< October 27	October 29 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Verification does not go both ways. Neil ☎ 16:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falling Down (Hayden Panettiere album)[edit]

Another crystalballery-filled article about a supposed upcoming album with no references whatsoever. Googling for "Falling Down" "Hayden Panettiere" album returns 250 results - the only remotely relevant ones being blogs, celebrity gossip sites and hits of the dreaded 'rumours started on fan message boards because this WP article exists' type. Delete per WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL, unless this can be referenced from reliable sources. Kurt Shaped Box 23:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep pending verification. Aside from the fact that Wikipedia needs to update its attitude towards websites like blogs (that however is not a factor in my decision and is a debate for another forum) I'm seeing enough reference to this through the Google search to push this out of Crystal Ball territory. Plus the article has an image of the album cover, too. Verification goes both ways -- if a reputable source can be found to suggest that this album is a hoax or does not exist or has been cancelled, then talk page me (don't put it here because I don't follow AFD discussion) and I'll reconsider. Lack of sources is a content issue, not an AFD one, unless of course the article violates WP:BLP and I see nothing here to suggest that. The article has only been around since July. My suggestion is to give it a conditional keep, and revisit it in a few months to see if things have changed. According to many of those Google hits, the album is due out in February so there should be an upswing in Wikipedia-friendly online sources in the coming weeks. 23skidoo 13:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC) -I agree with 23skidoo, there is enough reference to this all over the web to prove that this is an upcoming album. Also, try checking out Hayden Panettiere's Official Music MySpace page, http://www.myspace.com/haydenpanettiere. There it talks about her album, but as stated above, I'm sure that as February draws closer we will be given much more evidence on this matter. DarthTaramasalata 19:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. no third party sources cited. jonathon 08:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unverified crystalballery. Doctorfluffy —Preceding comment was added at 07:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 08:27, 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. --Core desat 03:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GOSPA[edit]

This is hopelessly vague. The only reason I can see for the existence of this article is http://www.gospaplanning.com/. This is not a common acronym. --Busy Stubber 23:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanispamcruftisement. The company doens't look to pass WP:CORP, only a few mentions here and there. --Dhartung | Talk 01:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable acronym with minimal sourcing - doesn't appear like there's much potential for notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete no third party citations. jonathon 08:31, 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. --Core desat 03:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Max Noce[edit]

Close reading of this suspected autobio reveals the only notability is by association with other people. I admit I didn't Google all the bands he's been in so there is room for error on this nom. However no work has been done on it since I tagged it with an autobio over a month ago. Of course I also blame myself for not tagging it more thoroughly with wikify or orphan and unreferenced tags. Still I don't think he meets WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC from the info. Pig^man 23:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline speedy - He is not notable. Into The Fray ^T/C 23:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not notable. Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 00:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it doesn't appear that he meets WP:MUSIC. Most of his work appears to be session stuff with various bands and working with Matt Sorum on a clothing line. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:57, 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 Merge and redirect to Seven Sisters (Forgotten Realms). Fang Aili ^talk 18:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qilué Veladorn[edit]

Non-notable fictional character. Prod was deleted by 204.208.179.5 without comment (along with the ((unreferenced)) tag), so listing for AfD. Mikeblas 23:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 23:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be non-notable, fails WP:FICT. Google search returns about 1500 hits, but I didn't find any decent secondary sources indicating notability. Doctorfluffy 06:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 11:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable secondary sources as evidence of notability outside of the game settings. There are no primary sources given either, nor any real world perspective.--Gavin Collins 11:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Seven Sisters (Forgotten Realms), ideally along with the other six (except maybe Alustriel). Powers ^T 12:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Powers. For what it's worth, the claim that "reliable secondary sources" are absent for an article of this nature is a bit wide of the mark: in fact, the description of these characters, in semi-encyclopedic styles, in game manuals whose authority is definitive precedes their use in narrative fiction. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The game manuals are primary sources. -- Mikeblas 14:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Seven Sisters (Forgotten Realms). Pinball22 15:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --Polaron | Talk 16:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - cruft, no real world perspective, no secondary sources. Too bad there's not a D&D Wikipedia to transwiki these things into... I don't know how WOTC would feel about it, though, as these are copyrighted characters. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of wikis deal with copyrighted characters, including Muppet Wiki, Wookieepedia, and Memory Alpha. Granted, Wizards is not Disney/Henson, Lucasfilm, or CBS, but all three of them have been known to put up just as much of a fuss as Wizards has in the past. Powers ^T 15:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, there is a D&D wiki, but it seems to cover just Open Gaming License content, including homebrew stuff. I also found a Forgotten Realms wiki. Powers ^T 15:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are fan wikis, while this is an encyclopedia wiki. Perhaps a D&D fan wiki can't hold any copyrighted content from the sourcebooks because that would discourage people from buying the manuals, I dunno. But in that case, maybe Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on a topic if its content only comes from the D&D manuals and source books (either directly or through synthesis). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Hotaling[edit]

Accomplishments: 3 small acting roles, 1 book. I'm just not feeling the notability here. Lots of puff and names thrown around but little substance. Substantial G-Hits at over 11K but casual search of the first hundred finds no WP:RS or WP:V and mostly blogs. Fails WP:BIO. But, hey, I might be wrong. Pig^man 23:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be up-and-coming, but not quite there yet. I agree with the nominator's comments about the Google hits. There's a lot of them, but nothing satisfactory. I checked Google news as well and turned up zilch. Into The Fray ^T/C 23:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC at this time. I've actually heard one of her songs on a music blog but that's it. --Dhartung | Talk 01:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any indication that she's getting enough coverage for any of her activities to meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:01, 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. --Core desat 04:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (The Memories song)[edit]

This article lacks the reliable sources that would show that the song meets the notability criteria. I tried googling for better sources and found none, but the names make this difficult to google. In addition, most of the article is the lyrics in full, which is a copyright violation and must be removed even if the article is kept. Prod removed without comment by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Is this a copyvio article about a copyvio song? Regardless, delete per nom, as well as the associated band, which I see has been ((prod))'d. Into The Fray ^T/C 23:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete - Whats a copyvio?. Look here for proof they are real and that the song is real [1] or [2] theworm2345 ^T/C 23:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The first link verifies that the song exists (the second is a forum, and not a reliable source. But the notability criteria require more than existence to be important; you need actual articles about this song to show notability, articles in nontrivial sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:35, 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. east.718 at 18:08, 11/3/2007

Wildlife of Pikmin[edit]

The article is nothing more than an enemy guide - while some may say the same about the Mario/Zelda enemy lists, at least they have more history, and at least the lists don't have every single variation of the various enemies, unlike this. And before anyone says that there is no guide content, this article describes the strength of the creature, the habits of the creature, the danger level of the creature, calls one of them the "most mysterious creatures in the game", etc. The only possible way to avoid deletion would be to wipe the entire article and start it over, since every single sentence is broken. A Link to the Past (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Start from absolute scratch? You are not serious. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 23:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that comments that are nothing more than calling various members of various species "dangerous", "strong", or "mysterious" are appropriate? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's new to me. I've never heard of blanking an article to "improve" it. Seems to me that eliminating all of the good sentences (Which, if you really look at them, there are some.) would be of absolutely no help whatsoever. This article is still, I believe, in the rewrite stage. There was lots more game-cruft a while back, and now it is way better. I'll add some more to this page later, I've got to go ATM.

--Kirby-oh 15:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline gamecruft. No notabilty outside of the game. Ridernyc 22:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure as to whether this violates the policies for deletion, but this is a bit useless by itself. I think that it should be merged with the Pikmin articles. Koryu Obihiro 14:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 08:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent reliable sources cited to establish the real-world notability of these fictional creatures. Miremare 23:25, 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 merge certainly works for me- the list is not so long as to overburden the main Pogo.com article, but it is still information worth noting there. -- Mike (Kicking222) 03:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pogo.com Games[edit]

Contested speedy, then a contested prod, so here we are to complete the set. Indiscriminate list of information, regarding a website (pogo.com) which, personally, I don't feel warrants its own article either (its claim to notability is based on a spurious claim to be "a top 10 website" - its real rating is a somewhat less impressive 560th) - but that's another matter. I can't see any encyclopedic value to listing every subpage of a website. — iridescent 23:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pogo.com, then Delete. I agree with Iridescent, no need to list every subpage of a website; if there is any call for the information, it will be as part of the parent article (or by going to the website itself, which seems to be clear about what it offers). Accounting4Taste 23:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Delete as has been suggested by Accounting4Taste. There is no need for this list separate from the main article. Into The Fray ^T/C 23:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete per A4T. The listed content isn't notable enough to warrant an article. (A list of games offered at a particular website is hardly encyclopedic in my view). Bfigura ^(talk) 00:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pogo.com. More information about what types of games are available would help the main article, though this list itself needs work -- quite a few games are missing. Pinball22 14:42, 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). Qst 23:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Villebillies[edit]

Non-notable band. My db-band tag keeps getting removed by an anonymous SPA, who is probably the same person or a meat puppet of the original editor, who is an extreme COI violator. Corvus cornix 22:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Weak keep - They did have an album released by Universal Motown but just one and, according to WP:MUSIC, that's not enough. I was able to turn up some news about them and I get quite a few Google hits, but I can't find anything that gets them past WP:MUSIC. So, delete, but certainly not speedy. Into The Fray ^T/C 00:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to weak keep in light of the tour. That tour, in and of itself, would probably not satisfy WP:MUSIC, but combine it with the release on Universal Motown and I think they squeak by. Into The Fray ^T/C 11:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Why not speedy? They have no notability, thus speedy is the proper action. Corvus cornix 00:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because, per WP:CSD, at least as I read it, notability is asserted. Whether it meets the standards to continue to exist here or not is immaterial. Into The Fray ^T/C 00:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Having one released album is not an assertion of notability, per WP:MUSIC. If that were the case, we wouldn't be able to speedy delete any bands. Note that the db-band tag links directly to WP:BAND with a link which mentions "assertion of notability". Corvus cornix 01:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, to me, having one album released on a major label is an assertion of notability. WP:CSD is not WP:BAND, regardless of whether the template links or not. To me, it's just a question of whether the article asserts notability, regardless of WP:BAND. I feel it does, so I feel speedy just wouldn't apply here. But, you know, this really rather academic, since we both agree it should be deleted regardless of the process under which it is done. Into The Fray ^T/C 01:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:CSD#A7 should be used when there is no assertion of notability. If there something controversial or questionable, the article must be deleted by AfD discussion, where is used notability, verification and reliability of sources. Speedy deletion generally are not used theses policies and guidelines. Carlosguitar 03:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to wikipedia and I unfortunately did not view the COI guidelines before creating my first article. I now understand as an employee of the band, my association with the subject of an article constitutes a COI violation and I apologize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Villebillieband (talk • contribs) 01:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [3], [4],[5] it's borderline but they do seem to have enough notability to keep. Ridernyc 22:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [6] according to WP:BAND Criteria for musicians and ensembles "4. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in relible sources".--Ky Music Nerd 02:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Greswik 15:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:BAND points 1 and 10. Martijn Hoekstra 15:51, 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. --Core desat 04:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prasenjit Mitra[edit]

Nom - nice academic CV, but not otherwise notable. Speedied once & reposted, I'm listing it here for review. Rklawton 22:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 00:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A Google Scholar search says his published work is widely cited. His claims appear plausible but no vote to keep without third-party WP:RS. • Gene93k 03:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Google Scholar often gives inflated citation counts. In the Web of Science the most cited article gets just 39 hits, which is not really much. Unless other independent secondary sources can be found, I vote delete. --Crusio 09:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually 39 hits is pretty good given the relative recency; those counts go up over time. And, published bibliometric studies show Google Scholar is just as good as Scopus and ISI, and that each one misses citations the others find. See Bakkalbasi et al. (2006) at doi:10.1186/1742-5581-3-7 --taking a maximum across the three is probably more accurate than picking the service that provides the lowest number. Chris Hoadley 18:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 39 hits is not bad at all in some subjects. In Computer Science, isn't the publication barrier lower, so more citations are expected? 61.17.80.168 21:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This comes from a WP:SPA with an obvious conflict of interest. Dr. Hoadley is another associate professor at Penn State. Rklawton 19:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually it's not a WP:SPA--I had to recreate my account because I couldn't recover the old password. I was user choadley. And yes, I am another professor at the same institution. But I still don't think google scholar citation counts should be regarded any less than WoS or Scopus. Crusio doesn't cite any evidence that Google Scholar inflates citation counts. 202 citations to a book in 5 years is a pretty big deal in our field (and yes, I'm a qualified expert in that field) and getting a book in computer science published by Springer is a big deal too. 19:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmhoadley (talk • contribs) [reply]
Reply - the proposal that all authors published by Springer automatically satisfy notability requirements is novel but not compelling. Rklawton 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article is one of a flood of obviously self-authored articles from this department to appear on Wikipedia these last few days. Rklawton 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Part of this claim is inaccurate: I wrote the John Bagby article as an interested party in his work (a student) and thus my article in this 'flood' is clearly not "obviously self-authored" treypsu 00:48, 30 October (UTC)
Strong Delete - From my understanding of the relevant polices, this article doesn't meet WP:N. Cmhoadley/Choadley, if you're at the same university, you could have a conflict of interest, and I think it'd be prudent for you not to involve yourself too much in this discussion, just in case. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - OK, if you see my presence at the same university as a conflict of interest, then I'll butt out of this discussion, and you can consider my recommendation that this page be kept as retracted. However, I just spent some time reading the WP:PROF guidelines, and I'm still quite a critic of Web of Science as a metric for citations of people's work, as the WoS has very strange inclusion practices for what they'll take in their corpus. I'll take my criticism of that issue there instead of here. cmhoadley 01:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lets see some RS to prove N. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 21:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably non-notable. (Appears to fail the guideline for academics). Bfigura ^(talk) 21:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment These articles are not self-authored, but were written by Hoadley's class as an assignment, one on each of the department faculty. As would be expected, some are notable, some not. Associate professors are usually on the borderline. It usually depends on the published work and the citations. In most academic fields WoS,m which limits itself to major peer reviewed journals, is the best for comparative purposes; if GS is used, the citing articles need to be examined, not just counted, for it includes a lot of things which are of relative low importance in evaluating work. But in some fields, it can be a useful corrective. I haven't checked the details on this particular person yet. to be continued. DGG (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - that's funny: assigning a project to your class guaranteed to humiliate some of your peers as they find themselves deleted as non-notable. Talking about putting one's foot in it. On a side note, my personal best involved suggesting my students file a FOIA request to learn who their univeristy was selling their names to and for how much. Rklawton 00:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply actually I did not ask them to do each of the department faculty. I asked them to select notable faculty. I have 14 students, and the department has over 50 faculty, and my influence in their choice was to say they not do the same person and that our non-tenure-track people as a class aren't notable. (And no, I didn't suggest that one of them do me.) And because I told the students not to do original research, I suspect most of the subjects of these bios are unaware of their pages. Even if they are, most care predominantly what experts think of them, not students or wikipedians. Rklawton, if you have commentary on how to improve assignments for wikipedia, I've solicited them on the admin page discussing all this, or you can send it to my talk page. Out of deference for COI concerns I've stayed out of this discussion but I would respectfully request that people focus on the issue at hand, which is whether this article establishes that this person is notable, not comments about me or the motives of the article authors. My students are reading all of this, and they've been trying to improve their own arguments for notability, but I've had to give them permission to take the assignment offline because some are being treated very badly, and many feel their contributions are being slammed without respect to rhyme or reason, for instance by speedy deletion. They were eager to try to meet the thresholds, now they are fleeing in droves. Notice how some are blanking their pages? I didn't ask them to do that, they're just fed up. Think they'll grow up to be longterm contributors? Cmhoadley 10:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this thread is here, I'll reply here. Wikipedia takes a pounding from both ends. The media reports that professors don't allow students to use Wikipedia as a source due to quality concerns (not that I know any professor who permits any encyclopedia to be used as a source), and the media bashes Wikipedia for being strict about quality and notability – thereby discouraging new editors. In the final analysis, Wikipedia tends to discourage (run off) contributors who don't take this project seriously. To quote from the bottom of this very form (in edit mode) "if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." What are your students learning from this experience? I think your students are learning about basic conflict of interest issues (Journalism 101) and Wikipedia's notability requirements. So yes, some of your students may decide not to contribute in the future, and that's probably for the best. Aside from that, I think it is unconscionable that you would require your students to give up the intellectual property rights to their own creative work. Tell me, did you seek any guidance at all from a Wikipedia administrator before making this a class assignment? Rklawton 14:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is indeed not the place, but here it is nevertheless. I think both CmhHoadley and Rklawton have a point. I think it is actually a good idea to have students contribute to Wikipedia as a class assignment. If well done, this would benefit both Wikipedia and the students. But they should not be "thrown in the deep" without guidance. Before letting them loose, they should be instructed on such concepts as notability and verifiable sources. And, yes, they should be informed that they would have no intellectual property rights to their writings. But let's face it, the number of students that produce texts that might be so good that they need intellectual property protection is vanishingly small and would not need this kind of classes anyway... Just my 2 cents. --Crusio 14:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vanishingly small. To wit: the model for FedEx started as one of Fred Smith's class assignments (he got a "C"). Rklawton 14:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the potential benefits were vanishingly small, but the number of students for whom this is important. So Fred Smith was an exception. How many more amont the millions of students in every year since Fred Smith?? --Crusio 14:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not thinking in terms of benefits. I'm thinking in terms of liability to the professor and school. You don't need a million one dollar cases to demonstrate the problems with this idea, you just need one million dollar case. Rklawton 15:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly don't want to mess around with US liability laws :-)) Here in Europe there's no problem at all and if a teacher would carefully instruct the students and explain the potential of others using their work/ideas, I would not in all reasonability expect that Wikipedia assignments could be a liability. But then, law is not necessary reasonable... Teachers, be warned! --Crusio 15:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep--JForget 01:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Lööf[edit]

Notability. Marlith ^T/C 22:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is a well known children's book author and comic writer within Sweden. Is nominated for Astrid Lindgren Memorial Award 2007, has been the subject of a documentary in Sweden's state television network [7]. Apparently doesn't like journalists according to the previous page, which may explain a relative lack of interviews. henrik•talk 22:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep notable [8], several books. Next time please do some research before nominating. JJL 22:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was no attempt to put an improvement sign or start discussion at the talkpage before starting AfD. The reason for this AfD is very thin. Neozoon 00:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should SNOW this discussion. Marlith ^T/C 04:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, you can simply withdraw your nomination. Powers ^T 12:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish word of the day: Snöboll--victor falk 10:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have recommended deletion were it not for the sources listed here. The article itself has only one, as does the Swedish Wikipedia version; normally that'd bring notability into strong question. Powers ^T 12:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. If you are included in a twelve page pdf by the Swedish Institute on Children's Culturesee p. 9, then you undoubtedly have some notability. Winning the national Adamson Award in 1969 is another good indicator. Fram 13:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strööng keep very notable artist and author. Frankly a one-word nominaton seems bad form, if not necessarily bad faith. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Nick mallory 13:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable author. -- Dougie WII 17:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 23:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Raine[edit]

Reading through this article, I can't find much in the way of notability. ""Best of Show" at the Mill Ave Arts Festival in Tempe, Arizona" is the closest. G-hits are substantial at 3,790 but skimming finds no WP:RS or WP:V. I don't know if I'm being nitpicky to nom it but I think it fails WP:BIO. What say you? Pig^man 22:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep sources not very compelling e.g. [9] but lots of ghits and more importantly lots of not-small-but-not-large shows. Minimally notable. JJL 22:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A major artist in her field and an expanding talent, with well-received performances and exhibits in many venues. I have added a book she wrote, additional credits, a fellowship she was just awarded this year, a section of her articles, and several more performances and exhibits, and will continue to beef the article up. I also added many links, and deleted the "orphaned" tag from a year ago. Rosencomet 16:22, 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). Qst 23:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nosrat Rahmani[edit]

Notability issues. Marlith ^T/C 22:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep clearly notable [10], [11]. JJL 22:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nationally prominent poet. English translations found from Iranian state media and at least one Western book about Iranian literature. Article needs more sources and cleanup for POV issues. • Gene93k 04:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per JJL and Gene. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:08, 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. We don't keep things in AFD to serve as examples. --Core desat 03:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hacking culture[edit]

Written specifically as an essay (see WP:AN#Dozens of bad-quality edits as a result of a coursework assignment), full of POV, disconnected trivia, and uncited claims. Doesn't really the address the title of "hacker culture". Prod removed by author, so AfD now. Oli Filth^(talk) 21:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be quite well-covered already at Hacker ethic, although some of the references might profitably be transferred and worked into the article. Other than that, this seems like synthesis/original research, which is fine for coursework but poor for Wikipedia. Accounting4Taste 22:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NPOV. This can be covered in another article. Marlith ^T/C 22:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from mainspace but keep somewhere(where?) as example of what happens when an article is written academically instead of encyclopedically--victor falk 22:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure it's so much an example of "academic" writing, just an example of "bad" writing. There's plenty of "encyclopaedic" articles that are just this bad! Oli Filth^(talk) 23:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's true, it's not that bad actually. If nothing else, the layout is much, much better than Hacker ethic. I was more pushing my POV about encyclopedic not academic writing styles. I've been thinking of writing an essay about that, but I wouldn't like to reinvent the wheel. Any tips where I can find something in that gist?--victor falk 10:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essay with some wikification, overlaps with hacker ethic and some other articles. --Dhartung | Talk 01:13, 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. Notability not demonstrated. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hakewill way[edit]

Delete: No evidence of notability (Contested PROD) – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not certain of the precedents for individual streets but this one has no notability outside a very small area and thus, I suggest, can't meet whatever standard is imposed. The single reference adds no notability to the street, just the problems of its surrounding urban area. Accounting4Taste 21:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I enjoy your input, this page is a work in progress on one of the fastest growing and cosmopolitan areas of Colchester. I ensure you that your comments have been noted and that by the end of the week this page will satisfy those queries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakewillway (talk • contribs) 22:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was sufficiently curious to go looking for the Wikipedia standard of notability to be applied to a street and found this essay, by which standard I doubt that Hakewill Way qualifies. I don't know what the largest street in Colchester is, but I'm betting this isn't it. According to Wikipedia itself, Colchester has a population just over 100,000, which suggests that two of its streets might -- might -- be notable, but almost certainly not this residential one with a single non-notable reference. Accounting4Taste 23:16, 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. --Core desat 04:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giani Harcharan Singh[edit]

A Biography of a non-notable person. Marlith ^T/C 21:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability issues. One source is a wiki, so that's no good. I do like "He is still alive," but this has got to go. the_undertow ^talk 21:38, 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 Merge and delete to The Last Temptation of Homer' ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Shabadoo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Previously debated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Shabadoo, which was closed early; consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 24 was that a full five-day debate made more sense. This is a procedural nomination, but my own opinion is delete; the term's importance outside of the single Simpsons episode does not seem to be verifiable. Chick Bowen 20:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have now notified all participants in the first AfD of the relisting. Chick Bowen 20:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Last Temptation of Homer Will ^(talk) 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of one-time characters from The Simpsons. It seems insufficient for an entire article but could be mentioned their (and maybe linked off of The Last Temptation of Homer per Will). meshach 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge any good info that may ever appear. Lacks WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, violates WP:NOR and WP:NEO; generally this has none of the marks of a good idea and all of the marks of a bad one. I thought WP:SNOW was the applicable policy on the quick closure the first time, but if there are people who really think this does deserve a full debate, I am looking forward to learning why... Deltopia 21:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a deletion is contested (which this one was: here) then there needs to be reopening of the debate whether or not to delete the article. See WP:DRV/CR meshach 21:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:SNOW is not policy; it is an essay based on a policy, WP:IAR. The feeling at the deletion review was that it did not apply here, since there was a rationally argued "keep" vote and the potential for more sources to be added over the course of the AfD. Chick Bowen 00:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that "Merge" is a subspecies of "Keep" for GFDL compliance reasons we keep the history of edits we merge into other articles and leave the original article as a redirect. Eluchil404 21:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- my views are as per before, I will give more thorough reasoning and sourcing as I find time later today. cheers,JJJ999 21:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (again) per nom. "References" do not support the assertions contained in the article. Unverifiable. WP:NN in any case. --Evb-wiki 22:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Meshach, although there's really not much to merge; the article itself is flakey. JuJube 23:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn neologism. Smashville 23:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Mesach and my comments in the DRV. --W.marsh 23:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real notability beyond a cartoon show. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:V. V-train 02:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in my original nomination here.--Isotope23 ^talk 04:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Meshach. The "sources" given are: an entry in a dictionary for neologisms and such; a humor blogger who uses that name; and somebody's signature to a sports board. Blatantly fails notability. --Orange Mike 16:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's no purpose in writing an article about every one-off joke in The Simpsons. If the joke in question was relevant to the episode, it could be mentioned there (but it isn't, and episode guides aren't lists of every joke in an episode). The content beyond the Simpsons is blatant original research that isn't backed by any source, it's just hypotheses and links to random mentions of the name (+urbandictionary, which isn't a reliable source). - Bobet 18:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The EverDead[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 20:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does indeed fail WP:MUSIC. the_undertow ^talk 21:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm a fan of this band, I have to agree that it fails WP:MUSIC. The only justification I could think of is that they are, or at least were, a notable band in the underground world of Horror Rock. But that didn't seem to save the Cancerslug article, so I doubt it'll save this one either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.105.65.197 (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. 13 total unique Ghits as well. [12] --Fang Aili ^talk 19:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pace-sigge[edit]

Not much in the way of claim of notability, or any independent sources. Alai 20:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could be a speedy. Does not seem to be notable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable as a creative professional. Hal peridol 21:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. -- Mikeblas 23:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blatant advertising for the subject. GlassCobra 00:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Karanacs 20:34, 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. --Core desat 03:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wah-hoo-wah[edit]

A cheer at Dartmouth College and the University of Virginia, apparently based entirely on a single essay. Neither notable nor encyclopedic. Delete. Dylan 20:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite agree with the nom. Definitely not notable. GlassCobra 00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 03:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an advertisement, not an article. Koryu Obihiro 13:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or possibly Merge with the entry for The Good Old Song. It's a bit of history I didn't know, despite nearing two decades in the UVa environs. Abb3w 21:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize it may be interesting, but that isn't a criterion for inclusion. Please evaluate this article's AfD in terms of the relevant policies (WP:V, WP:RS) and guidelines (WP:N). Dylan 21:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Source appears unreliable. Think outside the box 14:56, 1 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 merged and redirected per normal editing process. Publicola 15:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capture bond[edit]

POV fork of Capture bonding - Jehochman ^Talk 20:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - We don't need both Capture bond and Capture bonding. The material in capture bond was split out into a separate article when it should have just been removed. Although there are references, they were added by a COI editor who was pushing his own fringe theories and link spamming his own website. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Sadi Carnot As such, everything here is suspect and would need to be checked before being included. As has been said many times, "no information is better than wrong information." Since the basis of this article is suspect, it should be deleted, unless somebody is willing to spend the time to check all the sources and rewrite this to comply with neutral point of view, verifiability, and our policy against including fringe theories. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge non-COI portions into Capture-bonding then delete - I am very tempted to delete outright but I was able to partially verify the non-COI McJunkins and Ridley references, and the Waters interview looks legit, too. Publicola 20:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with merging if somebody wants to spend the time to do it properly. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Although the resulting capture bonding needs cleanup. Publicola 06:30, 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. --Core desat 04:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Sleep[edit]

Obvious self-promotion; no references; creator has but one other contribution, related to this article too. Biruitorul 20:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like a great organisation. If the author is involved, please don't take this discussion or the outcome personally. You may have more luck promoting it on a blog or other website. The style of the article, and the subject until it can be reliably sourced, do not belong on Wikipedia. Have a nice day. THE KING 08:31, 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 as nominator gave no clear technical reason to delete. Editors should bring the discussion in a more appropriate place than AFD. @pple complain 09:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universal law[edit]

Previously proposed deletion objected to. All entries on this disambiguation page are unrelated to the name of the article. (1) Universal law is not synonymous with physical law. (2) Universal law as a legal term is not in Black's Law Dictionary, nor am I able to identify any such similar use. Note also that clicking on this disambiguation just links back to this page. (3) The two "see also" tems are only relevant as containing the word "universal" and would not likely be confused with "universal law". Redirecting to the other articles may be inappropriate, as it might be the case that universal law does refer to some independent concept that could be the subject of a future article. Bsherr 20:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - shouldn't this be in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion ? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so, because it's a disambiguation, not a redirect. Bsherr 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly fine and necessary Wikipedia:Disambiguation page (although it could easily be developed into it an article, if that is the aim of the nominator? I admit I don't understand the deletion argument.) The concept "universal law" is used in articles about psychology (Universal law of generalization), ethics (Categorical imperative: (Kant's words, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law"), Ethical formalism, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals), and also in articles such as Mythopoeic thought, Robert Grosseteste, Ahmed Hulusi, Models of scientific inquiry#Logical empiricism, etc, etc. Obviously, it's a common and well-known concept, and therefore deserves an entry. Pia 09:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conversion to an article would be be a fine aim. My concern is limited to the use of the page as a disambiguation. I can only speak to the concept in legal practice and in science, but not in the social sciences. I see the circular link has been fixed. The solution would then be to delete the first reference and the disambiguation tag. Bsherr 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've gone ahead and modified the article accordingly. Does it look right to you? Bsherr 17:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bsherr, simply deleting other uses of a term because you are not familiar with them ("can only speak to the concept in legal practice and in science, but not in the social sciences") is never a good solution, unless you also intend to create a separate Wikipedia:Disambiguation page where the other uses can be covered. Examples of "other uses" in this case are demonstrated in articles such as Models of scientific inquiry#Logical empiricism and Universal law of generalization). However, I agree with Exit2DOS2000: Afd is not the place to list and discuss an issue of this nature. Pia 21:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't delete any use of the term I wasn't familiar with. You're right, that wouldn't be a good solution. You're also right that AfD is probably not the best place to discuss this. I'll post the balance of my notes on the talk page of the article. Thanks. Bsherr 02:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 20:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco pat[edit]

Contested PROD, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. east.718 at 20:01, 10/28/2007 20:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no verifiable sources. TonyBallioni 20:03, 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 the articles, and speedy delete the user pages per WP:CSD#G4. --Core desat 04:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Anthony, Omar Samuels[edit]

Having read Omar Anthony, Omar Samuels, User:Omar Barnett, User:Omar Barnette, User:Omar o barnett and User:Omar Samuel, all of which are essentially duplicates, I'm not quite what the chap's name is, much less if he's notable for anything. Certainly the claims of such are extremely vague, and completely unreferenced. Alai 19:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN actor with minimal credits[13]. He might want to consolidate the brand a little. --Dhartung | Talk 03:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the user pages will need to be listed at WP:MFD. They seem to violate the policy. --Dhartung | Talk 03:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What aspect of UP policy? If self-regarding buffoonery were grounds for deletion in that namespace, we'd be at it all day... I'll leave said MFD to you, I think, or to anyone else who is so minded. Alai 12:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO Karanacs 20:31, 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. east.718 at 18:14, 11/3/2007

Orthopox 13[edit]

Per WP:FICT. This is a huge wad of plot summary written in a in-universe style that cannot possibly be salvaged since no reliable, third-party, independent source has written specifically about this main character that would allow it to be compliant with WP:FICT. Merging overruled by two editors, one who apparently thinks that complying with policy is "vandalism". hbdragon88 19:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following character articles:

Natalya Ivanova (Destroy All Humans!)
Cryptosporidium (Destroy All Humans!)

hbdragon88 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll be honest, as much as I love the Destroy All Humans! series, these pages lack real-world notability and a few other things that they would need to remain, so deleting is the only opition for right now. BassxForte 02:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. Unlikely reliable secondary sources exist to establish notability. Doctorfluffy 05:44, 3 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. --Core desat 04:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture by the decade[edit]

Original research-filled piece of overly broad scope. Arbitrary (didn't realise pop culture started in the '60s). Reads like an WP:ESSAY. Prod removed by creator. tomasz. 19:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly broad, covered better elsewhere, not an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's quite decent, but reads more as a personal essay than an encyclopedia article, and we have this covered elsewhere anyway in more objective, coherent ways, and seems to contain WP:OR. If the creator wants to move it to their userspace then that's fine (in fact I did that for the user in question as a favour).-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wikify. Inclusion criteria for article contents are always ambiguous; this is nothing unique. I don't see how this is OR, we just need to move citations to inline references. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a very interesting piece, however the tonality and lack of attribution strongly indicate that original research is a problem here. Creator should be emailed the article should it be deleted. the_undertow ^talk 21:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The big problem with this article is that, as the nominator said, the scope is extraordinarily broad, attempting to cover a period of close to 40 year, and incorporating aspects of music, film, television, social trents, political sentiments, and much more. The article does indeed resembe the very early seedlings of an essay that has the potential to be expanded to the length of several books (and I'm sure even more). Indeed, it is very interesting, but the fact of the matter is that it is just not appropriate material for a Wikipedia article. Still, there may be a bit of information in the article that could be added to existing articles about popular culture and social trends, although the article as a whole warrants deletion. Calgary 23:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there are plenty of books on, say, nanotechnology, as well. I don't think this attempt at a summarative article is entirely futile. — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; all original research, and throwaway topic that sometimes is used on a slow news day in newspapers. Try something easier like "History of the World" Mandsford 00:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Thanks for all the debate on this page, we'll definitely keep these things in mind on future attempts. We'd obviously like to keep it around, but understand if you decide to remove it. We have been using a few encyclopedias on Pop Culture for the topic (as cited.)I guess we just don't have it pointed out very well.Russe304 16:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice you stayed civil. It's even nicer that you stayed civil in light of the useless comment above you. Happy editing. the_undertow ^talk 18:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wikify. It doesn't seem that out of line with other things on Wikipedia (Decade nostalgia, for instance). I think it would be unfair to delete the article before others were given a chance to improve it. Just because it starts in the 60s does not mean that it could not be expanded into earlier decades. Even if there is better coverage in other articles on specific themes does not mean that an overview article with appropriate links to content would not be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilast (talk • contribs) 20:57, 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. Sandstein 16:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inhabitants of Imaginationland[edit]

Delete Hardly worthy of its own article. I sugggest merging Imaginationland, Imaginationland Episode II, and episode 3 (once it airs) and just putting the list into that article.--Swellman 18:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Imaginationland Will ^(talk) 19:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it shouldn't even be in an article, let alone its own article. Dlong 21:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all Imaginationland articles into one. Concerning this list, we should find more sources for various characters, and remove all the characters that remain unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96T (talk • contribs) 22:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed with 96T. That's exactly what I was thinking, just have one article for the three episodes, and merge the lists. I'm not for deleting the list all together, seeing as alot of the names are sourced and their has been quite a bit of coverage surrounding the matter.--Swellman 22:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dlong. Completely non-notable. Doctorfluffy 06:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's address the AfD only here. If you were to discuss about merging the articles, discuss that on their talk pages. The lists do not belong on the articles or as a separate list. Douglasr007 06:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would suggest a merge into the list of one-off characters, but it appears that that list has since been deleted - as such, there's no reason for this list to exist. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 10:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Theres no reason to have mostly the same list in three articles and I don't want to see the episodes merged. I would settle to move this list to a page with minor SP characters as has been suggested.--Cartman005 21:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Why have one big list when three little lists serve a better purpose? How else are you meant to know which episode each character came from? JayKeaton 05:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because mostly the same characters are in each episode. And have you even looked at the page? There is a key for which episode they came from.--Cartman005 00:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any characters that were in episode one AND episode two don't need to be repeated in episode two. The episode two page can just have "new character" list. I do think the lists are important, but not important enough for its own page JayKeaton 04:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dlong. Completely non-notable. †Poison the Well† 20:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability and debatable concept. [[Guest9999 21:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Keep. A well designed and cited list, and an excellent way to trim the lists off the articles for the individual episodes, which should remain separate of themselves. Notable appearances of notable characters in a show with an enormous audience who will certainly seek out this information. Captain Infinity 22:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worthy of its own article. 68.220.166.89 23:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even merge. I don't see how this information is useful at all. Mahanga^Talk 03:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, serves no imaginable encyclopedic purpose. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, serves no imaginable encyclopedic purpose and no evidence of notability. 65.0.169.127 14:32, 4 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. --Core desat 04:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Narova[edit]

Looks to be a hoax, Google Scholar, Books and web searches all give replies only about Narva and Narva River (old name Narova). -- Sander Säde 18:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first hit on your web search looks credible: "These Finno-Ugric tribes are identified as the Chud, Ves, Meria, Muroma, Cheremysy, Mordva, Perm, Pechera, Yam, Zymyhola, Kors, Narova, and Lib." Not a reliable source however, esp when it's the only one. I think that filtering for the river removes practically every eventual sources (of which probably few are online), as they lived by it (and likely gave their name to it or vice versa). I would ask for an expert opinion. I've also notifyed wikiprojects estonia and anthropology --victor falk 23:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First match is a forum post - and search without -river gives either Wikipedia mirrors or info about the Narva river. There is a Hungarian .doc that might mention Narova people (a narova). If sources are found about the people, then the article should be kept. Perhaps it is once again a bad translation, maybe the author meant Votes, who live indeed east of Narva river and are close to extinction? See also the article about Ingria. -- Sander Säde 03:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator is an active editor, has (s)he been notified? In this state it looks like an unsourced stub. With so little references it is likely to be non-notable anyway. But I think the author should express his/her concerns.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexia Death (talk • contribs) 07:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he has been notified, [14]. However, that author seems to be a bit... dubious, perhaps, see User talk:Olgerd#October 2007 and his other article is prodded for deletion as well. And this is perhaps a bit of my paranoia, but all Bloomfield sockpuppets have just the username on user page - and see User:Olgerd. -- Sander Säde 08:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've ckecked my paper sources and found nothing, online hits seem to be Wikipedia mirrors of this article when the river is subtracted from the search term. Martintg 23:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very probable hoax (better safe than sorry). Renata 00:06, 1 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 deleting of article. --Core desat 04:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BROADCASTING OF TV[edit]

These articles are unnecessary, low quality forks of Television#Transmission_band, Broadcasting, Radio#Video, and other material treated in much higher quality articles. John254 17:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETING OF ARTICLE. Both are low-quality dupes. humblefool ® 17:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per both of you.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Broadcasting, where Television broadcasting redirects to. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I disagree with a redirect. The redirect would not normally be created, so why do it just because these useless articles were? J Milburn 22:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nobody is going to use such a redirect. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Utter piffle. THE KING 09:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both. -- Whpq 17:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no redirects per J Milburn. "Broadcasting of TV" is certainly not a likely search term. Doctorfluffy —Preceding comment was added at 07:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and all capitals? Agree with nom. Think outside the box 14:58, 1 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 Snow Delete. the_undertow ^talk 22:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loopify[edit]

non-notable neologism A^RendedWinter 17:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, almost speedyable as obvious from the article title. humblefool ® 17:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Unsourced dicdef and almost certainly non-notable neologism.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:30, 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 all. We can certainly discuss whether being part of a (now) purely theoretical royal family should be notable, but merely asserting so without referring to applicable guidelines is a very weak argument. The notability guideline requires substantial coverage in reliable third party sources, which is not in evidence for these people. Sandstein 16:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment: On the request of Mcferran (talk · contribs), I am reviewing the discussion again and amending the outcome to no consensus to delete with regard to Prince Pierre of Orléans only. See my talk page for the rationale. Sandstein 21:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Pierre of Orléans[edit]

Non-notable four year old here, should be deleted or merged as with many minor royals. See also recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Tatiana of Leiningen for an example of someone over a decade older, who has arguably done more, but is not notable just because she is a princess. Charles 16:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following for the same reasons:

Delete As nominator. Charles 19:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless France restores the monarchy, he isn't even a royal now. And in case France does bring back the monarchy, he's the first son of the third son of the man who would be King Henry. Just in case you care. When this kid plays "let's pretend" in kindergarten, he can't even be a decent pretender to the throne. Mandsford 17:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
France being a republic doesn't change a royal into a non-royal. He can marry some royal princess and became a king in some other country. And such a marriage won't be morganatic. —V. Z. ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 21:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He could, but he hasn't. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Charles 21:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that if the wiki had existed in 1550, you would never mention Antoine of Navarre, since probability that Bourbons would become French kings was quite low. —V. Z. ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 21:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't operate in the past either. Nice try. Charles 14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His eldest uncle is mentally handicapped, and his second uncle is as-of-yet unmarried. There is a possibility that Pierre could eventually become the future comte de Paris. I would agree with deleting Constantin's article, and possibly Philippe's, but not Pierre's. Morhange 19:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we do not predict the future. As of this point, Pierre is not notable. He is four years old! Charles 19:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, wait a minute. He is 4th in the line of succession. This is exactly the same place as The Prince Andrew in the line of succession to the British Throne. Will you propose to delete his article? —V. Z. ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 21:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that was an incredibly weak argument and a stupid comment at that. Prince Andrew has extensive news coverage surrounding him, millions of people watched his wedding on TV and he is still in the public eye and has been for decades. Certainly not comparable and certainly an attempt to insult the intelligence of everyone else if you expect them to believe so. Charles 14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is still the heir to the throne of France, and is absolutely a royal.Tim Foxworth 04:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfoxworth (talk • contribs)
Merge to the articles of the respective parents. The redirects can be re-expanded into separate articles if and when one of them does something noteworthy. Choess 13:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to his parents' article at most. Being a "royal" in a country with no monarchy isn't all that big of a deal, especially a toddler with no achievements to speak of. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most probably he is a future French king. To include him into the Wikipedia is only a question of time. —V. Z. ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 21:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia IS NOT A CRYSTAL BALL, people! We do not predict the future here. I'm a hardcore monarchist and even I think this is ridiculous! Charles 21:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a republican, but I acknowledge the lines of succession. In France there is the Salic law, that's why he won't be king only in case his uncle would have a son (highly improbable) or he himself dies. So his importance could be compared to Charles, Prince of Wales, most probably the future English & Scottish king. —V. Z. ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 21:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't simplify the Orléanist/Legitimist/Bonapartist situation. His importance is not comparable to Charles, the Prince of Wales. Charles 23:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fourth in succession to a monarchy which was kicked out of power in the mid-19th century does not create notability for a four year old. Let's wait until he does something worthy of note in his life. Edison 14:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - third in line to the Orleanist claimant to France, and, unless Jean marries and has sons, the future Orleanist claimant himself; this makes him notable in my book. I agree that there is no need at present for articles on Constantin, Philippe, and Paulina - but I hesitate about Moritz (which just goes to show how inappropriate it is to combine AfDs for different people, especially from different families). Noel S McFerran 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noel, Wikipedia does not predict the future. He could die tomorrow for all we know (God forbid though, as he is only a child). The rationale for combining AfDs is that these articles have no distinguishing features and have been argued, wrongly, to be notable on the same basis. If you feel it is inappropriate, then please vote individually, even if it means placing your vote under the other article name. The fact that they are agnates of different houses does not matter because they are each non-notable. Charles 18:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case (and only in that case) his article shall be deleted. But now he is 4th in the lines and that makes him very important. Certainly more that a lot of Star Wars cruft. —V. Z. ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 00:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. Tell me where this child shows up other than in genealogies. Charles 01:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Charles asks, I will respond (knowing full well that he will have an answer). When Pierre was born, there was an article in Point de Vue, one of the most popular French weekly magazines. [15] When he was baptised there was a FOUR-PAGE spread; not many babies get that kind of coverage. While he may be only four-years old, Pierre is a rather special four-year old. Noel S McFerran 02:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno if this helps, but here's a listing of the contents of that particular Point de Vue [16] where it mentions Pierre d'Orléans: baptême à Cannes Morhange 05:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We all know that Charles thinks that each of these individuals is non-notable (he's told us so numerous times on this page). But other editors might not share his unanimity on this issue. Editors should be given the opportunity to vote on these individually. Noel S McFerran 18:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then please do vote on them individually. Place your comments under the other nominations. Charles 19:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Not notable. I concur with the delete arguments expressed above, I afraid. --Malcolmxl5 22:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prince Pierre of Orléans per Noel S McFerran and Prince Moritz of Hesse as he is second in line to the headship of the House of Hesse. Delete Constantin, Philippe and Paulina. - dwc lr 12:14, 4 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. --Core desat 04:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nam Anh[edit]

Non-notable (well maybe but not really established). Peter Rehse 16:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 16:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking sufficient verification of coverage in reliable sources. VanTucky ^Talk 17:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless a reliable reference or two can authenticate the article, in which case I would change to weak keep. Bradford44 14:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no refs backing any claims reads like (another) advert for a school --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Grand Master Nam Anh will need deleting if this is. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:18, 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 per author request. --Core desat 04:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Lufia: The Legend Returns[edit]

Primarily in-universe list of character histories. Far too much detail. We already have a perfectly good article on Lufia: The Legend Returns. Author of this article has recently *removed* some of the most significant material from the main article and placed it here on the grounds that it's a "spoiler". Tony Sidaway 16:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are having someone put the page back up when you don't want it in the first place. It's really not for you to decide whether it stays or not, but I'm trying to just do what you want. I've put the "spoiler information" we've discussed at length into the game's main page. I've also decided to just incorporate the secondary characters into the plot section where they go. Thus, the page really has nothing left of value but the information you deemed as "nitpicky." Just delete the page and be done with it.--Fuen Fuboo 17:02, 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. --Core desat 04:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Engle[edit]

Non-noteable reads like a self promotion "Randall Engle" ninjutsu gave nothing worthwhile on google - Peter Rehse 16:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 16:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obviously a promo article for a person failing WP:BIO VanTucky ^Talk 17:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability --Mike Searson 19:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable subject, blatant spam article. GlassCobra 22:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Bradford44 14:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN & COI. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:04, 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. --Core desat 04:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Rover Consortium[edit]

Appears to be the beginnings of what might become a notable project, but is not at this moment one. The web page is a single page. No news hits, about 14 Google hits, including this page. Into The Fray ^T/C 15:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC) I've also added Alpha rover to this nomination, as I was unable to turn up anything substantive on the rover itself either. Into The Fray ^T/C 15:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as non-notable. Both external links in ARC lead to the same dummy web page which has no real information. - TwoOars (Rev) 16:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Any ghits I found on "Alpha Rover" are either Wiki/Wiki-mirror hits or refer to something else. "Alpha Rover Consortium" only got 8; all Wiki (or mirror) and the mention of the project in Google Lunar X Prize says "On 27 September 2007, Alpha Rover Consortium (ARC) was created in order to compete for the Google Lunar X Prize." FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such time as the project gets off its feet and generates something newsworthy Nachmore 07:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any notable information into the Google Lunar X Prize article until such time that the companies are more notable (have more accomplishments). (Cardsplayer4life 09:07, 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. --Core desat 04:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krork[edit]

Non-notable fictional RPG character - no relevant google hits on Krork Azeroth. A couple of editors have removed CSD and prod notices without explanation. NeilN 15:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a non-notable fictional character. It also is written somewhat in-universe. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 16:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 18:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable subject, no sources, written in an exceedingly unencyclopedic manner. GlassCobra 22:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GlassCobra. Doctorfluffy 22:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - vanity article about a player character. Does not assert notability, and in any case he can't spell "fell swoop". Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 11:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surry elementary school[edit]

Non-notable elementary school. Written, it seems, by a student at the school and therefore OR. Merge with relevant school district? Emeraude 15:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as non-notable school, doesn't seem to be a page on the district in question. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This article is about a non-notable school, and is written like a student made it. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 16:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the problem isn't that it reads like it was written by a young child, as that could easily be cleaned up, but it is definitely original research without any assertion of notability. Useight 16:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 18:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Useight. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as non-notable elementary school. Oh and the fact that it was most likely writen by a third grader helps too. TonyBallioni 19:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete nice to know the math teacher lost so much weight, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete per nom. Chris 19:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability. Poorly written article, may have been written without serious intent. I.e. see the there is a well known teacher paragraph... Lra drama 19:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Schools are inherently notable, the problem was merely that it was written in an unencyclopedic manner. I've moved the article to the proper title and stripped it to the bare minimum for a stub. GlassCobra 22:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable school, schools are not inherently notable as WP:OUTCOMES clearly attests. Corvus cornix 22:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability expressed, and while I'd agree that high schools might be on the upper side of notability (but do well to have some sort of reliable sources to back it up), elementary schools really aren't. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Surry, Maine. See also: WP:OUTCOMES. Burntsauce 18:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete Only directory information now that the chatter has been quite rightly removed. DGG (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - (listing any Notable Alumni (making the school notable) would be highly endorsed and turn me to Keep). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Twenty Years 10:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Auroranorth (sign) 10:54, 1 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. No prejudice against a better, non dictionary-definitiony article subsequently being created.~~ Neil ☎ 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV overturns to no consensus. Xoloz 14:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cold feet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

procedural nomination Article is a dictionary definition as it was during its first AFD. This second AFD is a conversion from an expired PROD that lacked any reason for deletion.User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No strong opinion of the deletion or otherwise of the article, but if the consensus is to delete then a redirect to Cold Feet would be appropriate. Oldelpaso 15:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dicdef. A redirect per Oldelpaso might be prudent. humblefool ® 17:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Raynaud's phenomenon per Exit2DOS2000. Wiktionary already has an article on wikt:get cold feet. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand The Slate article shows that a longer history on the topic can be written beyond the dicdef. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If one were to consider a merger as an option, would perhaps Anxiety or Doubt be potential targets? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Psychology has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Raynaud's phenomenon - or to a dab if you must. This affliction goes by many names and could be 'search'ed for a variety of ways. Not a nice thing to have (if you want my bit of OR). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the concept of cold feet is definitely notable and not, as far as I can tell, just something that can be lumped under Raynaud's. This article discusses the term's origin and, while listing a variety of possibilities, doesn't even mention Raynaud's. Everyking 09:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article lacks potential for expansion. Redirect would be okay, but unnecessary. Doczilla 20:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Slate article shows that much more could be written about this phrase. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 22:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar legends[edit]

Has been speedily deleted a number of times. Brought here for your attention. Is this enthusiastic crystal-ball reading, or is it a hoax? Either way there doesn't seem to be any evidence of its existence on Google. Also including Songs in guitar legends. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it's either a hoax or it's unsupported speculation about something that doesn't exist yet, and may never exist. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL and WP:V.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:32, 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. --Core desat 04:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridgedale Sandwich[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparently non-notable sandwich. John254 14:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick search shows 0 hits. Delete as non-notable themcman1 _talk 14:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleased to report that "Ridgedale sandwich" (in quotes) is an Antegooglewhack despite appearing in Wikipedia. That's pretty impressive. It also means it is unverifiable eight ways to Sunday and can be deleted. It also, I imagine, is a candidate for speedy deletion under A7, no indication of importance. - Che Nuevara 14:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Themcman1 as non-notable food. GlassCobra 21:57, 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 Deleted for being a HOAX and getting my hopes up. the_undertow ^talk 22:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muppets: Today is the Earth or World Staying Here[edit]

Article created by vandal about fake film for which Imdb link reveals a different title and release date. Georgia guy 14:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as obvious hoax. --Hnsampat 14:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per above themcman1 _talk 14:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious hoax. Point of interest: hoaxes are specifically excluded from WP:CSD. - Che Nuevara 14:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A hoax? Rats... I would pay good money to see the Swedish Chef say Gort! Klaatu barada nikto!--victor falk 14:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Burn with fire per Hnsampat Cynical 17:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism. Lacks the modicum of believability required to even be a hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Mike Searson 19:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not speedy As it is hoaxalicious TonyBallioni 20:01, 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--JForget 00:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hansen[edit]

Article about a "performance artist" with no references towards notability. Although she is supposed to have a successful acting career and have been the recipient of numerous awards she doesn't have a presence on Imdb. It's difficult to narrow her down on Google due to a relatively generic name. The award she does name is an award local to the Albuquerque arts community. So basically she doesn't meet the requirements of WP:N. -- WebHamster 14:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL 15:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She claims her most significant movie role is in 1998's Lost In Space and, according to IMDB, she's not in it, even though they have listings for "uncredited" actors. Doesn't meet WP:BIO, ~WP:Verifiable. Accounting4Taste 15:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO unless sources are provided to attest notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the only real claim to notability is unproven and (probably) fake. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably an amateur actress known only locally, within the local amateur dramatic circuit, if that. Lots of false claims in the article. No IMDb presence. The only person with her name specialises in technical support. Not included at all in the full cast list. Definately a delete. And, as is rightfully stated above, it'd fail WP:BIO anyway. Lra drama 19:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above; might even be a hoax. GlassCobra 21:56, 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. --Core desat 04:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable moments at the MTV Video Music Awards[edit]

Delete - amounts to a series of news blurbs about stuff that happened at the VMAs. The gossips chattered about the moments for a few days and then forgot them. No objective standard for inclusion, depending on what some editor or another happens to find memorable or noteworthy. If any of this is truly notable then it merits a sentence in the article for either the awards or the artist. Otto4711 13:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 16:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the Pearl Jam bit is notable, the rest isn't. Lugnuts 08:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mostly non-notable items, certainly shouldn't be in a list. Doctorfluffy 06:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many of these moments should have their own articles. A list like this is an absolute minimum. Everyking 10:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely arbitrary original research list.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:41, 1 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. --Core desat 04:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funstead[edit]

Corporate neologism. 96 ghits, therefore not widely used. MER-C 12:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT#DICT, WP:V, WP:NEO.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, breaks numerous policies. 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 delete. east.718 at 18:17, 11/3/2007

Georgia United States Senate election, 2010[edit]

My crystal ball predicts the deletion of this speculative article. MER-C 12:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Doesn't come under WP:CRYSTAL - Point one says that if an event is notable, is certain to take place it is okay. Specific examples: 2008 U.S. presidential election and 2012 Summer Olympics--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 12:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - until such time as there is maybe a declared candidate. At the very least the list of potential candidates needs to be deleted as WP:OR. Otto4711 13:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete. Phoenix-wiki, you've taken that point from WP:CRYSTAL out of context. The full section is this:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2016 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research.

This article is purely speculation and original research. It's clearly a candidate for deletion on WP:V ad WP:OR. - Che Nuevara 14:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:CBALL this is an event which is certain to happen, and due to the staggered six year terms in the Senate, this is the next election for that seat. Repeat, the next election for that seat. --Dhartung | Talk 17:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's the next one, but where are the reliable sources? The article is pure speculation and original research. Just because it borderline passes WP:CRYSTAL doesn't mean it comes anywhere near passing WP:V and WP:OR. - Che Nuevara 23:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL defined. Almost nothing verifiable can be said about the race beyond its being scheduled. The list of potential candidates is speculation. • Gene93k 18:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Che Will ^(talk) 19:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Dhartung stated this is the next election for this seat and it is certian to happen. As such, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply as an argument for deletion. TonyBallioni 20:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Che makes good points, but it is the very next election. I would not be for keeping a similar article about the 2016 or 2022 election. Edison 21:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete While the article does source the rumors and speculation to reliable sources (weird...), I have concerns about it being a little early to have per-state articles on an upcoming election. Not to mention, all of the sourced information, and then some, is already included in United States Senate election, 2010. This just doesn't seem necessary unless the particular state race becomes one of greater consequence and importance, or if the information becomes too unwieldy for the main article. LaMenta3 02:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the example given in CRYSTAL. The immediately next election to a Senate seat is of such importance that planning starts years before the election, and as soon as there is information, the article should be created. The example given was deliberately chosen to illustrate that discussion about the elections following that will rarely never be appropriate for an article. DGG (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What information is there? There will be an election. The same could be said of any election between now and the end of time. The election will be on a particular date (which isn't even sourced in the article and seems awfully late in the month, but I digress). Nothing that needs to be split off from the main election article. Otto4711 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article includes sources, and these are likely to increase as we get closer to the election. That's the next election. THE KING 09:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not about the election. One verifies that the governor is term-limited and the other is an opinion poll about a potential candidate who has not to the best of my knowledge declared his candidacy. Otto4711 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, people are talking about it, people care—that's notability. Everyking 09:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Might want to read WP:N. Otto4711 04:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attention received is the very essence of notability. When something gets attention on that level, there are typically sources published about it—that's verifiability. The article meets both criteria. Everyking 04:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The essence of notability is coverage that is substantively about the subject in independent reliable sources. People pay attention to all sorts of things that don't meet notability guidelines. Please offer up the independent reliable sources that include substantive coverage of this topic. Otto4711 12:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the essence. Attention received is the essence; coverage is the reflection of it. But it's functionally the same thing. I admit that the sources are not as strong as I first thought they were, but we can definitely source the speculation that Isakson is going to leave the seat to run for Governor, and that's obviously a key factor in this election, and it gives us something to build this article off of (beyond the simple fact that the election is scheduled to occur). Everyking 07:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, obviously notable, certain to happen, sources are there (though there could be more); what's the problem? —Nightstallion 14:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again, the sources are not about the election. One is to verify that the current governor of Georgia, who is not a declared Senate candidate, is term-limited from running for governor again. The other is a poll result. There is no verifiable information about this election other than it will happen and the date on which it will happen (which is not sourced). Otto4711 16:20, 1 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. --Core desat 04:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARK in Berea[edit]

There are lots of sources, but none of them is actually an article about this structure, which doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines as far as I can tell. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the links are relevant, and it's deucedly vague about what the thing actually is. humblefool ® 18:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 03:59, 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. --Core desat 04:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worlds Children Peace Monument (WCPM)[edit]

This article has sources, but none of them are about the Worlds Children Peace Monument in Berea, Ohio. One of them is an advertisement for the Raelians. I googled and didn't find much in the way of reliable sources that would show notability for the monument. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's taken from their MySpace page, word-for-word. Delete. humblefool ® 18:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, although wouldn't that also make it a copyvio and thus a speedy? Also, kudos for having the offical most random and weird "See also" section in the history of Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:56, 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 Game (Life)[edit]

The result was speedy delete by NawlinWiki (WP:CSD#G4). Non-admin closure. KnightLago 01:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-notable theory. Most of it is nonsense. Also, it represents most of it as if it were true. See WP:UNDUE Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 11:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as re-creation. Same concept formerly deleted as The Game (game) and a dozen similar titles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Isn't this a clear G1 and A1? --Goochelaar 11:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And, the only reference is an article from Uncyclopedia... --Goochelaar 11:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - There are currently four different sources on the article. There are more available, but they could not be added due to the Wikipedia spam filter thinking they were blocked links, possibly from the previous six debates over this article (which hold some very good points as to the keeping on it).--Jamie.johnstone 12:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - — Jamie.johnstone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix 22:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The Uncyclopedia reference has been removed as well, as such removing any "doubt" brought up by citing such a source.--Jamie.johnstone 12:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure Q ^{T C} 11:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is presented in a way that identifies it as a cult-game. The game, as can be seen around the internet, is not a localised phenomenon, and this article was created in order to inform those interested in cult theories of this well-existing game and idea. If required, the article can be edited to make the information less imperative and more obvious to those who do not read the introduction, that it is an analysis of a cult idea and not an instruction for them.--Jamie.johnstone 11:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The use of Uncyclopedia as a source was included as Wikipedia likes to have sources for articles (completely understandable). Although the information on Uncyclopedia is partially posted as humour (as Uncyclopedia allows you to do this legally), the article does include factual information that does apply to those who subscribe to theory explained in the article. I believe that the debate behind this article could be applied to any religion (from a purely non-believing point of view) as there is no scientific proof or sources behind the theories explained in them.--Jamie.johnstone 11:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As a source, and additional information , I would like to suggest the following website: http://www.lose the game.com/ (remove spaces)

Unfortunately, this website is considered Spam by Wikipedia and as such was not included in the original posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie.johnstone (talk • contribs) 11:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Wikipedia is not for things made up one day Q ^{T C} 11:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - See my previous comment on religion. The game explained in this article has been around for over 11 years (according to a claim) and is known of in more than one location.--Jamie.johnstone 11:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per everyone except the article creator who of course wants to keep it. JuJube 11:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is currently being edited to include more sources and make the article more factual and less misleading.--Jamie.johnstone 11:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:SPEEDY#G4 This is recreation of this, which went through the process (exhaustively). So tagged. Deltopia 12:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete has been contested, as discussed on the article's Talk Page - Talk:The Game (Life) --Jamie.johnstone 12:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So what? PRODs can be contested, not speedy deletes, except by putting o a hangon tag and explaining why speedy deletion is inappropriate. You haven't proven that. Corvus cornix 23:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:SPEEDY#G4, this is an out of process recreation of deleted material. This subject has been discussed at WP:DRV here and the conclusion by consensus was to keep deleted. KnightLago 13:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as the original articles have since been deleted, I am not willing to contest them through a DRV as I do not know the content and cited sources, and so cannot positively comment on them. I was also unaware that this article had previously been created, hence the creation of this article. I would like to, through whatever process necessary, motion that this article replace the original one that was deleted as it has verifiable and well-spread sources. I understand that this is out-of-process, but would like to find out what the process is to either get the article restored in some way so that we can see what it originally stated, or have this article processed as a new, non-recreation so that the WP:SPEEDY#G4 infringement can be excluded.--Jamie.johnstone 13:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a perennial request, see here. Unless there is information "published in sources which have some evident authority and gravitas" the article will most likely not be recreated. KnightLago 13:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I understand the problem with sources and such, but I find it disappointing that Wikipedia disapproves of knowledge that cannot be sourced from somewhere they deem "acceptable". Of course no "source which has some evident authority and gravitas" is going to publish information on the topic of this article, unless of course you count two newspapers (both with 20,000+ readers) and one of the largest radio stations in New Zealand (admittedly we are not a large nation, but still... "authority and gravitas" have to be taken in context), but then again, it is websites such as Wikipedia that are needed to get those sources published in the first place. There is not a great "repository" of information just available on the internet, or anywhere else for that matter, and they way information is dispersed makes it incredibly difficult to find much out about "The Game". The point of creating this article was to generate one main, endorsed, supported and sourced article that collated all the various information, from the internet and in the real world, that allowed people to collaborate to discover more about a phenomenon that has been around, supposedly, for over 10 years and has popped up everywhere from America to New Zealand, to the Middle East.

I have read through a lot of the discussions over the various articles that have been posted regarding this, and there are a lot of people who find it incredibly disappointing that there is no longer such an article. Why? Because it is a true thing that is happening out there, and because of the lack of information, it is not getting recognised. And from what I can see, the only reasons you have managed to bring up so far are that there are not enough verifiable sources that cite this, and that it is a re-creation of a previous article. Well, why not let this version live on so that people can learn about an amazing cult that has been around for a substantial amount of time? Meh... --Jamie.johnstone 13:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition - Also, from the strong debates that have been going on from all the hundreds of people who are contesting the deletion of such articles, and the mammoth six deletion requests that have previously been battled out, they all must represent some kind of merit in the value of the article...--Jamie.johnstone 13:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I again realise that my previous statement may make you think instantly of WP:NFT but it is known as a fact that I did not make up The Game, nor did anyone in my school. It was made up by somebody a long time ago, as stated in the articles body and I decided to create this article when someone who was interested in learning what The Game was could hardly find any information on it through the internet. His first stop was to check Wikipedia, but of course, he could not find it and so it was suggested to me that I create it. Hence, the article and this debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie.johnstone (talk • contribs) 14:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of people wanting something is not a valid Keep argument. JuJube 23:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per everyone but article creator. Unsourced nonsense. Edward321 16:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4, renamed to get around rules, editor has essentially threatened on the Talk page to disruptively recreate the article under other names in order to avoid WP:DRV, suggest sanction. --Dhartung | Talk 17:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is completely untrue and I respect Wikipedia's final decision. I am arguing the article's validity as per the AfD process but have not made a point anywhere that I will be at all disruptive. Thanks for twisting my words, Dhartung. --Jamie.johnstone 19:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4 and defer recreation discussion to DRV Will ^(talk) 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:POINT violation. How many times do we have to discuss this? Provide reliable sources. There are none. Stop recreating the article until you do. Corvus cornix 22:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Go ahead and delete it. I don't need to hear your rude and pointless arguments to prove your points that make no sense and totally contradict what Wikipedia is here for. So much for a community encyclopedia... Great. --Jamie.johnstone 00:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It always amuses me when people come in here with a certain outlook, and when their outlook doesn't match reality, they try to make it look as if it's Wikipedia's fault for not changing to match their demands. Corvus cornix 00:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also find it amusing when those in power think that their outlooks are those that the whole world should follow - truly great people. The censorship and removal of information is far greater a crime than leaving it there for those who could be interested. Shame. --Jamie.johnstone 00:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The requirement that you put up or shut up has all to do with verifiability, and nothing to do with censorship. What a straw man argument. If this were a real, verifiable ... thing ... there would be no problem with having it here. We want more information at Wikipedia, but verifiability is non-negotiable. Corvus cornix 01:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nice phrasing. How do you define real? And I understand the verifiability problem - I tried explaining that above but no, the abuse just keeps coming. Cheers. Anyway, better work to get on with so enjoy the rest of your week. --Jamie.johnstone 01:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey, not this again. Delete as still being questionably sourced, and recreation of multiply deleted article. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:15, 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. --Core desat 04:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R. G. Law Associates[edit]

Delete. Notability not established by citations, article bordering on spam WWGB 10:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as written. Being the 14th largest law firm in Pakistan might be said to be notability of a sort, but it needs a better article than that, and some reliable sources would be nice too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless article is adequately sourced.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 19:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Substantial coverage in multiple, independent and reliable sources is needed to establish notability. A single mention in a trade magazine doesn't qualify. Also, existence of even that is questionable--the creator of this article once cited a non-existent IMDb page as evidence of his own notability for a now-deleted article about himself. [17] Nick Graves 15:13, 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. --Core desat 04:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valeview[edit]

Contested prod - creator removed prod without comment. Non-notable street - no assertion of notability for the street per se, people who live there don't appear to be particularly notable, and there's no particular feature to set this street apart from other residential streets elsewhere in Connecticut or further afield. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and a load of unverifiable original research.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, nothing even resembling notability here. Blatant vanity article made by residents about their street. Doctorfluffy 07:05, 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. east.718 at 18:40, 11/3/2007

Junior Aspirin Records[edit]

Org. that fails to establish notability Lugnuts 09:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 22:45, 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 redirect. east.718 at 18:20, 11/3/2007

Denver Summervale[edit]

Non-notable fictional criminal, unsourced, in-universe. Fee Fi Foe Fum 09:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 23:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. —Quasirandom 23:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Honorverse characters, like the other two. —Quasirandom 23:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 01:45, 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. - Bobet 17:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Powderfinger side projects[edit]

Prod removed, as there was some opposition to it here. Prods are for uncontested/uncontroversial deletion attempts. My stance can be found on the talk page, and the closing admin should consider arguments there as well as here. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are already articles for each of these side projects and apparently each of their issue. There is no need for a separate article for this information as each of the side projects can and should be linked through the main article for the band as well as the individual peoples' articles. Otto4711 19:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Kulokk 06:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. ~ Sebi 23:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Music-cruft. Twenty Years 16:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my request to keep on the article page, this article is the only centralised place to discuss the sideprojects of Powderfinger. It would be inappropriate to expand this discussion on the Powderfinger page, and even more inappropriate to list it at the sideprojects' own pages. --lincalinca 04:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of Honorverse characters, taking into account the other related closed discussions on this log. --Tikiwont 09:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aivars Terekhov[edit]

A fictional character in a lesser known scifi series, google search shows nothing notable. Page is in-universe, unsourced. There is a wikia for this series. Fee Fi Foe Fum 08:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 15:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. —Quasirandom 15:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Honorverse characters —Quasirandom 15:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Terekhov plays an important role in the first novel of what is planned to be a series of several novels in the Honorverse; as such, deletion seems premature. For now, the expansive List seems a good place for him. That said, List of Honorverse characters is more than a simple list, and perhaps renaming it "Minor Honorverse characters" is a good idea as well. Magidin 16:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying he will be an important character in a future book series is crystalballery. Fee Fi Foe Fum 06:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:FICT requirement for secondary sources. Doctorfluffy 05:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article is all plot summary without any primary or secondary sources.--Gavin Collins 08:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Honorverse characters. @pple complain 16:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Montoya[edit]

A fictional character in a lesser known scifi series, google search shows nothing notable. Page is in-universe, unsourced. Fee Fi Foe Fum 08:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 15:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. —Quasirandom 15:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Honorverse characters. —Quasirandom 15:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Quasirandom -- Magioladitis 17:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, entirely non-notable per WP:FICT. 10 ghits ("-wikipedia" used) with nothing even nearing a reliable secondary source. Doctorfluffy 17:42, 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 no consensus. Most everyone's opinion is either weakly expressed or weakly argued, so, when in doubt... Sandstein 15:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Blanc[edit]

Crimecruft. Non notable drug smuggler, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might there be sources in French on this guy? Fee Fi Foe Fum 08:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I do believe this Le Figaro article on him will do the trick. You've heard of Le Figaro? According to Wikipedia, it "is one of the leading French morning daily newspapers". Fee Fi Foe Fum 08:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That doesn't change the fact he fails WP:BIO. Heard of the BBC? They cover dozens of crime cases on a daily basis, but we're not including every single criminal who gets reported in the media. I also refer you to WP:BLP1E. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is I can't read French. However, I'll wager that this guy is like these Aussies who all have pages; Bali Nine, and the girl, Schapelle Corby. Fee Fi Foe Fum 08:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there are more Aussies here, each with their own page: List of Australians in international prisons. Fee Fi Foe Fum 08:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:BLP1E means notable for only one event? Okay, so criminals generally have more than one event; the crime, the manhunt/discovery, the arrest, the interrogation, the confession, the indictment, the trial, the conviction, the sentencing, and the carrying out of the sentence. Also, if people protest the harshness of the sentence, and the protest is reported, that's another event. Wouldn't it be nicer to help me nominate for deletion all these fictional characters? Fee Fi Foe Fum 09:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, read the policy. And bringing up completely unrelated articles is a strawman argument. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argumentation is twisted. I read the policy; you're wrong. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's notable here is not that is smuggled some drugs, but that the French government is making diplomatic efforts to secure his release. That's highly notable: "Cette affaire régulièrement médiatisée est suivie de très près par le ministre des Affaires étrangères Philippe Douste-Blazy" (from the Figaro article)--victor falk 11:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really? It happens every time some UK tourists get drunk in Cyprus. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Miliband tries to get pissed Britons out of the nick? I didn't knew that.--victor falk 11:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe not him, but David Cairns certainly does, and Meg Munn said tackling British nationals in distress abroad was one of the department's most important tasks. There's plenty of stories like that kicking about. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite some difference between a foreign minister and some no-name backbencher.--victor falk 12:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about Tony Blair then? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that could make the case of Michael Shields notable. You also have to remember the difference between French and British civil service. When a French minister goes public and says "I follow this very closely", that means the ministry will follow this very closely. If a British minister say this, a ministry might or might not depending on the civil servants. Differences of degree of course, but not at all inconsiderable.--victor falk 12:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the embassy of a country usually steps in as a matter of course when one of its nationals is arrested in this manner - its hardly a significant move.--Vintagekits 00:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep strange nomination anyway.and i agree with viktor.--Zingostar 17:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless more sources can be found demonstrating notability of the case. It does not appear to have attracted remotely the same level of attention in France as the Corby case in Australia, and although the French government has made pro forma requests for extradition, this is fairly normal. --Dhartung | Talk 17:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 reasons why the media fuss is relatively smaller in France:

1) Australia is four times smaller than France. If Schappelle Corby was from Luxembourg, she'd be on "La Voix du Luxembourg"'s front page three days a week and the martyr of the nation.

2) ((Australian criminals)). Can you imagine ((American criminals))? ((French criminals)) ((Belgian criminals))? ((New Zealander criminals))? Me neither. Only an aussie could create such a template.

Keep- there are lots of articles on criminals in Wikipedia Astrotrain 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there are lots of articles about sportspeople on wikipedia also - should all sportspeople in the world have an article? Please try and base you arguements on wiki policy, such as WP:BIO and WP:V, which I am having serious trouble in understanding that this article does. Leaning towards delete but will await to see if the trail has any lasting significance outside of being a run of the mill news story - after all this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper.--Vintagekits 00:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete- weak because of the claim of 87000 signatures and a claim of two TV-shows. But I am baffled this person is not in the French wiki if he is notable. Being in jail for drug-smugling is hardly very notable, this would never be an interesting article to get up as a random article, I do think I would have started to think "why is this guy even here?" even if I had no account. Greswik 16:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fr:Sept à huit is the French equivalent of 60 minutes. I should have pointed that earlier--victor falk 18:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete- I have waited over a week to see if there could be anything brought up to distingush this case from any other run of the mill small time drug trafficer that got caught abroad. However, nothing has been shown to prove that this person who made this silly mistake passes any notability criteria on wiki.--Vintagekits 19:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion on Schappelle Corby?--victor falk 19:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that that is a notable article - extensive sources, controvertial issue over the arrest, the appeal and the book about the case tips it over the line from being a run of the mill news story to being an encyclopedic article.--Vintagekits 19:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My argument about being covered twice in the equivalent of 60 minutes?--victor falk 19:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some kind of technical error. When clicking the link here you get to our Michel, but when typing in the search box, you get to Michel Blanc, the actor. The articles' names in the url field are identical. What's the deal?--victor falk 19:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Blanc and Michel Blanc ;) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I had a technical problem in my neurocerebral system. Fixed.--victor falk 19:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the way the article is written now i think its really good so i dont know how people can vote delete. but thats just my opinion.--Zingostar 18:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But since 2 has voted week delete and one only one has voted delete and 2 has voted for keep i guess its not obvious that this article should be deleted. week delete is not as strong as delete.--Zingostar 19:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this isnt a "vote" per se - its a discussion - if you cant prove he passes WP:N then it will be deleted.--Vintagekits 19:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it has been proven, so its no worries! their are enough references to validate notability!--Zingostar 20:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - more than just a story about a convicted criminal. It's the ongoing campaign to free him that makes it different. There are enough references to validate notability. Sbowers3 20:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that their are enough references to assert notability. And an ongoing campaign in france to free him.--Zingostar 21:57, 4 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. @pple complain 16:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Man Magazine[edit]

Non-notable magazine, fails WP:CORP. Article is essentially unverifiable with scant reliable third party coverage in the 97 unique ghits. MER-C 07:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads and looks as spam. --Goochelaar 11:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability--Zingostar 17:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blantant ad spam, non-notable publication. Doctorfluffy 23:20, 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 both. Unfortunately, the lack of reliable sources necessitates deletion. Thank you, Fang Aili ^talk 18:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magen Lacholeh[edit]

No external sources, no assertion of notability per WP:ORG, reads like an advertisement. Google search did not reveal any secondary sources Derwig 07:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the related page, founder and head of the organization, again no assertion of WP:BIO and no secondary sources cited or available:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. —Derwig 09:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't understand why you're suggesting deletion of such a well known and respected org, when a simple search on google reveals over 900 sources (see: Google [18] and [19]). The same applies to Rabbi Fisher, who is a well known personality in Israel. You should do some more research before such extreme tagging. The structure of this page is comparable to Ezra LeMarpeh, so you should equally tag that page. Dandin 15:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The existence of an article on a similar organization is irrelevant ,see WP:WAX. The google hits do not serve to assert notability. None of them are from reliable secondary sources, see Primary criterion at WP:ORG and WP:Bio. If adequate sources (e.g coverage in national media) are available, please go ahead and improve the articles. Derwig 15:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 12 ghits within .il does not tend to support the idea that the organization is that important. There seem to be too few sources to write a balanced article. --Dhartung | Talk 17:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why ignore the 929 ghits in hebrew? I'm working to update the current text with adequate sources as Derwig suggested. Dandin 19:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles Rewritten. Added many refs in compliance with guidelines cited by Derwig -- Dandin 19:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (A copy of a reply on my talk page- Almost all of the sources added by you are from local or community papers, not satisfactory secondary sources (national coverage). Most of them include only a passing reference to the organization. To top it all, they are scanned paper clips, hosted on Magen Lachole website, which brings up the question of WP:COI. Looking at the articles as they stand now, I do not think they should be kept. They read like an advertisement, with abundant peacok terms. IMO, you have not yet satisfied notability, and the promotional tone is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Derwig 16:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The primary criterion for notability is if the organization has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). The referenced (non-exhaustive) list of sources includes more than enough in-depth (inter)national and reliable press coverage to establish notability. The fact that scans of the paper sources appear on the organization's website does not diminish their credibility or create a bias, rather adds to their verifiability. Even without the scans the references would be valid. If the page's structure or references can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion, see WP:ATD#ATD. Jumping straight to deletion is not fair to other editors nor constructive for this encyclopedia. — Dandin 18:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Following two comments copied from Derwig's talk page)
  - Note: it's not my org, I sit far away from Israel, just trying to write facts about a well known organization that has helped many people I know. — Dandin 20:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks better now, with the rewording (now that the abyss is gone...) -- Derwig 20:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no verifiability in the English language by reliable, independent secondary soucres. A casual look at the Ghits reveals less than 40 English sites; the only English-language sources cited in the article have nominal mentions of the organization. Is there anything in Google News? Bearian 16:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Benjamin Fisher article must also be speedily deleted, as there is no proof he even exists from any English-language secondary sources, as the article is currently written and sourced. Bearian 16:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. east.718 at 18:43, 11/3/2007

Dimensionally transcendental[edit]

EX-TERM-IN-ATE! Doctor Who neologism, no indication of widespread use. Merely a definition and a plot summary. MER-C 07:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TARDIS. Fee Fi Foe Fum 08:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TARDIS. I think most people tend to say "bigger on the inside" Will ^(talk) 19:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT and WP:NEO. Doctorfluffy 05:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and EX-TERM-IN-ATE! per MER-C. Greswik 17:45, 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. --Core desat 04:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Centre City Records[edit]

Non-notable record label, fails WP:CORP. Article is unverifiable, with 8 ghits. Also nominated is their album, Disco 2008. MER-C 06:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently, it is impossible to find reliable sources for this article. The subject matter is also not notable as well. Unless, third-party reliable sources are found for this article, this article should be deleted. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The album plus videos and song samples can be seen on http://www.myspace.com/disco2007cd (the album was originally going to be named Disco 2007) as well as on producer Ian Levine's youtube site http://www.youtube.com/user/IanLevine - Tiger-Soren —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger-Soren (talk • contribs) 08:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks independent reliable sources. YouTube and Myspace are not and (if there is justice in the world) will never be independent reliable sources. Unverifiable. - Che Nuevara 14:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I can't believe that even though the official Myspace site for the album has the cover, four songs playing AND several music videos playing, even though the site is created by the actual producer of the album, you still refuse to accept it. I can't believe it ... and I can't believe you are not being more helpful to an inexperienced Wikipedia user. User:Tiger-Soren. —Preceding comment was added at 14:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace is not a reliable source. Please read WP:MUSIC and WP:NOTE in regards to our notability standards here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable label, no reliable sources to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, http://www.discomusic.com/forums/disco-music-70s-80s/25487-disco-2008-a-3.html

User:Tiger-Soren, 10:45, 29 October 2007

Reply, source on label's existence: http://www.dustygroove.com/item.php?id=hbk7347ftp&ref=index.php&anchor=468473 User:Tiger-Soren, 12:50, 29 October 2007
Delete, lack of reliable sources 'n' non-notable per WP:CORP. tomasz. 13:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I'm really frustrated about this reluctance against accepting this label as relevant. Considering Ian Levine's track record as one of the most influential British dance producers, I think Centre City Records deserves a place here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Levine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Levine

http://www.discogs.com/artist/Ian+Levine Tiger-Soren 18:12, 1 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 the article seems to have been speedily deleted. Non-admin closure. GlassCobra 16:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power of 7[edit]

No sources, seems completely fan-made, author can't make up his/her mind whether it's an animated or book series. Previously speedy deleted, prod removed by author. JuJube 06:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Totally incoherent and unencyclopedic, and almost certainly non-notable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no assertion of notability. Rami R 13:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11 - appears to be promoting the upcoming book(s). Without prejudice as to the likelihood of these books ever being published. Very much effort put into this unsourced article about something that does not yet exist for someone who does not have a conflict of interest. Also Salt as this has been speedied before. Dethme0w 20:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blatant spam, and tagged as such. GlassCobra 21:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all above. Oli Filth^(talk) 21:45, 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. --Core desat 04:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albums that Planet Sound have rated 9/10[edit]

Arbitrary intersection, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate pile of information. Unsourced, suspected original research. Plus I would be pretty hard-pressed to find someone who cares. MER-C 06:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete worse, it's copyvio. Judging from those lists, this Planet Sound entity seems like it has great taste in music, and should therefore be allowed to keep its traffic. Fee Fi Foe Fum 08:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. It's patently obvious that this is completely indiscriminate information that does not belong in a project to build a high-quality encyclopedia.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Where to start? Why a list of ratings? Why from a Teletext review service? Why 9/10 ratings? The definition of arbitrary, nuke them both. tomasz. 15:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion is rated 10/10 per all of the above. Clarityfiend 18:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm the original author.First of all, there's no issue of copyright violation since if you read the discussion page of the Planet Sound article, the actual editor of it expresses his wish for the lists to remain. Secondly, the articles are meant to be companions to the main Planet Sound article in the same way as a discography is for a music artist. They've been separated from the main article in response to a cleanup tag that had been on the Planet Sound article page since the summer (in addition to other changes that have been made to the page).Lastly, all of the other points that have been raised can be answered by reading the Planet Sound and Teletext articles. Marv Karkian 18:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Wikipedia articles are not internal linkfarms nor are they music review directories, there is no reason to give weight to this review service over any other, there is no reason to believe that being rated 9/10 on this site has any significance, articles for 9/10 ratings and not other ratings is completely arbitrary (and we shouldn't have 20 more articles for the rest of the 0-10 rated material). These are not comparable to a discography for an artist. The precedent that letting these stand would establish for similar articles for every review service somebody felt like typing up is unacceptable. Otto4711 19:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a copyvio of Planet Sound's intellectual property. Corvus cornix 23:00, 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 and redirect to enemy combatant. --Core desat 04:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enemy (military)[edit]

The Enemy disambiguation page already has a serviceable link to Wiktionary; this is currently a blatant dictionary definition. I don't see any potential for expansion, either; while there's something to be said about, say, uniformed troops vs. spies in wartime, "enemy" is unambiguously the bad guys with no particular special meaning attached to it. So even on Wiktionary, I don't see military use as meriting a different definition any more than "Enemy in sports" or "Enemy in social relations."

This was previously up for speedy deletion, but this was declined. For a short time this was redirected to Enemy combatant, but they're not quite the same thing, so deletion is preferable to a redirect. SnowFire 06:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For the reasons above. David ovic 08:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with SnowFire/Davidovic. As I've said before on this article's talk page, this is only a definition, and there is already a definition in Wiktionary. Apart from giving examples of notable (military) enemies, this article doesn't seem to do anything useful (And even then, the examples are pretty ambiguous, don't really help to define what an enemy is). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex Kitten (talk • contribs) 08:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is different than any other article at Wikipedia and it has the potential to expand, which is all that is required for an article at Wikipedia. There should be a "Keep and Expand" +tag on the article not delete. The article has only existed for one day and has many interwiki links [20] with a future potential of 1,000s of interwiki links. This article is not a dictionary definition it is an encyclopedic article, many terms in Wikipedia have related definitions interwiki linked to Wiktionary, for ex7ample: Apocalypse, Male etc. Chessy999 10:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has all those links because you've put them there. And while enthusiasm for expanding articles is a good thing, my point is that there's no potential for expansion here. Can you at least sketch out some kind of future vision of what the article would look like? Unlike "spy" or "prisoner of war" I don't believe that there's any special disagreement on definitions over time for enemy. And listing enemies would be listing every single war ever and both sides of them, since each thought the other was an enemy. SnowFire 15:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - uh yeah, i did put there and your point ? Chessy999 16:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's my point? If somebody created the article Ultrasonic Invisible Ironing Board but added links to it themselves from a bunch of articles, it doesn't make the article any less worthy of deletion. On the flip side, a red link from 30 different contributors may imply that lots of people would in fact like to see a specific article added and kept.

I'd think harder on the request to sketch out a future for the article. You mentioned Apocalypse above, and while that's not a very good article at the moment, at least there's some content there. What kind of content do you envision in the "perfect" Enemy (military) article? SnowFire 16:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see much point in it myself. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 13:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Enemy combatant. JJL 15:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content and redirect to enemy combatant --Philip Baird Shearer 17:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the article makes claims that the term is defined by the Geneva & Hague Conventions, neither of those seem to actually do so (while they do take pains to define such terms as "occupying power"). The term "enemy" may have some relevance within the Laws of War, but its definition is almost certainly ad hoc in that designation of an enemy is done by a particular military. I don't see how this can become an encyclopedic article. --Dhartung | Talk 17:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "'The enemy,' said Yossarian, 'is anyone who's going to get you killed...'" humblefool ® 18:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It belongs in the Wiktonary FinalWish 19:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this article could be possibly expanded beyond what belongs in a dictionary. --Nick Dowling 07:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless there is something to distinguish it enough for a full article...which I do not see.Cromdog 20:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dictionary definitions do not belong on Wikipedia. Transwiki if necessary. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 02:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The concept of the "enemy" in warfare is very important. Humblefool's comment (although backing a delete vote) just hints at its meaning. What is an "enemy"? How does the concept originate, whose interests does it serve? How is the concept reflected among peoples and armies—how does it influence their behavior? Everyking 09:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, plenty of potential to expand, the article is brand new, give it a chance to expand ! Chessy999 19:25, 1 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. --Core desat 04:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bard (book)[edit]

Poorly written and unsourced plot summary of a non-notable book series. The 27 unique ghits on the main character (also nominated) raises a red flag in terms of verifiability and notability. MER-C 06:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that hurt my head reading it.--Mike Searson 19:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WALLOFTEXT'D! GlassCobra 21:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether the articles are badly written or not (that can always be fixed) I cannot find enough back-up on the subject matter to believe that it is worth doing the work necessary for the the two articles to kept & so on the basis of verifiabilty and notability they should go. • nancy • 18:38, 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. This is a Secret ^account 02:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in Bikini Bottom[edit]

Trivial, unsourced, in-universe fancruft; probably no outside sources to improve it to standards for articles about fiction. Crazy Legs KC 04:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge This nomination is speculative Cruftcruft supported only by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Myself, I have never seen this show but understand that it is very notable. Bikini Bottom seems to be the main setting and so merits an article of this sort. It only took a few moments to find a mainstream reference in the NYT - there are those who just don't get it. I now see that there is a main article for Bikini Bottom - perhaps this material could be merged into it and the list made into a redirect. Peremptory deletion is not appropriate.Colonel Warden 07:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability of the show does not make every minor aspect of the show notable. The article is fancruft/listcruft, composed entirely of unsourced, in-universe trivia. •97198 talk 08:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable list. There are articles about the show - the show is notable. But that does not make this list notable. There are no multiple non trivial sources which describe all this. Obina 16:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Since there's an article on Bikini Bottom (as there is in every encyclopedia, of course), there's no reason that this bit of tartar sauce can't be placed there. Mandsford 16:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry to be a crab, but yes there is a reason that this should not be shell-ved there - it would make that article worse. Useless trivia makes Wikipedia worse. Obina 19:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge I find it very disturbing that the word useless is being thrown around so lightly. The whole reason anyone can edit here is to make articles like this possible. The day Wikipedia becomes just another academic encyclopedia is the day that Wikipedia died. You take away articles about fringe culture, "fancruft", etc., you're turning this site into another elitist encyclopedia. I suggest you read about ignore all rules and don't climb to the top of the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman. Stop taking yourselves so seriously and quit moving to delete legitimate articles just because of notability issues. Sorry if I'm being to personal, but this is important. 72.173.20.164 02:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to sock puppet or anything... I just didn't realize I wasn't signed in. The previous vote was mine. Hagan jared 02:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not trying to make "just another academic/elitist encyclopedia." If we were, then all (or most) of the articles we have about television shows and movies would be deleted. However, it is important that we have notability guidelines and delete non-notable articles. If we didn't, Wikipedia would become completely unmaintainable (and it's already pretty hard to maintain as it is). See WP:EVERYTHING. --Crazy Legs KC 02:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand everything isn't available for inclusion, but to me a lot of notability concerns are carping the material. I think we should try to be as inclusive as possible. This information is useful. Quality is important and accuracy is paramount, but the quantity and breadth of WP is what makes it worth anything. The non-notable arcana is what makes WP what it is. A person can get information here that they just can't find easily anywhere else. This particular article is a case in point. The locations clearly provide useful information about the show. Hagan jared 03:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry if my attempt at humor led me to use language wrongly. But note we are not suggesting we delete Bikini Bottom, just this article. And that's because notability can't flow down hill forever. From Sponge Bob to Bikini Bottom, to Places in Bikini Bottom, to (can't say for WP:BEANS). And we want the Bikini Bottom article to be good. And while we hear that you think this list is useful, the point is, that 'useful' is not a reason to keep or wikipedia could become a phonebook/facebook/blog site.Obina 20:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, information is trivial at best. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:43, 3 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. --Core desat 04:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levinson's Information on the Move[edit]

Prod tag removed, so here we are: School assignment; by definition original research. Reads like a book report, not an encyclopedia article. Rhs1980 04:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete junk. Fee Fi Foe Fum 09:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. See also WP:AN#Dozens of bad-quality edits as a result of a coursework assignment. Oli Filth^(talk) 17:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The very epitome of OR. GlassCobra 21:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and perhaps a note to the instructor; original research by synthesis is fine for coursework but not for Wikipedia. I note that the creator specifically says on the talk page it is coursework. Accounting4Taste 23:29, 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 Keep. @pple complain 17:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Brock[edit]

Unnotable racist and anti-semite, fails WP:BIO. Brewcrewer 03:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He received news coverage over the years, just barely more for his support for black reparations than for his black separatism. [21] [22] He is especially noted for his lawsuits against the US government including the IRS. [23] A number of sources are behind paywalls, but he clearly passes WP:BIO regardless. --Dhartung | Talk 04:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there two Robert L. Brock's? According to the Wikipedia entry he is involved with white supermacist groups. That doesn't sound like someone who would be involved with black reparations. --Brewcrewer 07:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a black separatist and an anti-semite, he had a lot in common with those groups. See the Nizkor profile and Uncommon Ground for an ADL report showing the links. I'm looking for a source for the pseudonym claim; right now all I can confirm is that they were co-authors.--Dhartung | Talk 08:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, ok. I didn't know that this type of hate exists. --Brewcrewer 08:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources seem quite sufficient for notability--non-free sources are acceptable--and there are generally free ways of getting to them. Dhartung, could you fix the refs above so they show where the items were actually published, so they can be found in libraries, and add them to the article. DGG (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, and a questionable character too. Tiptopper 01:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as creation of banned user.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craigengower Cricket Club[edit]

Non-notable cricket club. See GNews hits , and associated Ghits. I can't find anything to suggest that these chaps are notable. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:30, 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 no consensus, default to keep. Sandstein 15:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of state highways in the United States shorter than one mile[edit]

This list was created as a result of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 14#Category:State highways shorter than one mile. An item is placed on this list only if it satisfies an insignificant and completely non-notable inclusion criterion. Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sheesh! When will it end? JJL 03:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, it will take less than one mile...--victor falk 11:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ and it could totally be a category. Fee Fi Foe Fum 09:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, if the category wasn't deleted in a discussion that led to the creation of this article... --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can say cruft faster than you can drive one mile on a highway--victor falk 10:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But -- but -- but -- I like it! Um. Okay, so that's not a valid argument. How about: This is exactly the sort of minute documentation of how the real world is incredibly silly that Wikipedia is good at. As for the non-notable, that multiple highway engineers in multiple juristictions bothers to number routes that short looks probably an indicator of something -- what, I'm not sure, and it'll have to wait till someone uses the list for research into the subject. —Quasirandom 15:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize and then delete. How bizarre that we have articles about each of these roads, but that some well meaning imbecile decided to delete what was an obvious category. What was the logic of that? Was it going to hurt a highway's feelings if it got labelled "short"? Whatever, but this certainly isn't a list, since these roads have nothing in common other than their, uh, thrifty use of asphalt. Thanks for pointing out the history, Pablo. Mandsford 17:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Categorize just so the category can be deleted again? Doesn't seem like the best option to me. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep For these highways, it is certainly their most notable characteristic. And a list is a good way to handle them since it appears the category for these was already deleted. Hmains 17:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the UK, the candidates for that award would be the Leeds Inner Ring Road, and, er, that's it. Multiply it by fifty to get a scope of the rarity of this, so it's very niche and the items are loosely associated. Will ^(talk) 19:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Different places assign route designations differently, so what would qualify in one state would simply be an unsigned spur in another state. --NE2 20:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quasirandom. If each of thes micro-highways is inherently notable as roadfans assert, then why not have a list of them, which is a navigational aid to the articles, and which can include exemplars which do not yet have Wikipedia articles (unlike categories). Edison 21:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there's no reason to choose 1 mile over 1/2 mile, or 2 miles, or any other figure. --NE2 23:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A reluctant delete. As a roadgeek, I like this kind of cruft, but in reality, the one mile marker is an arbitrary inclusion guideline. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: These could be placed in "minor route" lists per state why would one care if they're less than a mile or not? master son^{T - C} 23:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Created per the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 14#Category:State highways shorter than one mile. Ravenna1961 06:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that is a valid reason to keep. First, consensus can change. Second, the CFD was a deletion discussion for a category. This AFD is a deletion discussion for an article. The arguments for deleting and listifying the category are different from the arguments for keeping the article. In other words, arguments in CFDs don't translate well to AFDs. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or refractor into a category as per others. --Emesee 08:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because every state has a different concept of what is and is not a state highway. If this topic is of interest to many, I suggest adding a section on this on each list article of state highways by state. In fact, it might be better just adding lengths to these lists by state and putting them in a sortable table. --Polaron | Talk 17:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree sortable tables by state is a good compromise. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete others who propose deleting this article already said what I wanted to say. Furthermore, this article doesn't represent a worldwide view, since pretty much only the United States uses the customary system; almost everything else uses the metric system. O ₂ (息 • 吹) 22:59, 30 October 2007 (GMT)

Uh, the title of the article is "List of state highways in the United States shorter than one mile"...of course it doesn't represent a worldwide view. —Scott5114 ↗ 21:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - "List of minor state highways in the United States" (or appropriate) - 'cause their shortness is their notability. It is easier to keep it neat as a single Article with 'State' subsections. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - created per consensus. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This should make the trivia fans happy. Sometimes it is a choice between a category and a list. In this case the list is the better choice. However I think the list would be better if it was sortable and the lengths was included. Vegaswikian 06:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Created due to the past CFD, and also per Exit2DOS2000 (the shortness is notability). I'm sure that quite a few people (roadgeeks at least) know about Vermont Route 26, thought to be the shortest route in the United States at a whopping 69 feet (21 m). —Scott5114 ↗ 09:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, highwaycruft. Doctorfluffy 17:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you support the deletion of all highway pages? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, just the crufty ones. Check out WP:CRUFT#Usage; I'm using the suffix "-cruft" as per the third paragraph. As in, this article is only important to people which are fans of highways. Doctorfluffy 06:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Shot Heard 'Round the World[edit]

Deletion nomination Appears to be a non-notable band. Article gives no references that establish notability as usually needed by WP:N and WP:MUSIC guidelines. Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Mmm, non-notable from what I can find. Possibly speediable... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to ~~Burr-Hamilton duel~~ Shot heard round the world per below, which makes sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Shot heard round the world as a plausible search term. Otto4711 13:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect. Not speediable, but I doubt this is independently (keyword) verifiable. - Che Nuevara 14:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. By the way, Rob Christiansen and Eggs (band) should also be looked at. They aren't strictly related, but they're close enough that they could be linked in this AFD. GlassCobra 17:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Che Nuevara. Doctorfluffy 06:59, 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. Reasons to keep are invalid given that this is a fork, and 2018 FIFA World Cup bid exists already. --Core desat 04:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2018 FIFA World Cup Selection[edit]

This is just a copy of a former 2018 FIFA World Cup bid from October 22, 2007 that was disputed. This page is trying to keep the multitude of image and the table of stadia under the England section. It is supported by English soccer fans and does not comply with WP:CBALL or WP:OR.--Patrick Ѻ 02:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inappropriate fork, also WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete shameless. Fee Fi Foe Fum 08:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More in line with the page before an editor claimed ownership of moved page. Needs a clean up though. Warrants keeping for sure. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 10:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inappropriate fork arising from an edit war on 2018 FIFA World Cup bid. Oldelpaso 15:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs work on it to bring it up to standard. Other version was the personal property of one user. Keep. Fronsdorf 16:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article wants a tidy, but I'd keep it. Alexsanderson83 21:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see any difference between this and 2018 FIFA World Cup bid unless I'm missing something. Certainly by the title's description anyway. Peanut4 21:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep it. The original became a personal thing of one user. Went back through to a much older version which is largley unrecognisable from the 'fork'. Londo06 23:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a duplicate article or a fork or whatever you want to call it. If another editor has claimed ownership of the first-created article, the best course of action is to deal with that editor and his/her behaviour by informing them that nobody owns articles and so forth. Creating a fork isn't the right way to go at all. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - After reading through this article I can't understand why it has come up for deletion. Wikipedia is a strange place. LongWayDown 06:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Following the rationale for deletion, it's been put up for deletion because there's already a perfectly serviceable article on precisely the same topic and this one was created as part of a content dispute of some description, it seems. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As someone who was involved in the discussion regarding the original article, i thought it had been dealt with. This is a duplication that is not warranted and is correctly pointed out, it stems from a content dispute. It is full of WP:OR and speculation that completely fails the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL. Woodym555 21:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:CFORK. If a user is desperate to have their own version then copy into userspace but it should not be in the main namespace. Qwghlm 20:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The World Cup Selection for 2018 is running. - Dufo 09:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely that's why there's already an article on it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per Dufo above. The 2014 selection has been made, and there is no point deleting this; it has plenty of information and will be recreated anyway. I don't see why this would be listed for deletion (as a side point), it has quite some notability. jj137 (Talk) 16:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We have already had the debate about whether the article on 2018 FIFA World Cup bid should be kep and it was agreed that it should be. We already have an article on the 2018 FIFA World Cup bid. This article is a recreated version because of a content dispute on that article. Woodym555 16:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - content fork. We already have 2018 FIFA World Cup bid and its daft to have two articles on the same subject. TerriersFan 20:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Noor Aalam 19:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep arguments are very weak, and do not address the reasons proposed for deletion. As for the issue about mass nominations, each article is basically the same, and I do not feel many seperate AfDs would be helpful. east.718 at 21:45, 11/4/2007

List of foreign consulates in Oklahoma City[edit]

The following are similar articles: List of foreign consulates in Albuquerque, List of foreign consulates in Anchorage, List of foreign consulates in Atlanta, List of foreign consulates in Austin, List of foreign consulates in Baltimore, List of foreign consulates in Boston, List of foreign consulates in Buffalo, List of foreign consulates in Calgary, List of foreign consulates in Charlotte, List of foreign consulates in Chicago, List of foreign consulates in Cincinnati, List of foreign consulates in Cleveland, List of foreign consulates in Dallas, List of foreign consulates in Denver, List of foreign consulates in Detroit, List of foreign consulates in Edmonton, List of foreign consulates in Ft. Lauderdale, List of foreign consulates in Halifax, List of foreign consulates in Honolulu, List of foreign consulates in Houston, List of foreign consulates in Indianapolis, List of foreign consulates in Jacksonville, List of foreign consulates in Kansas City, Kansas, List of foreign consulates in Kansas City, Missouri, List of foreign consulates in Las Vegas, List of foreign consulates in Louisville, List of foreign consulates in Los Angeles, List of foreign consulates in Madison, List of foreign consulates in Memphis, List of foreign consulates in Miami, List of foreign consulates in Milwaukee, List of foreign consulates in Minneapolis, List of foreign consulates in Montreal, List of foreign consulates in Nashville, List of foreign consulates in New Orleans, List of foreign consulates in New York, List of foreign consulates in Newark, List of foreign consulates in Norfolk, List of foreign consulates in Oakland, List of foreign consulates in Oklahoma City, List of foreign consulates in Orlando, List of foreign consulates in Philadelphia, List of foreign consulates in Phoenix, List of foreign consulates in Pittsburgh, List of foreign consulates in Portland, List of foreign consulates in Providence, List of foreign consulates in Richmond, List of foreign consulates in Quebec City, List of foreign consulates in Sacramento, List of foreign consulates in Salt Lake City, List of foreign consulates in San Antonio, List of foreign consulates in San Diego, List of foreign consulates in San Francisco, List of foreign consulates in San Jose, List of foreign consulates in San Juan, List of foreign consulates in Seattle, List of foreign consulates in St. Louis, List of foreign consulates in Tampa, List of foreign consulates in Toronto, List of foreign consulates in Tucson, List of foreign consulates in Tulsa, List of foreign consulates in Vancouver, List of foreign consulates in Winnipeg.

Fails WP:Notability. Unimportant, superfulous... It's a borderline speedy deletion candidate, but I'm just not completely sure. Okiefromokla•talk 02:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized that similar articles were created for a number of other U.S. cities by the same user (Daltnpapi4u) within the last week. May need to nominate those as well. Okiefromokla•talk 02:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I have gone threw this with the other 40 pages that were proposed to be deleted however all were saved, AND HAVE meet wiki qualifications to keep Daltnpapi4u 02:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also refer to previous pages for this as well http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_foreign_consulates_in_Phoenix&action=history

Per User Ricky81682 on July 23, 2007 WP:NOT is not a reason for speedy. This included the cities of Anchorage, Phoenix, Detroit, Orlando, Houston, Philadelphia, Seattle, Honolulu, St. Louis, Cincinnati and MinneapolisDaltnpapi4u 02:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bad idea for a list. JJL 03:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Addendum: Delete all. JJL 21:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is trivial information that changes frequently, making our keeping a list useless to those who actually need it. Many "consulates" are not proper offices at all but local businessmen with a connection to the home country. They serve functions similar to post offices or immigration offices. I don't see that we need to track this information, and if we do, I see us failing at it as articles are not guaranteed to be maintained. --Dhartung | Talk 04:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So this raises the question: does someone really have to go through and nominate all 40 something of these articles separately, or can this take care of all of them? Okiefromokla•talk 04:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can put the AFD template on each of those pointing to this article, then add the list just below the nomination. The discussion should run five days from the time these are added. --Dhartung | Talk 08:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. But, the list seems overly cumbersome. Not sure how else to do it. Maybe another editor can clean it up. Okiefromokla•talk 20:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Dhartung--victor falk 10:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and the others, on the basis that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory. Emeraude 15:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Changing my vote to Keep all, since the discussion has been changed by Okie and Dhartung into a mass nomination of every consulate in every city. While I don't think that individual articles are necessary about each town's consulates, the presence of foreign consulates in various American cities is notable. There must be some efficient way to identify which foreign consulates are in which locations, without making a directory. Why there's a diplomatic mission from Bolivia in Oklahoma City, I don't know, but it's part of a larger picture. Joke had to be removed, Sooner or later. Mandsford 21:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's a joke about Oklahomans I take offense :P Okiefromokla•talk 19:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment you must actually list the others to be deleted here, not just blanket tag them with the AfD notice. Chris 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep, by the way. This is useful especially as we are available to social studies classes who have to write letters, in my case fifth and eighth grades. Chris 20:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. —Katr67 20:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Violates WP:NOT#DIR. Also note that WP:USEFUL is not a valid keep reason. meshach 21:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, WP:ATA isn't the arbiter of validity. Also note that WP:NOT#DIR doesn't say directories are impermissible (if it did, we would have to delete around 5-600,000 lists, and a similar number of categories). — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletions. —Chris 21:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete (whole list) as violation of WP:NOT#DIR, despite a plea of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Orange Mike 01:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; If all of these consulates were independently notable, and had individual articles, a list would make more sense. But they don't, so this is WP:NOT#DIR. Masaruemoto 05:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'em all, per WP:NOT#DIR. Majoreditor 18:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Administrator intervention I have a lot of problems with the way that the nominator has handled this one. This is one of the few cases I've seen where the history of the page should be reviewed, since the rules of the game got changed right in the middle. It started out with the nomination of an extremely weak article, a list of the "honorary consuls" for Oklahoma City. That one was easy... OK City doesn't actually have any real foreign consulates. After that, it turned into a mass nomination. Nominator's comment about individual nominations was "Yeah, right." That said, I have looked at the individual articles, and frankly, I think I'm the only person who has done so. I don't think it's proper practice to lump the diplomatic missions of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles in the same category as some volunteer in a backwater like Oklahoma City or Tulsa. It's bad faith to nominate something that one hasn't actually looked at, and the assumption of good faith is pushed to the limit by the way this one has been handled. "Wikipedia is not a directory" is convenient, but not necessarily applicable. Somebody in charge, please give us some guidance. Thank you. Mandsford 22:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you, I've looked at all of these articles (I tagged them all by hand for this discussion). I also assure you that had anyone not specified to delete all articles of this kind, I would have contacted them after adding the others. But as it stands, only a few people chimed in before the list was added, and those people quickly returned to the page and saw the additions. I agree with the consensus that WP:NOT#DIR applies here, but there have been other, stronger arguments. See Dhartung's comment above. I certainly hope people have looked at a few of these articles, but it's hard to question so many people specifying "Delete all". Okiefromokla•talk 23:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I appreciate that you've looked at the pages, and I apologize for suggesting that you didn't-- but is this information, per se, unencyclopedic? And is it fair, as Dhartung suggests, to compare a foreign consulate to a local "post office"? We have articles such as Diplomatic missions of Bolivia, which list the embassy in Washington, and the two consulates in Los Angeles and New York, but not the "honorary consul" who resides in OK City. Granting that the "honorary consuls" shouldn't be listed, why shouldn't there be a guide to which American cities host the consulates of which nations? For instance, Diplomatic missions of Mexico #North America shows that Mexico has diplomatic offices in many places that have a substantial Mexican population, from Brownsville, Texas to St. Paul, Minnesota. And Russia's consulates, which answer to the embassy in Washington, are located (for whatever reason) in New York, Houston, Seattle and San Francisco. I would argue that the foreign offices that another nation maintains here are notable and that the information about where they are located is important. My suggestion is that articles about those cities that have only an "honorary" consul (or only one true consulate, like Brownsville) should be deleted; those that have several permanent diplomatic missions should be kept, with the ceremonial appointees not included. My point is, let's not throw out the good with the bad. "Delete all" or "Keep all" votes don't seem to be appropriate unless, like you and I, people have actually reviewed "all" the articles. Mandsford 01:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no problem with articles like Diplomatic missions of Mexico, but to have an article for every city where there is a diplomatic mission is like having a diplomatic phone book for each city, and Wikipedia is not such a directory. It makes much more sense to have articles specifying the diplomatic missions of each country, as such articles are vastly smaller in number, easier to update, and more practical. Where do these city articles stop? Every city where there is some kind of diplomatic mission? And how hard will it be to keep these articles about frequently changing consulates up to date so it is useful to anybody? They are low priority articles that will not receive a whole lot of attention down the road, and are repetitive of the "diplomatic missions by country" articles. For example, do we need articles like List of movie theaters in New York? On the other hand, an article about a movie theater company that includes information on where its coverage area is and where its major venues are - that's perfectly fine. My point is, the consulates for each city is a no-no: it’s cumbersome, and too much like a directory or phone book. But having the diplomatic missions of each individual country is great. They’re two different things, though: one is encyclopedic and one is not. Thanks for the vote of confidence on my good faith, by the way. I do appreciate it. Okiefromokla•talk 02:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, all of these articles are extremely important. What's the difference between all of these and those in 'Category:Diplomatic missions by country' or 'Category:Diplomatic missions by host country'? These articles should remain as they are, and not be changed nor deleted. Aquintero 17:10, 29 October, 2007 (UTC)
Delete all, per Dhartung above; I had similar thoughts when I first noticed the Nashville article. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 00:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per Dhartung. I agree. businessman332211 03:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of foreign consulates in state/province-type articles, rather than List of foreign consulates in city. Diplomatic missions are notable in aggregate (but not individually), but we don't need these small lists — they should be merged up as much as possible. Or maybe even List of foreign consulates in the United States and List of foreign consulates in Canada--Pharos 11:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how it would help here--there is almost never more than one in a state, except for California and Florida (and perhaps Texas)DGG (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there 11 to 16 depending on whether you count honorary consuls: Alberta, Arizona, California, Florida, Missouri, New Jersey (H.C.), New York, North Carolina (H.C.), Ohio, Oklahoma (H.C), Ontario, Pennsylvania (H.C.), Quebec, Tennessee (H.C.), Texas, Wisconsin. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, merge to List of foreign consulates in the United States and List of foreign consulates in Canada then. Anybody have a rough estimate on the total number of foreign consulates in the US? And if that's too large, we could divide it by sponsoring country, and countries with only a small diplomatic presence can be grouped together by continent.--Pharos 18:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mandsford. Each city should be evaluated individually as to whether or not the list should exist. "Delete all" is invalid here. Postoak 04:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all is certainly valid. This is trivial directory information that changes frequently. And its repetitious; these are basically copies of pages like Diplomatic missions of Mexico, which specify the diplomatic missions for each country. It's just the same information repeated in directory form for each city. I hate to use the same argument over and over, but Wikipedia is not a directory. Okiefromokla•talk 05:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - for the purpose of this discussion - nom must nominate each one individually for individual evaluation. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - I strongly disagree with Mandsford et al.! These are all basically instances of the same idea, with no distinguishing characteristics that differ; they could have been created with a template, or by a bot. There are no arguments for or against one city's list over another's. Keep all, merge all or delete all; don't waste everybody's time and energy by splintering this into dozens of petty squabbles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 13:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree. They need to be dealt with as a group because they are all directories and they are all repetitious. To have a AFD discussion for each of these 50+ articles would be a waste of time and space. Okiefromokla•talk 14:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, discuss each individually or not at all. Dont waste our time with a Mass AfD when you know Mass nominations are frowned upon. 'with no distinguishing characteristics that differ' how do you know that in a Mass nomination? Only individual discussions will discover whats chaff and whats not. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 14:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are all directories, no matter if one city has a consulate general or if one has just honorable consulates. A directory is a directory, and Wikipedia is not a directory. And each and every one of them is information entirely repeated from 'diplomatic missions by nation' articles except in directory form over dozens of tiny lists for each city that has a consulate. It's trivial and pointless to have so many of the same articles, and its hard to keep track of the rapidly changing consulates for so many cities anyway. I don't want to waste people's time with 50+ separate nominations that fail the same notability standards as directories. They all stay or they all go. Okiefromokla•talk 17:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Exit2DOS2000. Each should be evaluated individually. The lists should not fall under a blanket nomination because the nominator assumes that each list has no distinguishing characteristics. Postoak 20:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't seem like anyone is reading my arguments against this point. A directory is a directory is a directory. And repeated information is repeated information (no pun intended :P ). I've been to every one of these pages and each one is a list about conulates in that city. But I don't care if there are 20 consulates or just a handful of honorable consulates. It's all trivial, repeated information in directory form. WP:NOT#DIR Okiefromokla•talk 23:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Dhartung (please do not pollute AfD with dozens of identical requests). Wikipedia simply cannot serve as a database for something what may change frequently. Implement MediaWiki support for scrapping government websites and it may get useful. Pavel Vozenilek 18:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the originally nominated article (only) - List consulates/embassies/diplomatic are generally not notable in my opinon (insofar as the article on the city should be the place where such things are noted) unless the city is a capital or other major city where the list of embassies does warrant a specific article to keep the city's article from being overlong. Also for a capital city (where the embassies are) it would be worth noting them in a separate article with other information such as addresses, diplomatic history et cetera. So, in the case of OK, where there are just a handful of honorary consulates, it is easy enough to say that either on the "(Country's) missions to the United States" page or the page for OK itself. However we can't block-nominate every city with an article like this because - to do it properly - we'd have to look at every city's article and judge each one on it's own merits, so they need separate AfD's. A1octopus 18:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all. These lists are best retained as sections in the city articles. There is no reason to split them out. Where do you draw the line as to the smallest number of consulates that merits a list? One? Vegaswikian 06:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge as per Pharos' suggestion above to something like List of foreign consulates in the United States. The information is useful as a whole, as I think it is informative to know what foreign nations have consular offices in places besides Washington D.C.; in its current state though, it is a bit scattered and unwieldy. Plus, as Dhartung mentions above, the individual lists tends to give a lot of entries "fluff" (aka, the businessmen turned honorary consuls). But just becasue there's some trivial fluff for several cities, I don't think all of the information (such as the information and pictures about San Francisco's consulates) should be lost. Thehedgehog 07:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be lost. List of foreign consulates in San Francisco contains the same info as is in the 'diplomatic missions by country' articles. The pictures are also in such articles, such as in Diplomatic missions of Mexico. Okiefromokla•talk 00:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's the same thing. If it was being used simply as a directory, and I wanted to find where all of Ecuador's missions are located, then the mass delete would be okay. But these articles tell a little something more about the individual city, and that's what I meant would be lost. I would not have known that San Francisco had 41 consular missions in the city (not honorary) without the article, nor would I have known Miami has 33. I think that is an important piece of information about the city -- the same can be said for many others under these articles. The mass articles do seem a bit much, but this information should be kept either in a mass merge as Pharos said, or perhaps as an extra paragraph in each of the cities' primary articles as Exit2DOS2000 suggests below. The current layout for this information could use some improvement, but that doesn't mean the idea should be thrown out altogether. Thehedgehog 03:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I am not completely opposed to that. Merging is definently much better than keeping all of these. In my opinion, the List of consulates in (country) format would be best if merge was the consensus here. Okiefromokla^{but I'm not a hick} 04:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- Honorary consuls are relevant. "Honorary" conjures up images of a retiree living as a resident alien in some small town with a nice certificate from his home country's dictator. Often they're lawyers on retainers who are paid to get a country's nationals out of jail, issue passports, etc.
- Everyone's dumping on Okiefromokla about this AfD. I think we need to assume a good faith here. S/he originally nominated just one article, then it was suggested to nominate the rest, so he went around tagging a bunch of stuff -- that's a lot of hassle. Then he gets criticized here. Likewise, it was a lot of work for Daltnpapi4u to put all this together

Stating that everyone is dumping on Okiefromokla because they have alternate opinions is not assuming good faith either. Postoak 05:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Lots of little lists are often not watched for spam as closely as a few bigger lists. --A. B. ^(talk) 11:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The nominator often seems to get criticized. I don't take it too personally. Also, good points. Okiefromokla•talk 00:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per any of Pharos's suggestions. What would be more useful would be lists of consulates, honorary consuls, trade and tourism offices by country for Canada and the U.S.: List of diplomatic, consular and other representatives in Canada by country. I think more readers will be interested in finding the nearest Albanian mission so they can spring Mama from jail or get a visa rather than finding what random countries have missions in a particular town. Here are potential resources for Canada and the U.S.. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A merged page like that may sound good in theory, but consider the individual City Articles that already exist. They would look better with a 'sub-article' describing all the consular agencies in that perticular city and not directing the reader to a section of another page that shows every consular agency in the country. That would be unwieldy. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge on a county-wide basis and cut out "honoury" consuls as per European countries (see List of diplomatic missions in Ukraine) unless someone can convince me that either Canada or more likely the US has an unusually large number of foreign offices present on its soil and therefore that won't work. Kevlar67 08:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The individual lists are important information, highly relevant, they should be kept. Why would anyone propose to delete it? It seems like it would be too large to merge. Thomas Paine1776 18:42, 3 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. --Core desat 04:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Block[edit]

Apparently a hoax: the IMDB listing for the director (a former member of N.W.A. who is unlikely to make a short film about a Chihuahua) reveals no such film and there's no IMDB listing for the dog, also no references/citations and thus fails WP:Notable/WP:Verifiable. Accounting4Taste 01:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because there's no verifiable sources listed for Fifi (dog), who is said to be two years of age but made a film in 2001:

Fifi (dog) Accounting4Taste 01:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page about a movie putatively to be made featuring the dog because it refers to a projected movie for 2009 that doesn't meet WP:NOT#CRYSTAL or WP:MOVIE:

Hey Fifi! Accounting4Taste 01:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the following industrious but futile redirects: Fifi Dogg, Se Fifi, Pelele Fifi, Sexy Fifi, Le Fifi. Accounting4Taste 19:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, failure of WP:V. Nothing found in Google News Archive even slightly resembling sources. --Dhartung | Talk 04:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Most likely a hoax. The lack of reliable sources for this article is also a major concern here. It also fails WP:V as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:00, 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 speedy deletion per CSD#A7 by PeaceNT. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cpprotest[edit]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox; protest page about Club Penguin apparently written by a disgruntled child who removed the prod tag without explanation. Accounting4Taste 01:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB, WP:ORG and WP:RS. Unsourced article about non-notable Internet-based protest group. --Metropolitan90 04:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, this could almost be speedied as nonsense, or "an unsalvageably incoherent page". However, it almost certainly could be deleted under A7, as there is no assertion of notability and no sources provided for the information. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable web content. So tagged. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:53, 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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 16:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Overload 7 (album)[edit]

Notability Issues with this article. Marlith ^T/C 01:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to M.o.v.e per WP:MUSIC#Albums - "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article, space permitting." Album article doesn't have much more content than that, and the band's article could probably include the listing there. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:41, 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. --Core desat 04:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crabtron[edit]

Notability issues. Wikipedia is not used for advertising. Marlith ^T/C 01:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Sseballos 02:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hasbro and Namco are notable games developers, right? The article is crap but we have to consider this.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although this series does seem borderline notable, the real issue here is verifiability. I can't find a single independent source. All of these that have actual content are Wikipedia mirrors / rips. - Che Nuevara 14:05, 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 keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 23:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stade Municipal, Rumelange[edit]

Notability Issues Marlith ^T/C 01:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Sseballos 02:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, municipal stadiums are notable. Not to use WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but we have Coxen Hole Stadium. Where do you draw the line on notability? How do you decide that Wembley Stadium is notable, but this isn't? Corvus cornix 23:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (author). You haven't explained the rationale for deletion, and a stadium of this capacity seems notable enough to me. Bastin 01:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep as stadium for (former) top-league team. Punkmorten 11:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stadium of former top division team, which has possibly hosted European football (UEFA Cup). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I suppose it could be argued that a size of 3,000 is notable in Luxembourg, but it would not be elsewhere. But what is important about it besides the football team--and if so couldnt it be merged into that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Keep - it is the stadium of a team that has played in UEFA competition before. ugen64 03:02, 1 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. Sandstein 15:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Keppel[edit]

A biography of an non-notable fictional character. Marlith ^T/C 01:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Blue Heelers--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 10:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, entirely non-notable. Only a couple Austrlian ghits (zero related on US google) with "-wikipedia", most of which appear to be unrelated to this character. Impossible to meet requirements of WP:N and WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 19:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to satisfy WP:FICT. No independent verification available. shoeofdeath 03:28, 4 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. --Core desat 04:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of US au pair agencies[edit]

Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Wikipedia is not an online guide to au pair agencies. Etc. Crazysuit 00:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. JPG-GR 00:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And Wikipedia is not for something that is pretty much a textbook example of original research. Accounting4Taste 01:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possible speedy as blatant spam. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Über Delete as per above Birthday sig-leave some love 05:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expulse from wikipedia and deny re-entry visa for all future (ie salt)--victor falk 11:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 23:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article informative and would not consider this a spam in any shape or form. I think many other Moms seeking this type of information will agree with me. Please keep it. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.250.34.161 (talk • contribs)

I worked hard on this page and now it is gone and I can't find it. You guys don't have to be so dang rude about it... it is not spam, I thought it was not different than the 500 other comparison tables that I see on wikipedia comparing software or operating systems or whatever. Where the heck can I find an archived version of this page? - Feb 19, 2008 User:bandrewfox

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

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

The result was keep. east.718 at 18:46, 11/3/2007

Roy (Fire Emblem)[edit]

Not notable per WP:N. No coverage in sources independent of the subject. ShadowUltra 00:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Roy is a playable character in the most popular game on the Gamecube and has major roles in multiple other games. He is without a doubt notable enough for at least a mention in the main articles on the games. Since he is certainly at least notable enough for a mention, even if you think he isn't notable for an article, this is a job for a merge, not a deletion, which is not the job of AFD. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 01:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If notability in Smash is an example of notability outside the series, we should proceed with an Ike article. Believe me, I hate to have to do this to so many quality articles, but the trend recently is that any fictional character without notability outside their series should be deleted. See: Ridley (Metroid) ShadowUltra 01:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:FICT says that some articles may be treated as sections of parent articles (this article would be a big section). This article is too much to merge. Also note that Wikipedia is a specialized encyclopedia. Tim Q. Wells 01:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Independent sources can be found, as with Marth (Fire Emblem)—I just haven't got round to it yet. His notability may not be greatly justified, but he just about has enough to warrant his own article. As for Ike, it's been agreed not to create an article—see my points at Talk: List of characters in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance#seperate Ike article?. Basically, inclusion in SSBB alone shouldn't automatically result in great notability. Roy's different—he and Marth introduced Fire Emblem to the West and both of them became synonymous with the series. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 07:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cull and Merge. The Smash Brothers section is almost entirely a "game guide" section and can thus be pared down to only a few sentences. The "personality" section is entirely OR and should be deleted wholesale. That leaves only about four paragraphs worth of information. That's easy to merge. - Che Nuevara 13:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Much of the content is SSBM guide content. And has only had two appearances in the FE series, one minor. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there are some sourcing issues, and some portions of this get game-guidey, fixing these problems would still leave too much content to reasonably be merged back into the Fire Emblem article. It's quite likely that there are sources about Roy for as much that is discussed about Marth (Fire Emblem). Actually, I suggest to contributors that they check into the sources in the Marth article for more sources for Roy. I can go in and cull the obvious game guide content from the Smash Brothers section, but as I'm not familiar with Roy much outside of that context, I can't do much more than that. LaMenta3 02:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On a similar note, please remember that under modification, it will be very similar to the Marth article, albeit shorter. If people are so concerned about this, then I'll try to get it cleaned up by this week. Of course, that's if it survives. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 07:15, 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. Article fails to comply with verifiability policy. --Aarktica 12:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plush Movies[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

This has been tagged for speedy deletion, then a prod, but for me the real giveaway was the "Stop trying to delete this" comment at the top of the article. If this is a notable topic, one certainly wouldn't be able to discern that from this article, which seems to be largely a plug of one particular youtuber (I'm assuming, the article's creator). Alai 00:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page's creator did not put that comment there. He only left it there, and had no idea who placed it there. The page's real creator was Thomas Wharton, who then had Scott work the rest. If it sounds like the article is based too much on me, I would enjoy writing about other artists more also (which I might do right after I save this page). Why does that section ("Other Artists") keep deleting? Also, it is a notable topic. There are many videos in the genre on YouTube, and those 5 are not the only ones. - Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.6.232 (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC) — 76.112.6.232 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. No, it is not a notable topic. Nor is it a topic with reliable arm's-length sources that assert its notability. Nor does it matter how many other videos there are on YouTube. Accounting4Taste 01:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)=[reply]

Keep See here. plush movies. yah, sure it does sound like a useless page to put on wikipedia, but it isn't. if you search one thing involving banjo-kazooie, super mario bros, sonic the hedgehog, or anything like that you're bound to get a plush movie. plush movies have become a big part of youtube nowadays and are very popular do to their humor, the fact that they're just plush, etc. this one page about plush movies isn't something to just tear down just because it SOUNDS stupid. you go to youtube, get a bag of popcorn, and watch one of BanjoBoy123's or Meitnerium109's videos and you tell me that you did not laugh. Meitnerium109, BanjoBoy123, MarioMario8989. etc. are all actors in their own way, and by posting their stuff on the internet, whether it be YouTube or Wikipedia, they're getting 1 step closer to becoming successful in life. They just want to share their ideas with the world, it's not like they're doing anything wrong by posting something on wikipeida, you're doing something wrong by taking down these pages. By doing that, they think they're movies don't mean anything. they're just another kilobyte in this huge world that is the internet. and by doing that they have nothing to do. they will maybe finish school. and do what? not what was teared apart by wiki all those years ago. not what they loved to do. no. because of YOU. now just leave this page up or you'll be wrecking a young child's dream. no wait, try 100 children's dreams who will follow in the plush movie series. just leave the page be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerkeyes619 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Save the Children. And WP:N. And WP:V. -- But|seriously|folks 02:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable at all, this one's a no-brainer --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plush Movies are real, they are on youtube, and I think theres enough of them to make a page about it. Need I say more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skutieos7 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC) — Skutieos7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. There are no reliable sources discussing this YouTube phenomenon; it does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. Come back and recreate when Time Magazine starts reviewing films in this genre. And then shoot me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. When Time Magazine starts reviewing films in this genre, I'll be the one in hell surrounded by ice skaters. But at least I'll have succeeded in dashing the hopes of some teary-eyed little tykes on my way there. Accounting4Taste 02:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Oh, man! "But at least I'll have succeeded in dashing the hopes of some teary-eyed little tykes on my way there." I am going to write that down and keep it, 'cause that is a great comment. Who knew AfDs could be so fun? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete -are there a lot of single-purpose accounts and anonymous comments around this article and its AfD? lol at ruining children's dreams. There's plenty of places to post stuff like this.Merkinsmum 02:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The movies exists, that's why this page should stay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.15.112 (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC) — 190.18.15.112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as WP is not for stuff made up one day and posted to YouTube. JJL 03:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Existance is not the minimum standard for inclusion as a Wikipedia article. notability is. This fails notability tests as NO independant coverage has been given to this phenomenon in reliable sources. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and FisherQueen. All of the keep messages that have been posted above only support the notion that this is utter rubbish. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no attribution of notability of topic to credible and independent sources. (I must say I was worried before clicking on it that this was something to do with plushophiles... fortunately, it is not. I think.) --Dhartung | Talk 04:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines in a spectacular way. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dear Lord. The first hint that this doesn't merit an article is, of course, that the article is being written by participants. Maxa megalon 2000 05:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Send in the AC130's and polverise this article into its deletion as per all "delete" reasons stated Birthday sig-leave some love 05:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable on YouTube as claimed - only hundreds of views. Colonel Warden 11:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nate from Wikipedia says Plush Movies is "Awful. I didn't laugh once, and I did that with my stuffed animals when I was five. It wasn't funny then, and I certainly wouldn't have filmed it for YouTube if it existed back then." Beyond that, I couldn't find any sources on it and it's unnotable. We're not trying to trash your dreams, they're just not the kind of material which is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Nate 11:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... then set ablaze in a well-ventilated place. No evidence of notability demonstrated or likely . Currently it just seems like a directory of YouTube users with too much time on their hands. ---- WebHamster 12:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They are not awful, it depends on what you think is funny. Lots of people like them, read the freakin' comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skutieos7 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment "Lots of people like them" is beside the point, and not at all a good reason for the article to be kept. See GlassCobra's comment below. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment YouTube reviews are not a reliable source of criticism at all. I looked over a few of them and they seemed confined to a small circle of viewers that are consistent from movie to movie. The view count also suggests not much popularity outside of those few viewers, and YT reviews are also subject to sockpuppets that could be among the reviews. Nate 20:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:RS, etc. Also, most of the arguments for keeping are WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSFUNNY, and WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. GlassCobra 17:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete while I'm diverging into WP:WAX, if a video series with tens of thousands of viewers isn't notable enough (yes, I am talking about YGO:TAS), I highly doubt that those with barely more than 100 views will. Will ^(talk) 19:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to non-notability. Seems to be edited exclusively by single-purpose accounts. WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING being used repeatedly by the article editors isn't helping. ShadowUltra 21:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a way to decide whether the article stays or doesn't stay, in this case Google Hits refers to the amount of views the videos have. ShadowUltra 21:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: They aren't single-purpose. I just made this like, two days ago, and haven't found anything else I've been able to edit knowledgeably. Meitnerium109 19:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- took a quick glimpse at the article and it screams "non-notable" -- lots of screen names instead of regular names, writing was incoherent and pointless, and I haven't even heard of them until now. Also, the only edits ever done by Skutieos7 (the creator) are those associated with this article. If Plush Movies is an actual genre, he's probably not too knowlegable in that genre, or anything related to cinema. -- azumanga 02:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources come from YouTube. ≈Alessandro ♫^{T • C} 12:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Inadequate sources, non-notable, etc. Doctorfluffy 20:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The entire article reads as a vanity page for half a dozen people's youtube accounts. Certainly viable for a speedy based on notability. Cantras 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks about time for a WP:SNOW methinks. ---- WebHamster 22:12, 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. Merging is an editorial decision that anyone can do if they feel like it. - Bobet 17:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kracko[edit]

Not notable per WP:N. No coverage in sources independent of the subject. ShadowUltra 00:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Could be treated as a section of a parent article per WP:FICT. Also, Wikipedia is a specialized encyclopedia. I added some references to the article. Tim Q. Wells 07:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge merge merge with Dyna Blade, Meta Knight, Whispy Woods, Waddle Dee, etc. into Kirby enemies, or possibly into Kirby enemies and Kirby bosses, as appropriate. It is arguably appropriate to have a bit of information on protagonists in such a prolific game series, but the level of detail in these articles is over the top, and, even if there are references per se, it pushes the bounds of OR. See, for example, the WP:BUFFY work on Sunnydale High School students. (Note of shamelss plug, since I originally wrote that article.) - Che Nuevara 13:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Kracko may be somewhat well-known within the Kirby universe, but he's not particularly important. And I disagree with the above merge proposer - Meta Knight most definitely doesn't warrant merging. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see any entry on the article discussion page or attempt to improve the article by placing the needs improvement sign before starting this AfD. 84.187.149.155 19:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very important boss to the series. One of the few characters besides kirby to be in 99% of the games, and makes an appearence in every non spin-off adventure in some form. Balladofwindfishes 19:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You say he's very important "to the series". And that's exactly the point. He has no notability outside it. Also, seeing as there are 19 Kirby games, he's probably not in 99% of them, as that would be mathematically impossible. - Che Nuevara 20:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't make comments like that. You know he means "almost all" and not literally 99%. Tim Q. Wells 01:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I apologize. I didn't mean to be uncivil, just to discourage hyperbole (which frequently complicates AfD matters). I should have chosen words more carefully. - Che Nuevara 11:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, thanks. I don't really like the hyperbole either. Tim Q. Wells 22:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kirby (series) Will ^(talk) 19:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to all voters: WP:N does not care how notable a subject is to its series, it cares how notable it is outside it. ShadowUltra 21:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 23:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you say "per nom?" The nominator's rationale no longer applies since I cited other sources in the article. And there are even more sources. Tim Q. Wells 01:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent of the subject" is the key phrase in the nomination. All the sources are specifically tied to Nintendo video games or to anime ... there is no coverage in sources not specifically about this genre, which, the nom (and I assume Doctorfluffy) argues, are required to establish its notability. - Che Nuevara 16:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren't all tied to Nintendo or amine and there are websites that are not dedicated to just this genre. Tim Q. Wells 22:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me these reliable sources? Note that blogs and other fansites are not considered reliable. ShadowUltra 00:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article...and would you please not insult my intelligence. Tim Q. Wells 22:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of the four sources I see three fansites and a walkthrough. I didn't mean to insult you, I was just pointing out a commonly-forgotten reminder. ShadowUltra 23:02, 1 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. Merging is an editorial decision that anyone can do if they feel like it. - Bobet 17:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dyna Blade[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Not notable per WP:N. No coverage in sources independent of the subject. ShadowUltra 00:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No need to delete this article that has several authors and is categorized appropriately from my view. If needed an merge would be more appropriate. Neozoon 00:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Believe me, I hate to have to do this to so many quality articles, but the trend recently is that any fictional character without notability outside their series should be deleted. See: Ridley (Metroid) ShadowUltra 01:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this article seems to have been redirected. Bearian'sBooties 01:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article Dyna Blade is a redirect, but Dyna Blade (Kirby) still exists. The mistake was made by myself. ShadowUltra 01:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kracko (no need to repeat them here, it's right above this ...) - Che Nuevara 13:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What I said on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kracko. Tim Q. Wells 16:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Two game appearances and one minor anime appearance warrants an article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Merge Kracko, Whispy and Dyna could possibly be merged (if they do decide to delete the article), but I'd prefer more article space as Dyna is one of the few Kirby bosses with some sort of story behind it. Last I checked, appearences and the number of games a character is in does NOT warrant an instant merge, it's how important the character is to the series, which Dyna Blade has going for it. Balladofwindfishes 19:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- She was important in one portion out of eight in KSS, unimportant in Kirby Air Ride, and only somewhat important in the anime. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kirby (series) Will ^(talk) 19:20, 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 keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 23:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whispy Woods[edit]

Not notable per WP:N. No coverage in sources independent of the subject. ShadowUltra 00:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No discussion on the article talk page started before AfD for this old article with many editors. Article seems to be correct categorized and offers the relevant information on the game. Did not check all of the > 750 Google hits on this term but several should be useful as reference.Neozoon 00:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Believe me, I hate to have to do this to so many quality articles, but the trend recently is that any fictional character without notability outside their series should be deleted. See: Ridley (Metroid). If any of these Google hits are useful as a reference, by all means add them to the article. Its current state disagrees with WP:N. ShadowUltra 01:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The proposer thinks this is a 'quality article' and my impression is similar. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and so it is not necessary to 'follow orders'. Colonel Warden 07:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or create a Kirby characters article and merge into that. It seems to me that appearing in 13 different significant video games from a major publisher, plus an anime series, should be past any reasonable notability standard. As for reliable sources, the Prima Kirby 64 Guide (ISBN 0761530150) should do the trick. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kracko (no need to repeat them here ...) - Che Nuevara 13:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What I said on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kracko. Tim Q. Wells 16:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable--Zingostar 17:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Easily one of the most recignized villains of Kirby. Makes cameos in other series, and is outright a staple of the series. Unlike Kracko, Whispy actually has a relevant and important role in his games, and also in the anime. The fact you mentioned that ridley doesn't have an article, see WP:OTHERSTUFF Balladofwindfishes 19:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kirby (series). I completed Kirby Super Star on 100% and barely remember this boss Will ^(talk) 19:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not remembering a boss is no reason to delete an articleBalladofwindfishes 19:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to all voters: WP:N does not care how notable a subject is to its series, it cares how notable it is outside it. ShadowUltra 21:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good, so Smash Brothers trophy information, the fact he is a notable NPC in two non Kirby games, coupled with his notability within his own universe can be used as a logical argument. Note that Smash Bros creator created Whispy, acknoledging him to appear in Melee 3 times, and notable enough to represent the entire series as a notable location, in a notable non universe game. And in reference to that, Anime=/=Games, in that they are seperate entirely. Note Meowth and Jigglypuff. Metaknight and Dedede in theory would also fall into unotability, because of lack of "out of universe" info. But really, define out of universe. Does this include only the games, or does it broaden itself to anything at all related to the universe of Kirby. If that is so, than Gandalf should be deleted because it references the LoTR movie, and several officially published products about it. Balladofwindfishes 22:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the one who decides what "out of universe" is. Melee trophy information shouldn't be considered a source because they have a trophy on, well, everything. Gandalf, I'm sure, has references to character analysis and documentation that was not written by Tolkien or a fansite. It's fine to reference the universe itself as long as out of universe perspective is provided, of which there is in Gandalf's article but not Whispy Woods. ShadowUltra 23:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So in that sense Anime or Manga not written/directed/supervised by Sakurai, Whispy's creator, would in theory than be a plausible out of universe source, if and only if, the article is written in an out of universe perspective? That would than also mean this article would not warrant a deletion tag, but rather an out of universe tag Balladofwindfishes 21:09, 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 no consensus to delete, but merge is feasible. I suggest that the possibility of merge be discussed further on the article's talk page. In view of the absence of sourced material in the article, I suggest that failure to merge could result in this article's being deleted as a result of a second deletion discussion in the none-too-distant future, if the article still does not satisfy Wikipedia's verifiability policy. --Tony Sidaway 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waddle Dee[edit]

Not notable per WP:N. No coverage in sources independent of the subject. ShadowUltra 00:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kracko (no need to repeat them here ...) - Che Nuevara 13:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What I said on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kracko. Tim Q. Wells 16:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kirby (series) Will ^(talk) 19:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge* Until a reasonable other article is created to hold "enemies in the kirby series" there is no reasonable way to merge with Kirby (series). Until that is created, this article can't really be merged because it has no where to go. Other than that, I agree. Although a pretty major enemy in the game, it is not that important to the series (As say Whispy is) and is overall a pretty basic enemy that has just a slight signifangance. On a related note, people who put "see my comments here", this is NOT the same deletion, and as such, completely different cases and characters. Until you have a grasp of what characters you are pushing to get deleted, at least give a unique plausible reason for each character. Like I said, although in the same series (kirby), they are entirely different cases. Balladofwindfishes 23:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Characters in the Kirby video game series or King Dedede. « FMF » 02:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Waddle Dee is a notable Kirby character, I think the article should stay. --74.129.205.47 11:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article's current state provides no reference of notability. ShadowUltra 23:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Waddle dee's are the most common enemy in the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waddledeekirby (talk • contribs) 06:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge* Waddle dee is just another enemy even though it appears in most levels (refering to Nightmare in dreamland) except boss levels. After all in the anime it hardly has anything to do with it. I think deleting it is a bit to drastic after all it is one of the most common enemies in the game. It should be merged with 'list of kirby enemies'. Nintendogeek —Preceding comment was added at 07:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still not notable. ShadowUltra 21:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dizzy Pong[edit]

Trivial nonsense from start to finish. It doesn't fit any speedy category however so here it is. Mattinbgn\^talk 23:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "but has not grown" statement made me doubt that this is a WP:NFT violation. Searching "dizzy pong" in Google gives 5 hits, most are from myspace and livejournal.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some admin spare us, and just shoot this. This rather says it all.--Doc^g 00:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did some Google search and found Dizzy Pong only twice on facebook entries. Seems not to be an commonly used term for a game. No further public references to be found soon. Can not improve the article, recommend to delete it. Neozoon 00:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Let's see... WP:N, WP:RS, WP:GHITS, WP:V, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:MADEUP, WP:OR, WP:HOAX... Uhh, any more?--WaltCip 01:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be some game some bored kids made up. Fails Wikipedia:Notability --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any significant reference, fails WP:Verifiable. Wikipedia is not for something you made up in your frat one lazy weekend. Accounting4Taste 03:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, haven't we deleted this before? Wait, that was some variation of beer pong. Not much difference, clearly made up in school/in the author's basement/five minutes before this was written, or some variation thereof. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in the garage one day. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT#OR. Looks like Original research. This is unsourced and Im having difficulty finding reliable sources on this subject. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 15:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, the phrase "but has not grown" shows that. Oysterguitarist 17:28, 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 keep, and merge the history to Scientific plagiarism in India. No one seems to have a problem with the current version of that article, which the same author started with a cut and paste move from the title below. - Bobet 17:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism controversies in india[edit]

All the sources of this article are only other Wikipedia articles, very high chance of Original Research VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 09:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim that any of these controversies are notable.--victor falk 11:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references were missing due to a syntax error. Corrected--inlap 12:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.15.94 (talk) [reply]
~~Delete~~ NeutralAfter the correction of the syntax error, sources do seem to show an amount of debate about scientific plagiarism in India.--victor falk 12:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pending rewrite. The way it is written now is rather OR-ish and a bit POV. I think a chronological documenting of this topic would work better and look less like a comparative study. It is also not an indisputable given that unattributed appropriation of material -- "plagiarism" -- is a bad thing, and thus this article, as it stands, is a little one-sided, especially in light of the fact that India has no anti-plagiarism institution. Also, it clearly needs a move for capitalization, but it might also warrant a name change. - Che Nuevara 13:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific plagiarism in India? [24]--victor falk 14:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's India or Indiana, we also have to watch out for WP:BLP Mandsford 17:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. - Che Nuevara 20:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per victor falk. Doctorfluffy 03:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, source much better, and change the title-- "scientific fraud in India" there are, as for any country, a number of examples, beyond the ones mentioned here. . I am like others here not altogether convinced of the care taken in the writing of the present article.DGG (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neutral Keep & rename per DGG & CheNuevara. Scientific fraud in India sounds good to me.--victor falk 23:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Where notable and appropriate merge into article about the persons (or universities). Scientific fraud is not limited to India of the 2000s and this semi-random collection is not notable per se. Also OR, list of unrelated events, low to no context, low encyclopedic value. Pavel Vozenilek 17:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think this should have been speedied. Just look at the title and you will see the author didn't even capitalize India; generally that will show that it isn't a good article. Also, someone blanked the page, and I just reverted it. jj137 (Talk) 17:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move Agree with others that it should be moved to Scientific plagiarism in India with modifications. Should not be merged with the concerned Universities though, as these are individual controversies not university related. However, the article has historic value and hence should be kept. inlap (Talk) 07:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Scientific plagiarism in India per above. The final article looks fair well-sourced. Bearian 17:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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