game's notability, drop the project a line.Someone another 09:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Popularity != Notability. Mdmkolbe 22:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as article no reliable secondary sources as evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins 09:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But as Someone another has pointed out, the topic does meet WP:N. The article needs work for WP:V, but notability is about the topic, not the article quality. Non-WP:N articles can't be fixed (it is a property of the topic) and should be deleted; non-WP:V articles can be fixed and should not be deleted (at least until there is a chance to fix them). Mdmkolbe 04:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Quite aside from the above correct statement, I remember a detailed magazine review. It's not in English, but that's not required. --Kizor 04:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--JForget 01:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Buses[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article isn't encyclopedic and it would be hard to bring it to a notable state. Icestorm815 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Indiscriminate list of loosely associated topics. And the list of "Films Featuring Buses" is meaningless, because the creator has just done an IMDb title search for "bus", so you get Sudden Shock! Monster Bus (does that even exist ?), but no mention of Summer Holiday or Speed. Crazysuit 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree with nom. Nuke it. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 18:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Listcruft. Even though it was the most important list I have ever seen, and I will miss it dearly, it make no meaningful contributions to the project. It would make a cool username, though. Or maybe a book.--12 Noon 18:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This idea could have made a really cool list, that I would have been really sad to delete. This particular list, though, doesn't really take advantage of its potential coolness, and so its status as an indiscriminate list of information that isn't of much real use is more clear. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• A tad on the indiscriminate information side, unfortunately, but as FisherQueen notes, it's entirely possible the topic could be turned into something worthwhile at some point (if we're not shooting "popular culture" articles on sight these days). Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this list was ill conceived from the get go. Burntsauce 21:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW. Please read the "article" before calling me unreasonable. --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 22:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete same problem we always have with lists. The inclusion criteria is to broad and totally undefined. Also I've been noticing this a lot lately, what is the point of of having a list of red links? Ridernyc 06:07, 25 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. Natalie 00:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carsick Cars[edit]

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

This was an article that I speedied under A7. However the article's creator convinced me that playing a gig with Sonic Youth in Vienna (the band is from China) is an assertion of notability that rises above A7. However that gig is poorly sourced, and there is no evidence that the band otherwise meets WP:MUSIC. I note that being a band from China presents difficulties in meeting the criteria of WP:MUSIC not faced by Western groups. That said, Delete. Dsmdgold 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- not special Yourname 02:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am the creator of the article (I believe I am permitted to vote). Deleted on very short notice before I had the chance to edit it to an acceptable standard. Added some better references now, but will continue working until it is deleted ;-) Foolip 05:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If established that "band has gone on an international concert tour" then sufficient for notability. WWGB 12:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if this claim about a tour can be established by secondary sources. Otherwise Delete. A1octopus 23:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The concert tour appears to have happened in Vienna, but the venue site linked is only current/future events and the Sonic Youth site doesn't make specific mention thereof. SkierRMH 01:39, 30 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 article has been already deleted on October 25.--JForget 01:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason M Burks[edit]

Jason M Burks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable hacker. A google search for v00d00 brings forth many results...none of which are this person. A search for v00d00 and Burks garners...well...this article. The article was created by the article subject. Jasonbtulsabiz = Jason B., Tulsa Biz (he works in Tulsa). IrishGuy ^talk 18:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be unverifiable. No relevant google hits for "Jason M. Burks" or "Juggernaut Hydra" either. Lack of inline citations makes it hard to know what the magazines in the "references" section actually say. Even if we had some reliable sources, I don't think there is anything here that passes notability guidelines anyway. --BelovedFreak 18:45, 24 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. --Coredesat 00:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Valley Christian Music Association[edit]

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using ((subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]))

Ohio Valley Christian Music Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I removed the prod to send this on to AFD discussion in response to a show of good faith by the editor who's trying to keep it. She's added some sources, but in my opinion, they don't rise the the level of nontrivial. Do y'all think that this organization is a notable one? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's trivial. I am not a member of the organization, but I know the people that run it and I go to their PraiseFest almost every year. They represent a lot of people and their events have been a vital part of Noble County for more than 27 years now. They're even mentioned prominently at www.noblecountyohio.com. In my opinion, the page should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noblerose67 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC) — Noblerose67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep for while the formatting is a mess, the article appears to be well-sourced (3 articles) and may be a notable organziation. I'd agree to stubify the artiocle. Bearian 19:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unless non-trivial refs are added. The exisiting sources are just announcements in local papers, exactly the type that WP:N advises against, ie "announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination". Crazysuit 00:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Craysuit. Trivial media coverage does not confer notability--victor falk 10:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable source: Permanently referenced on homepage www.noblecountyohio.com as tourist attraction as noted above by NobleRose, in addition to newspapaer articles referenced. Kevin_Lauer —Preceding comment was added at 13:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — Kevin_Lauer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . }[reply]

• Delete as clearly WP:VSCA. All given references are trivial and/or not independent. Non-trivial and independent sources must be made available and added to the article if it is to have any chance of meeting WP:Music. A1octopus 16:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Added information today in top section showing similarites and differences between similar organizations (with references). Does this help to illustrate notability? —Noblerose67 —Preceding comment was added at 18:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Well, no it doesn't. The similar organisations are also not notable by Wikipedia standards (or they'd have articles) so I don't see how saying that this lot are similiar to some other lot who are equal nonentities makes sense. Nevertheless even if all these other organisations were notable it still wouldn't be a argument for keeping this one (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) - in this debate we have to establish the notablity of this article's subject, and no proof or references have been given that this meets the guidelines laid out in WP:MUSIC. A1octopus 21:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you've referenced the wrong page. WP:MUSIC doesn't refer to Music Associations, but rather performers. The organization, by definition, cannot meet the criteria described on that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach hasseman (talk • contribs) 04:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply You can use WP:ORG if you prefer; it also requires multiple, independent, nontrivial sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment - Yes I agree WP:ORG might be more useful but my arguments above still hold. Notablity isn't proved by comparing this lot to other un-notable organisations. A1octopus 13:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey OVCMA, list some of the notable members and accomplishments. Zach hasseman (talk • contribs —Preceding comment was added at 04:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC) — Zach hasseman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Ow, my eyes hurt from seeing so many light blue external links written as text into the article... That being said, they are not reliable sources, and don't cut it for making the article notable. —ScouterSig 16:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - I tidied up the text a bit (mostly removed excess bold) and added fact tags on specifics that need references. I don't feel strongly one way or the other. If there are no refs, delete. If somebody finds some....keep. --Rocksanddirt 21:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shepard Road/Warner Road[edit]

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

A road whose claim to notability is: "an important route for trucks to bypass weight restrictions on Interstate 35E". Nehwyn 17:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete- The road is also apparently a county highway and part of the National Highway System. However, it's an otherwise unremarkable city street. —Scott5114↗ 22:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per Scott. Other than being part of the NHS, there's nothing out of the ordinary about this road. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This plays a major role in the history of I-35E, being one of several routes that heavy trucks must use. The 1975 law that imposed a moratorium on building I-35E authorized Mn/DOT to take it over as a state highway:

  Route No. 380. Beginning at a point on Route No. 390 [I-35E] at its intersection with Shepard Road in the city of Saint Paul; thence extending in a northeasterly direction generally following along the course of Shepard Road to a point on Route No. 112 [Lafayette Freeway]; thence extending in a northeasterly direction to a point on Route No. 392 [I-94] easterly of the downtown area of Saint Paul; providing a connector route between Route No. 390 and Routes No. 112 and 392;

• Although it was not taken over by the state (probably since I-35E was built), it has been rebuilt to handle the increased traffic due to the truck restriction on I-35E: [6][7] It is also part of the Great River Road. Should it be moved to Shepard-Warner Road? [8][9] --NE2 12:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's my point. Its sole claim to notability is that it's good for trucks. Excvellent for Wikitravel, but not really grounds for Wikipedia notability. --Nehwyn 21:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its "sole" claim to notability is that it's come up many times in the local press over many years (hence it clearly passes WP:N) because of its role as a truck bypass and a four-lane highway along the river. And, well, isn't Wikitravel geared towards tourists, not truckers? --NE2 14:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any city road is bound to come up in the local press over the years. It's statistics. But what claim would those sources support? Indeed is there a claim to notability, beside being a useful road for truckers? And as for Wikitravel, it's geared towards travel information - and which road to choose if you're driving a truck is definitely travel information. --Nehwyn 20:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is more than a city road; it's a four-lane highway along the river that played a part in the I-35E controversy. The conflict between the riverfront park and the highway has come up: [10] There are many articles spread over many years that are specifically about the road; you won't find that for any random city street. See for instance Wacouta Street and Selby Avenue. --NE2 00:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if improved. I understand the comments above as the article mentions only its "road" features. The road however goes for much of its length through the scenic, wooded, and bluff-lined river valley, which does not seem like it is in an urban area. It connects and runs along the state's earliest areas of settlement and travel, from Fort Snelling, by Pike's Island, along the steamboat levee where Saint Paul began, and beneath the Indian Mounds of earlier civilizations. I suggest keeping it for now and revisiting it if not improved. It is notable, and there is no good place to merge its content. Kablammo 00:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been partially revised. It still needs work (a map and photographs would be nice), as well as an expanded and referenced Importance section. Kablammo 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The road is significant in the history of Saint Paul, although that topic has not been addressed much yet on WP.--Appraiser 15:50, 31 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. --Coredesat 00:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funkmasonry[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Although "their release was met with universal praise" is extreme hyperbole, another user considers it sufficient claim of notability to remove my db-band tag. So here we are. Corvus cornix 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The praise wasn't quite universal, as Rolling Stone seems to have inexplicably overlooked this band. This forum post describes Funkmasonry as "my high school senior project CD," and it doesn't appear to have been reviewed in any nontrivial sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - zero indication of notability provided, either in the article or elsewhere. No reliable sources to show the band has had any publicity whatsoever. Fails WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Whether the assertion is sufficient to survive speedy or not, lack of verifiability eliminates its use to establish notability. I didn't find a WP:RS in the 31 distinct hits I scoured. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. i wish some users would exercise some common sense when considering what constitutes a claim to notability (per what Corvus C. was saying above). This fails notability and sourcing and is, as FisherQueen established, a high school project. tomasz. 13:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy 05:44, 29 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: Obvious consensus to restore the redirects - POV forks. - Mike Rosoft 12:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Child Support Policy[edit]

Child Support Policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Child Support Policy in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two identical articles created by Rogerfgay; they have neutrality problems and are duplicate with existing pages. I have been bold and redirected them to Child support and Child support in the United States, respectively; creator has undone my edits. I don't want to be revert warring, so I am bringing it here. - Mike Rosoft 17:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as per nom. There are already existing articles on these topics; useful, verifiable information should be added there instead of creating new articles, imho. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep and reopen debate on talk page, possibly through dispute resolution? --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 22:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. or Redirect. User has WP:COI (has published anti-child support articles online) and has attempted on several occasions to advance his own (factually inaccurate) viewpoint on other child support pages. Material on this page is rejected stuff that he tried to introduce to the Child support article. Sourced pages on child support issues already exist on Wiki and these are unnecessary. DanielEng 09:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Mike's original research was not adequate, and I wish editors would not use delete tags merely to raise a question. That's what talk pages are for. The two new articles are stubs on subjeccts that do not duplicate any existing articles. The fate of existing article Child Support is being discussed on its talk page because its content is far too narrow for the title, and it duplicates material from other pages. Although there has not been such a rapid trigger finger on the delete process, deletion of the child support article has been suggested on its talk page. The article Child Support in the United States suffers from similar scope problems - i.e. it is not about child support in the United States generally. It's focus does not lend itself to an objective general review of policy but simply provides a specific agency pov. The new articles are intended to focus on the actual topic suggested by the titles - they will be on child support policy generally one article and specifically in the United States in the other. This intent is stated both on the stub article pages and discussion / talk pages of the new stub articles. I removed Mike's delete tags because no reason was given on the talk page and because he deleted the explanation from one of the article pages on the intent to separate the subject of the two articles. It therefore looked like a simple act of vandalism and I have issued a warning. I should add that DanielEng (above) is engaging in retaliation and has been reported for vandalism of child support related pages. Rogerfgay 11:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm obviously not going to respond to the above personal attack. However, I do want to clarify that I have never been "reported," blocked or warned for any sort of vandalism. In fact I am on the CVU. The supposed "vandalism" mentioned above refers to my restoration of the AfD tags to these articles, which were repeatedly deleted in violation of AfD policy. [11] [12] [13] [14] Feel free to browse my block log (empty) and Talk Page history if you wish; the only "warning" of any kind on my page originated with the above user and was an inappropriately used tag. DanielEng 12:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel. You deleted the warnings from your talk page, and left a message on my talk page explaining that you're within your rights to have deleted the warnings from your talk page. Rogerfgay 12:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I have invited everyone to have a look at my Talk Page history. All edits to a page made at any time are recorded permanently in the history, whether or not a user deletes them from public view. The only warning of any kind anyone will find in my entire Wiki history is yours, which was inappropriate as explained and was deleted as per WP:VANDAL and WP:UP. I'd advise you to have one more read of WP:NPA. DanielEng 13:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nomination as unnecessary forks. These are redundant with existing articles (Child Support for example), poorly cited, and an the case of Child Support Policy it isn't even an encyclopedia article (in fact it is borderline incorrect usage of the article space); it appears to be a proposal for one --Isotope23 ^talk 12:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but why all the non-fact based opinions? There is no overlap between the intended articles and the cited articles. child support should be on its way to deletion, and is otherwise a complete non-starter as an article on child support policy as intended. Rogerfgay 12:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a POV fork any way you look at it. There is nothing "intended" for these articles that couldn't be in Child support in the United States and child support. Even if you wrote an actual article with reliable sources at these namespaces, I would opine that the should be merged back to the existing articles. In this case there is nothing to merge.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom and Isotope23. Child support in the United States and child support should be covering the policy behind child support if they are not already. These also appear to be possible POV forks. · jersyko talk 12:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking over the battle to change the two articles so that they cover policy behind child support, since they are not already? There are people there who are extremely stubborn and willing to spend a lot of time battling to preserve the pov they have established there. And I have pointed out that the term "child support" means support of children generally - that focus on specific select government policies that aren't even comprehensive regarding government policies on support of children is far too narrow for the title. It has been discussed that the current material is already covered in other places - specifically in articles on laws and agencies in the few select countries chosen for child support (one of which is Child Support in the United States). An article on child support policy should be on child support policy. But that is still not general enough for the title "child support" which is mostly private - nothing to do with government policy. Rogerfgay 16:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. There is no excuse for creating content forks, particularly where they are POV forks or intended to evolve into POV forks. If the existing articles have POV problems, work on fixing the problems, not creating new forks to skew in a different POV direction. Oh, and BTW, the fork article people are aiming for is Wikipedia:Content forking, with abbreviations WP:CFORK or WP:POVFORK, not WP:FORK. --AliceJMarkham 13:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to existing article per nominator and numerous comments above. -- The Anome 14:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. And this should really be handled through dispute resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 17:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to existing: the first one isn't an article, but rather a suggestion, and the second one looks like it's covering territory more extensively handled in the existing article.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

INVITATION You are all invited to the talk pages of the articles being discussed here to discuss the reasons these articles should not be directed as suggested. I am pointing out here that what seems "obvious" may just be lack of information and insufficient consideration. Please state your concerns on the talk page, and feel free to investigate further before commenting so that you have at least a minimal frame of reference. Rogerfgay 18:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, per nom. Obvious WP:CFORK. Dreadstar † 18:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. POV or not, these are clearly forks. -- But|seriously|folks  21:14, 25 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. --Coredesat 00:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City of Shoulders and Noses[edit]

City of Shoulders and Noses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This one has been prodded...3 times, at last count. I think that's good evidence it belongs at AFD. Procedural nom. UsaSatsui 17:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nonnotable unproduced screenplay, violates WP:CRYSTAL. NawlinWiki 17:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google shows no evidence of notability for this one. No prejudice against recreation if it's actually turned into a notable movie some day. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it is not yet notable -- with only 8 Ghits [15], 2 from WP, none of which are independent, and none of which verify that it is actually in production. No IMdB page, either. Future movie or play not ready for its own article. Bearian 19:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Films that are not even in production yet don't come close to meeting WP:MOVIE, but I'm delighted to know that Sybil Danning is still getting work, even though shoulders and noses are not the body parts for which she's best known. Accounting4Taste 22:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. When it moves from being a screenplay to a film in production, then an article will be appropriate. Also note that the Tommy Ardolino page has also been deleted [16]. Shawn in Montreal 01:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others. Non-notable at the moment. Doctorfluffy 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Three prods? Delete per nom and above. —ScouterSig 16:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 22:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SMS language[edit]

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

There is no reason to have this Wiki when it is a smaller version of List of Internet slang phrases Tabor 17:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll disagree; the general subject of SMS/ Texting is not the same as a list of phrases that are used in SMS. That said, the SMS article--if retained--needs someone who knows more about it than I do to add more content. For example, what about SMS/ Texting in other languages; is there really any grammatical difference between standard English (French, Tagalog...) and Texted English (etc.); social effects (such as children using texting in the school essays, see refs at end of article now); is there dialectal variation in texting within speakers of a given language (e.g. between the US and Australia, or speakers of Indic English); what happens in languages with non-Roman scripts (do they text in Roman scripts or in their own script?); computational linguistic approaches to texting (like [17], etc. I suspect there's a lot more that is known about this topic, but it's not my area. Mcswell 17:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, 68 hits on Google Scholar. Punkmorten 19:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the intro to SMS, or keep but delete the "txt devices" section as a violation of Wikipedia articles are not slang guides. Crazysuit 20:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mcswell ExtraDry 22:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Referenced lots in national media in the UK especially so IMO noteworthy, so definatly keep Carpo1982 00:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable, referenced and SMS is a medium distinct from chat.--victor falk 10:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge into History of the Brenham Jewish Community. Simon Theatre doesn't feel like the right place, but some of it could go there too. There's not enough to stand alone, though. - KrakatoaKatie 08:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon family[edit]

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

This is an article about a non-notable family who have lived in Brenham, Texas. One member of the family constructed a now-closed theater which had been designed by a well-known architect. The theater, Simon Theatre, is also up for deletion. There appear to be no reliable sources about this family, although they are mentioned in passing in articles about a Brenham synagogue. I don't believe this family, or its members, meet(s) the criteria for notablity. Karanacs 17:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - with sources like geocities you just know this is notable! Law & Disorder 17:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Crazysuit 20:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete and Salt per WP:SNOW --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 22:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —— Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge into History of the Brenham Jewish Community because this article is part of a group of articles relating to Jews and Judaism in Texas (the others being James Simon (Businessman), Henry Cohen Community House, Jimmy Kessler, Rosa Levin Toubin, Simon Theatre Simon family, Joe Levin (Businessman), Alex Simon, Sam H. Toubin) that have been nominated for deletion by User Karanacs (talk · contribs) (and another, Temple Freda nominated by another user) yet taken as a whole these articles are a valuable set of records about a topic in a state with relatively few Jews and with an even scantier record of notable Jews, Judaism and Jewish history in it. There is indeed a great need for an article about History of the Jews in Texas and these articles would all be good starting points and resources for it. This article, like the others in this group, cite adequate sources and meet the minimal requirements to be kept. The nominator is requested to reconsider her nominations of these articles. Thank you, IZAK 04:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they are only notable when taken as a whole, then they do not belong as individual articles. Instead, any important, and reliably sourced (geocities and earthlink random webpages don't count), information should be merged into a separate article, such as History of the Brenham Jewish Community. Karanacs 14:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Karanacs: So then you should have nominated the articles for merging and the sourcing could have been improved with enough goodwill and especially since these are not controversial articles everyone could have agreed on an amicable solution. Thanks, IZAK 19:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletesimply being Jewish and from Texas is not enough for notability.Ridernyc 06:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notability" is measured by available sources, not by race or location. --SmokeyJoe 09:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge any relevant info to History of the Brenham Jewish Community. --Eliyak T·C 11:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect into History of the Brenham Jewish Community Merge notible family members into article as well. Nsaum75 23:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• REQUEST: In order to reach a greater consensus about the related "Texas Jews articles" that have been nominated for deletion, please see and add your views at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Nominations of Texas Jews articles for deletion. Thank you, IZAK 00:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into History of the Brenham Jewish Community. In the current state of the article, it looks like the sources are essentially primary, which would mean that Wikipedia would be the first place that a comprehensive article on this family would be published. Understanding and appreciating the effort involved in bringing this material together, the difficulty is that Wikipedia is intended only to republish material whose significance and accuracy has been previously vetted by other sources; a first biography would be prohibited by the no original research policy and biography guideline. I would suggest merging this material with an article on a broader topic such as History of the Brenham Jewish Community, since the policy for stand-alone biographies is stricter than the requirements for brief mention in a broader article. As a stand-alone article there currently isn't enough sourcing to meet policy requirements. If additional sourcing is found please let me know and I'd be happy to reconsider. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would urge not treating good faith and potentially valuable contributions which happen not to meet policy requirements as if they were vandalism. Salting and the like is reserved strictly for the latter. Volunteers, imperfect and merely human, contribute time and effort to produce these articles. We lose when we fail to acknowledge or respect this. See WP:BITE. --Shirahadasha 01:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge into History of the Brenham Jewish Community or Simon Theatre. Bhaktivinode 13:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So far, there has only been one vote to delete the Simon Theatre, so it should be considered as a possible place for the article to be merged with. Bhaktivinode 02:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into History of the Brenham Jewish Community. --Brewcrewer 04:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sufficient sources for a subject so old. Merge is acceptable, subject to debate and acceptance at the target. --SmokeyJoe 08:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to History of the Brenham Jewish Community. The content of this article is already there! --SmokeyJoe 08:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father Vernard Poslusney[edit]

Father Vernard Poslusney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently beloved, but nonnotable, Catholic priest. Article written like a memorial, in conflict with WP:NOT. Claims that he wrote 3 books, 1 of which sold (?) 20,000 copies, but no sources. NawlinWiki 17:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines, and the text was also copied verbatim from a blog posting.[18] Karanacs 17:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and does not meet notabillity guidelines. BigDunc 20:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources, and nothing found in Google Books/Scholar to back up theologian claims. --Dhartung | Talk 22:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also looking at links provided seems a copy and paste job. BigDunc 19:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 05:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment after close - His first name actually is spelled "Venard" as in Venard Poslusney and Father Venard Poslusney. (See Google search. I included these links in this AfD so that any recreation under a different spelling may link to this AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 01:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and cleanup – notable librarians and notable people who have been librarians kept; "notability TBD", "careers undocumented", and "no evidence yet" should go. - KrakatoaKatie 10:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of librarians[edit]

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

Textbook example of a list that would be better served by categories. Crystallina 16:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, lists and categories serve different functions. The additional text in this article makes it different from a category list which only contains names. Corvus cornix 17:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The additional text just mentions how else the list members are notable. This, too, is better served by categories. Crystallina 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, there is additional text, but it's absolutely useless, and shows how terrible this list is. We've got:

• The following people are noted as librarians, and possibly also in another field
• Other well-known people who have been librarians
• Notability & importance to be determined
• Not yet categorized: (careers undocumented in WP)
• No evidence yet in WP for being a librarian

Of these, 1 and 2 don't seem to have any distinction, as they just list librarians. 3 is composed of other librarians that seem "less important", but that definition is largely subjective. The last two are of people that are separated because there's no indication they were actually librarians. Seriously, the surrounding text is totally worthless, and there is no real information being conveyed here that a category could not convey (the noted librarians of congress could be in a subcategory). Remember, it's not whether the list has additional text, it's whether the list has additional information. 138.88.182.135 19:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. List of loosely associated people, having worked as a librarian isn't a notable connection here, Benjamin Franklin, Laura Bush, Lewis Carroll. Does anyone really believe those 3 are closely connected because they once had similar jobs? If this was a list of people notable for being librarians, it would be better, but it isn't. Crazysuit 00:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete'per 138.88.182.135. Pavel Vozenilek 03:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and divide. That preliminary division was done by me when I was new here, as an attempt to sort the list into some semblance of order and try to find information on the missing people. There's a full discussion of this on the article talk page--I refer to it instead of explaining here further. I never had a chance to finish working on it, because I instead found my energies diverted into rescuing articles on individual notable people that had been nominated for deletion. The part on notable librarians should now possibly be split off into a separate article. The list of notable people who have been librarians is in this case defensible because of the rather large number of such people having had prominent careers otherwise--it's served as a way-station. There are not many other professions that have done that-- it can be turned into a real article and not just a mere list. If deleted, I will try to reconstitute the parts that can best be reconstituted. Getting someone involved again in working on this topic is an practical use of AfD, but tagging the article or asking on the talk page can do that also.

I note that I & the other people working a good deal on it were not informed about the deletion. Sure it's on my watchlist--but so are about a thousand other articles that I've worked on or commented on or are trying to track after nominating for deletion or possible rescue in one way or another. This unconcern for individual editors was one of the things that got me rather annoyed when I saw it on WP when I came, as it applied to others. I can cope with it myself as I can with all unpoliteness here--I have personally gotten thoroughly used to the lack of conventional manners on WP-- but it still strikes me as unfair as a way of working on a serious project.

More important, nobody notified the WikiProject. I will do so now, tho a little on the late side. DGG (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not notifying anyone; I figured since the list had several authors and had an untouched cleanup/restructuring tag since November 2006, that it was abandoned. Crystallina 04:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm with DGG on this one; it is a potentialy useful springboard for several articles that it can also serve as a 'hub' for. --Abbeybufo (talk • contribs) 09:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the lists of those known as librarians and other famous people who worked as librarians; remove the doubtful ones until someone can give a reason for including them. I admit that as it stands, these two lists could be replaced with categories, so to maintain its advantage as a list, we need to add something about their contributions to the field, as in List of historians, List of geometers and List of explorers. (If you must delete, PLEASE give us time to assign them to categories first.) GUllman 23:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Or drastically trim. One category was not mentioned:

• People not interested in librarians... Tiptopper 01:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to List of notable librarians. Create a category as well. Wikipedia needs more indexing, more navigation aids, not less. Remove entires that are not verified librarians. --SmokeyJoe 09:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per SmokeyJoe, and trim.--Aldux 13:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This can be done my a category. No additional information, other the one found in the librarians articles, is necessary. -- Magioladitis 16:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This would be better served as a category. Karanacs 18:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but move to List of notable librarians per SmokeyJoe, DGG et al. Seems like a worthwhile list. Bearian'sBooties 19:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. This needs independent reliable sources in order to be kept and none have been provided. Eluchil404 00:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Studios[edit]

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

No indepedent sources to back up this studio's weak claim of notability. Cap'n Walker 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page is just begun today. Are ads to scans of the comic book ads acceptable? --Scottandrewhutchins 17:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Law & Disorder 17:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not really backed up. The scans of the comic book ads are humorous, but not directly related to the text of the article. No other independent references have been added. SkierRMH 01:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 01:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Dee[edit]

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

The template indicating that the notability of the subject has not been established was removed by an editor who appears to have serious WP:OWN issues regarding this article, as per the article's talk page. The notability of the subject herself has not been established at all. On that basis I suggest that the article on the strip's creator be deleted. There are no objections to an independent article on the strip being created in its stead, but there are no demonstrable indications of the creator herself qualifying as notable. John Carter 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• per nom. heqs ·:. 16:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for deletion on September 26, 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep. Breadmold 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:BIO. No secondary, verifiable sources are provided. A self promoting website generally is not counted as a secondary, verifiable source of information for an article. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 18:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Is the article about the person or the comic strip? The first AfD treated it as the latter, but the article doesn't read that way. If it's rewritten to be exclusively about the comic (dump all the links aside from the comic, cut down the extraneous personal info), then I wouldn't see what changed between the first AfD and this one. But if it continues to be primarily about the person, it fails WP:N. Torc2 21:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete concur that it might be different if the article was about the comic(s). JJL 13:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no verifiability. bogdan 15:03, 31 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 01:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hee Sang Ro[edit]

Hee Sang Ro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Teacher at a single school - I call advertisement. High rank in school his father founded. Peter Rehse 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 16:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I mean, noone outside of a small area knows who this guy is. Law & Disorder 17:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article doesn't seem to satisfy WP:BIO. Icestorm815 18:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete martial arts cruft about a non-notable person. 15 English GHits, none WP:RS [19]; ZERO Ghits in Korean for either Southern [20] or Northern [21] spelling of his name plus "Song Moo Kwan". cab 23:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Looks like an advertisement for the school. TGreenburgPR 01:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn instructor of nn art. JJL 13:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN and unsourced, "World Martial Arts Center" sounds like McDojo marketing --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 15:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 01:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Duncan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, non-notable local TV sports personailty Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete local notability only. JJL 13:46, 25 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. --Coredesat 00:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Friend[edit]

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

Non-notable aikido teacher. The general consensus is that for Aikido 7 or 8th Dan is notable in itself, for 6th Dan there would have to be something notable in its own right and for 5th Dan (there are just so many of them) it would have to be something really really notable. Although there are a number of interesting points to consider - I don't think this entry qualifies. He is a teacher at a single dojo. Peter Rehse 16:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 16:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete' as NN --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. I can't find anything notable compared to any other of medium high-level instructor.—Mrand ^T-C 13:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn; merge any relevant info. to A.W.P. book page. JJL 13:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per clearly failing WP:BIO VanTucky ^Talk 17:55, 28 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. --Coredesat 00:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Blaney[edit]

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

Article claims she's written several childrens' books; however, Amazon.com only shows one book that hasn't even been published yet. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Cap'n Walker 16:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no sources establishing any notability. NawlinWiki 17:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; it appears she's done a bit of writing (I found one piece on a webzine and mention of another in a British sci-fi zine), but with nothing actually published, I don't feel she meets WP:BIO. There's nothing to back up the award claims in the article, either. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. JJL 13:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete when she wins an award or actually publishes a book, she will be notable, but for now she fails the criteria.Karanacs 20:25, 29 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. --Coredesat 00:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For The Record[edit]

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

Unsourced, crystal ball-gazing article about a Mariah Carey song — it claims that the song will be released as a single, but I could find no reliable sources that mention this, and only one suggesting that the song exists. Prodded by myself; de-prodded without explanation. Extraordinary Machine 16:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. And it doesn't even claim it will be a single—it says "the song is not confirmed as the album's first single and may not even make the final cut of the album". :) If it is, then it will probably merit an article. Currently even if the song is registered it is non-notable and the article lacks sourcing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Doctorfluffy 05:48, 29 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 There is one source that appears reliable; this does not rise to the level of WP:BIO, as indicated below. Xoloz 22:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Gomez Durand[edit]

Javier Gomez Durand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am not convinced that this person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. There are sources, but none of them are the kinds of articles about the subject that are called for by WP:RS. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The person in this article is notable in the IT comunity as well as in Puerto Rico. As the author/editor of several IT books he has certain recognition in that field. I believe the references are from notable sources like Microsoft web page and O'Reilly Publisher website (largest technical book publisher in the USA). Mocotechochi 17:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Mocotechochi[reply]

• Reply What you need, to show notability, is actual articles written about this person, in newspapers and magazines for example, or reviews of his book in nontrivial sources. You've verified that he exists, but not that he is important. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with mocotechochi... he might not be famous as Paris Hilton, but he is notable in his field. I added the two times I have seen somebody else talk about him. I can probably scan the CB article, how can we upload that? 70.45.149.21 10:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sources are not sufficient to indicate notability. Doctorfluffy 22:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the sources are independent, and thus do not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. --SmokeyJoe 09:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect with merge done by Blofeld of SPECTRE. Non-admin closure.SkierRMH 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QLTM[edit]

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

The creator offers no evidence that this phrase is notable; in fact, it appears not to be widely used. Prod removed by creator without comment or changes to article. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect If it can be referenced redirect to LOL and have it at the bottom. If it can't delete ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why should all internet slang not have their place on Wikipedia? What is the justification for this not to show on Wikipedia as part of the internet vernacular and therefore a valid, although not popularly used I understand, but no less valid than any other part of the references made on Wikipedia. I have added it to the bottom of LOL, RFOL, and LMAO, as well as added this to the internet slag phrases listing.

I am not going to fight for this to be kept. I am really asking this as a larger question for the basis of information that deemed as "not notable." This is only one very, very small example of the type of information that might be lost or over looked. Wikipedia can contain so much information as a reference why is it not more freely open to new information and ideas? I believe all information should be vetted and accurate, and if the information can't be verified then it should be deleted. If this article could not be verified or substantiated, it should be deleted. But the policy on notability seems to be too broad or subjective to be used in most cases when articles are nominated for deletion. The Wikipedia "police" seem to be overly judgmental and narrow as to what this reference should or should not contain.TETFSU 16:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reply As I replied to your similar message on the article talk page, the standard we're measuring by is the notability criteria. If you can show how this subject meets that standard, this is the place to explain it. But if you want to discuss whether or not the notability criteria are the best way to choose what articles we need, you should take that discussion to the talk page there, rather than having it over just one article. After all, you're asking for a pretty radical change in the way Wikipedia runs, and that change will affect all of the encyclopedia, not just this one article. And if we only kept verified articles, this one still wouldn't qualify, since your only cited source is another user-edited source, not a reliable one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:27, 24 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. — TKD::Talk 18:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Burnett[edit]

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

This appears to be related to a content dispute at Freak Nasty; there are no reliable sources provided to verify that this is in fact the identity of that artist. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fork of edit war going on at Freak Nasty regarding his real name, where neither side of the debate has ever provided verification of their claims. ... discospinster _talk 17:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete having seen the article the way it was before cleanup, I sincerely doubt there's any truth to this. JuJube 23:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a branch off of the Freak Nasty Edit War. This is an article created by one of the opposing sides. Jlau521 21:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. Dodgy. tomasz. 13:48, 28 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. --Coredesat 00:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Varkon[edit]

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

• Contested speedy delete Anthony Appleyard 15:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Varkon has been deleted twice:
  • At 10:36, 24 October 2007 by User:Anthony Appleyard
  • At 15:13, 14 April 2007 by User:Soumyasch
    • See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Open source project advertising for people to write an article. Anthony Appleyard 15:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based on my speedy nom and comments on WP:COIN. Notability cannot be asserted in accordance with WP:N. The article is based entirely on primary sources and was solicitated by the software developers per my evidence at WP:COIN. Add to this that it had already been deleted once and there is a clear cut candidate for deletion. EconomicsGuy 15:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam. No independent sources to establish notability. Cap'n Walker 15:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this searching for this name on google returns 22,000 hits. Law & Disorder 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm waiting for independent third-party sources describing actual usage of Varkon and indicating it is valuable. The recreation of a deleted article without going through DRV, and the creator's apparent COI, are troubling issues. The intemperate remarks of User:VeganEater, the person who re-created the article today, don't suggest good faith or respect for our policies. EdJohnston 21:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete posthaste. Zero sources. shoy 16:02, 26 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.