The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Relevant list, however structure reorganization and some clean-up work are needed. @pple complain 13:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Desperate Housewives cast members[edit]

List of Desperate Housewives cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another list of people who appeared on desperate housewives, once or twice. This is getting crazy how many of these lists am I going to find. Ridernyc 21:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Ridernyc 21:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SYN and WP:NOT. This is, indeed, getting rather silly. Stifle (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but restructure. Many series with large casts have lists. IrishLass0128 12:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but cleanup and beautify. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 01:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Lists are good (and appropriate) ways to bundle characters. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deletion is not cleanup; this is a list worth keeping. •97198 talk 11:36, 6 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jericho cast members[edit]

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

Poorly written list of minor characters. The show was canceled after one season. I don't think we need list with entries like "# Musashi Alexander - Roy Hinkley (1 episode) and Townsperson #2 (1 episodes)" not one single edit has been made to the page since the author created it on Aug 13th 2007. Ridernyc 21:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Note that the show was put back on the air. I don't know if that will sway votes one way or the other...but...just to correct that. Smashville 21:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that myself, picked back up for 8 episodes. Dont think it will affect anything I doubt townsperson #3 will be making a come back. I have also noticed that the format of this article is messed up, it's a project that was started and abandoned. The author of all these lists has since left wikipedia according there userpage. Ridernyc 22:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...I think it should be deleted, but I'm not going to make an official vote because I can't think of a policy reason... Smashville 23:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; If this were a list of the (major) characters, it would be more conventional, but lists of cast members have no purpose. Masaruemoto 02:49, 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. CitiCat ^♫ 19:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cue cards used in Subterranean Homesick Blues Video[edit]

Cue cards used in Subterranean Homesick Blues Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Cruft of an extremely trivial kind. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Subterranean Homesick Blues. Transwiki to Wikisource, I think, is another way to vandal handle this. It isn't notable by itself but it's part of something notable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Dont Look Back, the film that featured the music video. Definitely a merge (either the one suggested by Dhartung or mine) before a delete please. Hult041956 23:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, exceedingly trivial. Doctorfluffy 21:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although I understand both of the merger proposals, when I look at the respective articles I do not see how this information would improve the article at any real level. SorryGuy 01:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't see how merging would add value anywhere. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not worth keeping. Bad precedent. - Richfife 15:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 08:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-time characters and guest stars on Desperate Housewives[edit]

List of one-time characters and guest stars on Desperate Housewives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of characters that appeared one time on Desperate housewives. I could list go into detail about how this violates WP:Plot and other policies and guideline but I think this clearly something that is in no way encyclopedic. I fell bad because a ton of work has been put into it, but it really should not be on wikipedia Ridernyc 20:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was going to give fans the benefit of the doubt before AfD'ing this list myself because most one-time character list AfDs end up in no consensus. But since this AfD is open now, I repeat what I've said in similar AfDs: These characters have almost no in-universe notability, and except for rare cases, have no real-world notability (which is all what Wikipedia cares about). This list likely cannot be expanded except for plot summaries (which would violate WP:PLOT), and as it is now, has WP:NOTABILITY, WP:TRIVIA and WP:DIRECTORY problems. There is no need to keep a list of important one-timers as they are already mentioned in their respective episode articles; "unimportant" characters shouldn't be listed anyway in a separate list. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete oer sgeureka. A article for characters who have appeared only ONCE? TJ Spyke 22:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR, for a start. Stifle (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters on Ugly Betty. Even the title of this article seems to highlight its non-notability! •97198 talk 12:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per sgeureka's analysis. Doctorfluffy 05:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not encyclopedic. -RiverHockey 13:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary, non-notable listcruft, and over-coverage of a fictional subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyLegsKC (talk • contribs) 04:41, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Chambers (actor)[edit]

William Chambers (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another hoax created by Rozrozroz (talk · contribs); this person doesn't seem to exist, nor does the show he was allegedly best known for - unless my Google-fu is completely broken this afternoon. The creator has a major pattern of hoaxes, several of which are up for deletion right now. Delete as soon as possible. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. No such actor on IMDB, which has oodles of nn actors... Smashville 21:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was unable to substantiate ANY of the claims Arthur 17:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no IMDB entry and purported HBO show doesn't appear to exist. -- Whpq 19:47, 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. John254 17:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janssen-Cilag[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:CORP. No coverage from reliable secondary sources. Ghits appear to be entirely press releases, promotional items, and corporate directory listings. Doctorfluffy 20:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge Google news gives 3,710 hits on the merged entity. [11] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Typo? That link you provided yields 32 hits for me. Doctorfluffy 21:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Just click on "All dates" I left it displaying just the past years entries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah okay, thanks. Doctorfluffy 00:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, has 330 employees just in Australia. Many google hits. I think it is a notable company. THE KING 23:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the major national subsidiaries of the really most important international companies are notable. DGG (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Suprised at the current lack of secondary sources. This is pretty much J&J's drug and health products subsidary outside of the USA and Canada. If there is still is a lack of secondary sources, I would probably write an item up in J&J's article and redirect there. Spryde 17:15, 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 Merge to The Rules of Attraction. Non-admin closure. --Polaron | Talk 21:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Bateman[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character, per WP:FICT, no secondary sources available AndalusianNaugahyde 19:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?I don't think you can say this character is non-notable, as it is one of the leading characters in a well-known film and book. But I can see why a merge to The Rules of Attraction might be in order, because there's not much notability of this character independently of the film.Merkinsmum 20:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (after heavy trimming) to The Rules of Attraction; there's no sign the character has notability independent of the book/film. —Quasirandom 20:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: When a fictive thing is not independently notable and a parent article exists (such as one for the fiction in which it exists) the obvious solution is MERGE. This really should have been handled as a proposed merge, not AfD. —Quasirandom 20:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, per WP:FICT merge is a preferred solution over deleting. —Quasirandom 00:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Quasirandom. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Quasirandom. Benjiboi 20:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge assuming there is considerable trimming. SorryGuy 01:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I can see arguments that the character has been in enough books to warrant a centralized article, but I don't think he quite rises to that level overall. - Richfife 15:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of DuckTales characters. This seems to be a more appropriate target since there is already mention of the character there. Non-admin closure. --Polaron | Talk 21:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gandra Dee[edit]

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

Non-notable, in-universe only fictional character. Fails WP:FICT requirement for reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject matter. Ghits appear to be confined to fansites and cartoon forums. Article itself states this character is largely non-notable within the universe. Doctorfluffy 19:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article has almost no reliable ghits and fails the fiction policy. STORMTRACKER 94 19:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Fenton Crackshell. Gizmoduck was a pretty major character, his girlfriend really wasn't, but should still be mentioned/described on that page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to some Duck Tales related articles as it is information that someone might want to know.--E tac 10:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Meta:Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap."--Masterzora 20:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Referring to an essay on Meta which has been basically unchanged in the 5 years it has existed does not somehow override the core policies of Wikipedia, including verifiablity, reliable sourcing, and notablity. In fact, the modern version of your argument is WP:PAPER, which specifically states: This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. Please try to be familiar with current policies when participating in AfDs. Doctorfluffy 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this stub has no content, real-world context, primary or secondary sources to demonstrate notability, which are very good reasons for deletion.--Gavin Collins 08:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a sentence or two to Fenton Crackshell per above. - Richfife 15:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 02:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kondreman[edit]

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

A webcomic whose sole claim to fame is being published in a newspaper in a country whose population is less than 5% of London's. And not Greater London either. No independent sources. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is not notable, and has no reliable sources. STORMTRACKER 94 19:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Managed to get published in a major national newspaper. --Carnildo 21:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Carnildo. Publication in a national newspaper seems to meet WP:N, even if it's a small country. Surely there's a source somewhere? ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The first link in the external links section indicates that the comic is copyright by the newspaper. That should be enough to indicate that it is published by them as well. John Carter 18:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete per nom. -RiverHockey 13:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Carnildo. Edward321 19:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete publication in a single small-circulation newspapers does not meet the "significant coverage" or "reliable sources" portion of Wikipedia:Notability. De Ware Tijd appears to have a circulation of only 10,000, which is college newspaper-like, not anything close to "major newspaper." [12] Are they any other sources discussing this comic? --Dragonfiend 00:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unsourced 70.116.31.203 23:38, 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 Speedy delete as definite hoax and general waste of time. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moses f. stevens[edit]

Moses f. stevens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This looks like a hoax to me. As original PROD notes, this 1909 baseball player does not seem to exist. • Gene93k 18:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's a hoax - the links for the 1909 lineup for the Pirates shows no evidence of anyone named Moses or Stevens. In short, the article links to its own damnation. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I originally looked into this article when I couldn't find any sources that mentioned him anywhere, including the team rosters that I added to the article. I just now listed this in the list of Baseball-related deletions. Eóin 19:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article's external links show no evidence of this person existing. STORMTRACKER 94 19:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the reasons above, and baseball-reference.com hasn't heard of him, either, nor do they list anyone with a remotely similar name playing in 1909 for the Pirates.--Fabrictramp 20:05, 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. DS 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Evans (journalist)[edit]

This is a declined CSD. Tagging editor says it is a piece of complete fiction. A hoax is not a reason for CSD so I bring it here for a decision. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 18:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are some reliable sources from google searching. The article may need to be cleaned up, though. STORMTRACKER 94 19:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're voting to keep an apparent hoax article just because a Google search for "Mike Evans (journalist)" gets a lot of hits? Mike Evans is an extremely common name, a bit more research would have shown you this is a hoax. Crazysuit 20:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're voting keep based on google hits and completely ignoring the hoax aspect? Smashville 20:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Hoax. A specific Google search only gives 11 results, none of them are this person. If this TV news journalist existed there would be at least one reference to him on the internet. Crazysuit 20:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have just noticed that this article has been speedily deleted before as a hoax. Crazysuit 20:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a hoax, and we might want to take a look at Mary Williams (journalist), his erstwhile partner at the anchor desk, as well - she doesn't turn up any Google results either. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per KYW website no such person is an anchor. Smashville 20:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm the original tagger, and as I said (and others have verified) it's complete fiction (as is the Patrick Clark article next to it on the list). JTRH 21:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:HOAX. Stifle (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even though it looks good, it's definitely a hoax. Too bad this user wastes his/her talent creating hoaxes. Jauerback 19:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not listed as part of the news team on the station site bios. No results matching this Mike Evans in googling. -- Whpq 19:38, 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 with respect to JodyB, speedy delete as hoax and creations of a banned user. Stifle (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Clark (journalist)[edit]

Patrick Clark (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am moving this to AfD after declining the CSD request. The editor who tagged the article as speedy says it is complete fiction. The community will know and decide appropriately JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 18:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Hoax created by a regular hoaxer. There is no one working at WPVI-TV called Patrick Clark. This article mentions "Jordan Maxferres". User:Jordan Maxferres is a banned sockpuppet of User:Botaylor456. User:Botaylor456 created hoax articles of TV news journalists. Rozrozroz's other contributions need to be looked at, and the user should be banned. Crazysuit 20:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - yep, another one. This could get ugly, digging through his contribs. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There's a Sockpuppetry case about this user at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rozrozroz. I've added some suspected sockpuppets to it. Crazysuit 20:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. See the Mike Evans case next on the list. JTRH 21:15, 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 — Caknuck 22:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Anderson (urinator)[edit]

Anthony Anderson (urinator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Constested prod. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete anybody whose claim-to-fame is peeing is pretty clearly outside the scope of an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename This guy got quite alot of coverage in the media for this (IE notable), but this article should be renamed as Anthony Anderson (criminal). Lugnuts 20:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than one criminal with that name. Wikipedia already has an article for Anthony Anderson (murderer). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.49.188 (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom who is exactly right. --Malcolmxl5 21:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It makes for great copy, but it doesn't appear to have been significant. --Dhartung | Talk 21:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia isn't a news source. Stifle (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - in the article's favour, he did achieve temporary notability as demonstrated in the sources, and the article can indeed be re-written in a way to avoid BLP problems. However, notability is not temporary, and unless there's any proof out there that this fellow's going to remain notable for having once peed on a dying woman, there's not much reason to keep this article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Wikipedia jargon "notability is not temporary" means something different. --Dhartung | Talk 01:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Has gotten extensive international news coverage, and will likely be the subject of sociological study and writing for some time to come. Is certainly notable as the first man to be convicted of urinating on a dying person. Has also been of interest to feminists as an example of patriarchy in action... Helvetica 18:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to WP:BLP1E. However, I agree that the event might be notable in UK (if the article's maintainers can provide reliable references to prove that there is an extended reaction or news coverage) and a new article describing it might pass notability --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete No one will remember this is a few weeks time. This is not encyclopedia material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiehnm (talk • contribs) 15:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Disgusting cruft and nonsense. 216.194.2.111 13:10, 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 Speedied. Some bored people hosting their silliness on Wikipedia. Fang Aili ^talk 19:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King Lamin[edit]

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

I declined this as a speedy because I think some assertion of notability is made. However the article may be a hoax and does not seem supported by proper attribution to reliable sources. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 18:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Claiming you are the best exponent of a soccer x-box game in your university dorm is not a claim to notability. Nuttah68 18:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete even assuming it's true, it's not notable in the least. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:32, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valas Hune[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. ((prod)) deleted, so taking it to AfD. Mikeblas 18:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FICT. Stifle (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FICT. No secondary sources exist to establish notability. Doctorfluffy 04:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 23:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as plot summary is not evidience of notability. --Gavin Collins 23:23, 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 — Caknuck 22:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. Wyatt Mann[edit]

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

Fails notability. The reference is simply a cartoon and not a reliable source. Along those lines, this article does not include 3rd party sources. Inferences and words like 'obviously' lead me to believe this is original research as well. So notability issues, no RS, OR. the_undertow ^talk 18:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd love to include more sources, i.e. the uncyclopedia and encyclopedia dramatica pages, but it seems those links are being banned on wikipedia. Anyway, the main source of notability for this person outside the Far right scene is essentially his use as an internet meme. He is some sort of symbolic image of the racist fringe of the extreme right. Wedineinheck 18:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There aren't enough WP:RS to write a balanced article; this is about all I found that even comes close. --Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dhartung. Stifle (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N. Secondary sources do not appear to exist. Doctorfluffy 08:26, 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, default to keep. Sandstein 22:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smeg (vulgarism)[edit]

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

Dicdef, neologism, trivia, appears to fail WP:RS WP:TRIVIA and WP:FICT. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even if notable (and I make no contention that it IS), this belongs at Wiktionary and not Wikipedia per WP:DICDEF. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See WP:NOT. Subdolous 17:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete References are pathetic (urban dictionary for instance, hardly a solid reference) and quite frankly inadaquate to suffice inclusion within wikipedia. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This word is well known in the Liverpool and the Geordie community. As the article says it was used extensively in Red Dwarf, and this was the most popular science fiction program on British TV in the 90's. Everybody in my computer science class, at uni, used to use it. I would say it is clearly notable. scope_creep 18:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And that makes it not a dicdef how? JuJube 20:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very notable, both in and outside the RD universe. Lugnuts 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Regardless of how notable it is, it will need stronger references. Killjoy966 18:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete belongs in wkt. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 18:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep

Passes WP:RS: Googling "Red Dwarf smeg" returns 86,000 hits. There are literally thousands of red dwarf websites, fan groups, conventions, books, and paraphernalia of all kinds. Its not going got hard to find sources for this.

Passes WP:Trivia: This isn't a list or made up or inconsequential fact.

Passes WP:FICT. A highly notable show, and a term used in every episode which has passed into every day language, this term was used in Liverpool long before the show aswell.Operating 19:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[[reply]

• If you add reliable sources to the article, I may change my mind.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - WP:BIG is not a valid argument. Google hits are not necessarily reliable secondary sources, and the majority of them are not. WP:TRIVIA applies to trivia sections for existing notable articles, not stand-alone articles based on trivia. WP:FICT applies to Red Dwarf, not this entry. Recommendation stands. Subdolous 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Ghits aren't reliable, they point to notability tho. You've assumed the article is based on trivia but it isn't, there is plenty of material to fill this page some of it non RD related. You say WP:FICT applies to RD but not this article, so why do you want to delete the only article with material that has passed into popular culture? Operating 18:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I'll say it as many times as I have to: WP:BIG is not a valid argument. Ghits are not an indicator of notability, period. The key criteria for notabilty is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, for the subject itself. Just because you think it's notable doesn't mean it is, because you are not a reliable secondary source. Sorry, those are the rules. Subdolous 18:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Ok forget WP:Big/ghits, i already conceeded that point. Answer my question, why is Smeg which is used in popular culture less noteworthy than other RD concepts like Computer senility, Dollarpound, Felis sapiens, Fuchal, GELF, Silicon Heaven and Space Corps Directives which aren't used in popular culture? Operating 19:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment' There are two aspects to this: one is notability; "used in popular culture" doesn't indicate notability either, because it's not a verifiable statement by itself (remember that you are not a reliable source) and is not driven by reliable secondary sources. The second is the fact that it's a definition of a word, and wikipedia is not a dictionary. See WP:NOT#DICT. Subdolous 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Coment. Can i interest you in a smeg T shirt or [www.cafepress.com/buy/tv/-/pv_design_details/pg_1/id_14972496/opt_/fpt_/c_666/ smeg poster] or smeg patch. This is popular culture. I could go and buy a fair number of RD books which would reference Smeg and its use and put those in the article to source it correctly. As for dicdef because its used in popular culture its more than that. Operating 21:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment - T-shirts, posters, and patches are not sources at all. RD books would count as primary sources, which should not be used to establish notability. Once again, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources on the word itself is what counts, and wikipedia is still not a dictionary. Subdolous 13:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is clearly just an overglorified dicdef. It bears a mention in the dab page, but that's it. JuJube 20:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup per Lugnuts. Stifle (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added ref from BBC for Smeg-head. Lugnuts 08:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Operating, assuming enough reliable sources are available. I've never seen Red Dwarf, but I've heard this term often enough that it ought to be easy to expand. There should be more that can be added to the article to avoid being a dicdef. -Phoenixrod 14:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment On second thought, this article isn't substantially different from Red_Dwarf#Invented_words. -Phoenixrod 21:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dicdef of a made up from a TV show.17:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)

• Comment. Looks like this might be heading for no consensus...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is clearly not a dictionary definition. It's talking about the origin, history, and popularity of a term, not just the meaning. Thus it's covered as a neologism / cultural phenomenon, something that is a suitable subject for Wikipedia. This one appears real, sourceable, and relatively notable. No problem. The article needs improvement, but they all do. Wikidemo 22:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Add sources and keep. Artw 22:47, 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, nothing here to merge that isn't already in her mother's article — Caknuck 23:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Iuel[edit]

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

Wholly non-notable four or five year old, her article is a carbon copy of several others. Delete or merge (which seems to be unlikely). The subject has done nothing of note and her remote position in line of succession to the throne is noted on that article, but does not make her individually notable. Charles 17:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per my nomination. Charles 17:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, while I did decline to speedy this article, that was only because there is at least arguably an assertion of notability here, and was procedural rather than based on any belief that the article should remain. However, that assertion is quite thin, and I can find little to no source material on this person. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database, and nobility is not notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above, especially since this info is in another article. Jauerback 18:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this article merely repeats information contained in the article on Tatiana's mother; when, and if, Tatiana herself becomes notable, then we can add an article on her. Noel S McFerran 18:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She is a Royal and that makes her notable. scope_creep 18:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• She is not a royal. Charles 18:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 18:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This person has not "been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Killjoy966 18:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Killjoy. --Malcolmxl5 21:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Princess Desirée of Schaumburg-Lippe. Consensus is that non-notable relatives of notable people are mentioned in the notable person's article. Stifle (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Being in the line of succession to the British throne is not inherently a claim of notability, particularly when there are over 900 people ahead of the person (as there are for Tatiana), the person is only 5 years old, and no sources are provided to indicate any media coverage of her life. People much higher in the British line of succession have been deleted per WP:BIO; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Ogilvy, Zenouska Mowatt, and Christian Mowatt for a group of people in the top 40 of the succession line whose articles were deleted. --Metropolitan90 05:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I'm still at a loss as to why Marina Ogilvy's article deleted, as she was clearly notable and made the news with her pregnancy and marriage. However, I'd agree Delete Tatiana's article. Non-notable, non-royal. Morhange 17:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge into Princess Desirée of Schaumburg-Lippe. --Brewcrewer 13:49, 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 delete. WjBscribe 00:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halueth Never[edit]

Halueth Never (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional character. ((prod)) deleted by User:Addedtried without comment, so bringing it to AfD. Mikeblas 17:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Subdolous 17:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails to meet most of the criteria of WP:N. Jauerback 18:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep and Merge These characters in D&D need to be ordered into characters specific to each game. One page per character or race is a waste. scope_creep 18:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FICT. Stifle (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FICT. No coverage from secondary sources. Doctorfluffy 05:38, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Will Be[edit]

I Will Be (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Non-notable album track. ^anemone|_projectors 17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 17:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per both of above.   jj137 (Talk) 22:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Best Damn Thing. Tracks not released as singles very rarely deserve an article independent of the album. Stifle (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect as Stifle suggested. -RiverHockey 13:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I considered a redirect but I wasn't sure where to, as although Lavigne recorded it originally, it's only a bonus track on some editions of her album, but Lewis's version is a proper album track on hers. ^anemone|_projectors 13:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The song isn't notable per WP:MUSIC, and it doesn't seem to me to be significant enough to require a redirect. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:26, 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. Eluchil404 02:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harkle Harpell[edit]

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

((orphan)), ((inuniverse)), ((primarysources)), ((notability)), and ((prod)) tags were removed by User:71.108.52.19 with the comment "reverting idiots". With the "disputed" prod, I'm bringing the issue to AfD. Mikeblas 17:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 17:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Put in character article for specific D & D game. scope_creep 18:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FICT requirement of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Google returns entirely fansites, so it's unlikely sources exist to indicate notability. Doctorfluffy 19:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This character appears in several of R.A Salvatore's books and is a rather significant character in the The Hunter's Blades Trilogy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.88.9 (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FICT. Stifle (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:Plot. Ridernyc 17:52, 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 nonsense. Stifle (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Priorian[edit]

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

This seems to be some sort of fringe hypothesis with a lack of sources or notability. Google search yields little. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 17:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Pure twaddle. scope_creep 18:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unless better references can be found than an email address and a URL which is a ... what? Awful vanity publisher? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 18:55, 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, I think it satisfies category a7, no assertion of notability, but we'll call it WP:SNOW to be safe. NawlinWiki 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cris P[edit]

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

(Sigh...) Contested prod, so here we go wasting everyone's time... Unsigned musician with no releases, no media coverage whatsoever and not even a myspace page let alone a single reliable source. — iridescent 17:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Isn't there a speed category for non-notable bands? -- Mikeblas 17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• SPeedy Delete This should have gone under ((db-band)) and not even gotten here. Improbcat 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately doesn't fit A7 for a speedy as there's an assertion of notability, even if it's almost certainly bogus; "hoax" is (necessarily but annoyingly) specifically not a speedy criteria. — iridescent 17:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The speedy tag reads: [...]that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject.

Which as far as I can tell reads that it hasn't indicated that it meets those criteria. Being persued by two major labels and a rumor or signing a third, along with a few small shows and airtime on a tiny station is not any assertion of meeting the Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria. If the article said "He has signed to Virgin records and has been interviewed on MTV" when he hadn't then it would be a hoax. Improbcat 17:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to slap a ((db-bio)) on it, believe me I won't argue... I suspect it'll be turned down though. — iridescent 17:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even if not speediable, and even if the claims to notability aren't a hoax, this article still provides no EVIDENCE in the form of reliable, third-party sources that indicate notability, and thus should be deleted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 17:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I declined the speedy, for two reasons: 1. Hoaxes can't fall under speedy, 2. Even if the Virgin deal is false (and the whole thing is a hoax), it still gives some impression of notability. Still doesn't mean it's safe from deletion mind you, just informing you of my logic here. Kwsn (Ni!) 18:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for everything listed above. Jauerback 18:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of a signing other than with Virgin. No prejudice to recreation when Cris signs and releases an album - and hopefully doesn't flop. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I can see the reasons for not making it a speedy, but do I see WP:SNOW outside? Stifle (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't complain about a snowball delete. I'll run it up the pole (good ol' generic ((db))), see who salutes. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 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 keep without consensus, but stubify to remove violations of copyright law, the rules on biographies of living persons, and the rule against a skewed point of view. The subject appears to be quite notable based on the verifiablity of some sources and the large number of Ghits. The Washington Times is not a reliable source, but there are others, including the New York Times and Washington Post, with more than trivial mentions of this person. There were about equal numbers of keeps, deletes, and comments.^[1] The default is to keep and stubify in such cases. This article should be watched carefully by admins. Bearian 16:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Emory[edit]

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

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

A radio talkshow host from California - and the article is nothing but an unsourced essay about his tinfoilhattery. Escaped Nazis are running the global economy, and along with the CIA conspired to kill Jews at the Munich Massacre, and now are in league with Al Quaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Republican party.....please. -Doc^g 17:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The fact that he appears to be a fully paid-up whacko isn't a problem - we have plenty of pages on his fellow travellers; the fact that there does not seem to be a single mention of him anywhere is. — iridescent 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Google news turns up [13] nothing, and neither does a straight-up [14] google search, which turns up this guy only in the form of resume's and programming announcements and a few blogs. No coverage by reliable sources. If he is notable in his field, than at least SOMEONE (such as maybe a local newspaper, or the like) would have interviewed him or reviewed his program. I have found no evidence of such, and thus he is wholly non-notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment google reports 34,100 hits on "dave emory" Peterhoneyman 17:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 17:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete A headcase. scope_creep 18:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:N -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 18:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep--This page epitomizes the flaws of Wikipedia. The first six "delete" posts occurred within a roughly six-hour period on Halloween. The other three on November 2. This appears to be an example of collaboration among members of a network of some kind, not a spontaneous occurrence. Furthermore, the posts are without merit. There is plenty of discussion of Emory--use any of the available search engines, including Google. The posters are suspect as a result. And as far as secondary sources, there have been over the years. We have listened to Dave for years, and we've seen articles about him in various publications, including the San Jose Metro and San Jose Mercury News. There is an audio file on his website recorded in response to an attack on him in a book about conspiracy theorists by Jonathan Vankin, who devoted much of a chapter to Emory. It seems that these are people who don't like Dave and don't believe in free speech. Jayron has pictures of the Austrian crown jewels on his website. Emory has written critically of the House of Hapsburg. Hmmmmm. Addendum to previous comment: There are a number of stations other than WFMU and WCBN that carry Emory's work. He's been featured for more than 20 years on KPFK, the Pacifica station in Los Angeles, as well as KFYI in Kansas City, two stations in the San Francisco Bay Area, KBOO in Portland Oregon and a station in Vancouver, B.C. After almost 30 years on the air, he's attracted quite a large following and a large number of enemies as well. A Lexis/Nexus search for Emory turns up a number of references. And as far as references being critical, well, that comes with the territory and is not a criterion for deletion by Wikipedia. ONE SHOULD NOT FAIL TO NOTE THE NUMBER OF DELETIONS OF FAVORABLE POSTS TO THIS PAGE. Sounds like somebody's playing dirty pool. Wonder who?! Be Seeing You, Farstriker—Preceding unsigned comment added by Farstriker (talk • contribs) 19:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC) — Farstriker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment Open the revision history of this AFD. See the page size? Goes up with each post. No-one is "deleting favourable posts to this page". — iridescent 00:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentYou're right, all those interested in Austria fondly remember the House of Habsburg and are always willing to take up the cudgels in their defence on WP, especially against those willing to speak truth to the awesome power of that Imperial House. That was sarcasm. Relata refero 16:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Subdolous. Stifle (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jayron32. Doctorfluffy 08:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Emory is mentioned elsewhere but he or his minions have repeatedly cleansed the article of links and information critical of him and which speaks to his wider influence. I have just today restored two external links[15][16] that set him in a larger context. One is by Chip Berlet although Emory gets only one mention in that piece. I know from personal experience that Emory has a significant following and his content is distributed via at least two independent, i.e. not owned or controlled by Emory, radio stations: WFMU and WCBN-FM. --DieWeisseRose 08:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We lack the reliable published sources needed to write a biography of a living person. WAS 4.250 13:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -RiverHockey 13:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is largely a free speech issue. Emory has been documenting fascist connections for over 25 years. Emory sources all his material in a truly meticulous manner. He has made many enemies over the years with what he says. An old Turkish proverb that he often quotes says ”He who tells the truth gets chased out of nine villages”. Wikipedia should not be one of the villages that Emory is chased out from. Also, Emory is the subject of a documentary film currently under production [17]T.Ferrett 22:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)— T.Ferrett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Strong Do Not Delete Wow, it must have been a slow Halloween, with suddenly 6 posters demanding that Emory be deleted 17:16 and 23:10 (just before the witching hour, on October 31). This seems like a concerted effort to stifle speech, or maybe I’m just a conspiracy theorist. It is nothing short of character assassination for iridescent to compare Emory to the likes of David Icke or Michael Riconosciuto. It is rather insincere of Jayron32 to cite a Google search of “David Emory”, when in fact, he goes by “Dave Emory” professionally.[18]. Emory is cited in the book “The 60 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time” by Jonathan & Whalen, John Vankin[19].Vanfield 23:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)— Vanfield (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete, largely per Iridescent. There are no mainstream sources which cover David Emory, and the article can only find two sources which are truly independent of him (both of which are critical). Sam Blacketer 00:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. As has been already mentioned, numerous articles from mainstream publications reference him in LexisNexis (I found five separate articles in a matter of minutes) and hundreds of his shows have been broadcast over the public airwaves for decades. Also, even if wikipedia had a policy of deleting posts about public figures that lack credible sources in their work, that critique simply does not apply to Mr. Emory. His shows are filled with readings directly from major mainstream news sources or interviews of other public figures that appear in wikipedia (Lucy Komisar[20], Robert Parry [21], and John Loftus[22], for example). The fact that the validity of Mr. Emory's wiki entry is even up for debate is rather bewildering given the irrefutable facts involved. --Fiddlefaddlefoo 04:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC) — Fiddlefaddlefoo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment — I have removed some egregious biography of living person's allegations from this discussion. Being a member of no cabal, and having no special interest in this person or what-have you, I would just like to make some general comments:

1. Assume good faith about other editors; assume they are acting to their best of their knowledge.
2. Be civil to one another; assusing other people of "censorship" and being the member of shadowy cabal is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.
3. Be civil to real people too; material which would probably be libel or slander in real life is not welcome, nor does it have any real relevance or bearing on the discussion here. Avoid it, and stop using it.
4. In addition, there is no cabal; no one is out to "get" this user, and accusations that there is some dark force at work to stifle dissent are ridiculous and totally at odds with expected behavior.
5. This is not a vote; accounts registered solely to comment on this discussion are not productive, and will not affect the outcome.
6. What will affect the outcome is someone actually producing multiple reliable verfiiable sources about the person in question which support his notability.

This should be normal behavior on Wikipedia, but since many of the editors here are unfamiliar with our guidelines, I thought a little refresher might be in order. Play nice. --Haemo 01:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: The article is almost an exact lift from the Book of Thoth site [[23]] and thus, quite aside from its lack of verifiability in any medium except the extremes of conspiracy theorists and paranormal websites, it is a complete copyvio. Bielle 05:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Googling (and presumably other searches) will be more productive if you look for "Dave Emory" - it gets 4x as many hits as David. I've listened to him for years, but I don't know how notable he is outside the Bay Area. --Jamoche 09:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here is some coverage from a reputable source, Z Magazine. --ip editor, 20:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.61.192 (talk) — 131.216.61.192 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. No shit, Sherlock. That's why it was a comment and not a fucking vote. I just thought you motherfuckers would like to be apprised of the situation. I don't fucking care what you do with the goddamn article. I just tracked down a fucking source for you. Do what you will with it, but for fuck's fucking sake, quit treating every unregistered user like sludge shitcake with bad faith on top. 10:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep my opinion anyway--Zingostar 21:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Dave Emory has been a notable resource for an alternative view of world events for as long as I can remember. I find it mind-boggling that the article is being considered for deletion, and am suspicious of this attempt at censorship. What is the real agenda? Peterhoneyman 21:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know what "the real agenda" is (or do I?), but I have a feeling you're about to tell us... It would be far more of a service to this article's chances of staying if the people saying "he's definitely notable" would add some reliable sources to the article to indicate this. — iridescent 22:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no idea what the hidden agenda might be! But I'm guessing someone is unhappy with his message. As for his notability, I don't know how to answer -- it's like asking what makes Walter Cronkite or Howard Stern notable -- I have been listening to Dave Emory's radio show for over a decade, and so have many of my acquaintances. Frankly, I sometimes find his message difficult to accept, and just plain incredible at times, but I find him to be a valuable alternative source. (I'm repeating myself; sorry.) Peterhoneyman 22:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep-I'm a longtime listener to the show and I've kept tabs on the wiki discussion and history for the fellow. That the page would be subject for deletion so suddenly is mystifying. I suspect there are enough people listening to content streamed from wfmu.org/daveemory or downloaded from spitfirelist.com that there is no just cause to delete Mr. Emory's wiki. The call for deletion is out of order.ChipdipkKill 22:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)— ChipdipkKill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Great! Could you link us to two or three articles about him in, say, newspapers or magazines? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is quoted in this NY Times magazine article.

• "The Clinton Haters; Clinton Crazy". The New York TImes. 1997-02-23. Retrieved 2007-11-04.

The Washington Times suggested he was the inspiration for Mel Gibson's movie Conspiracy Theory

• Head, Tony (1997-08-29). "Real life conspiracy theories that inspired Mel Gibsons new film". Washington Times. The Washington Times. p. 60.

He is quoted in another Washington Times article

• Scarborough, Rowan (1995-05-03). "Hate broadcast from left wing often overlooked; Some urban stations full of venom". Part A; Culture, et cetera. Washington Times. p. A2.

This one is particularly apt

• Strachota, Dan (2001-11-28). "The plot to get rid of Dave Emory". SF Weekly. Dave Emory [is] one of the nation's foremost chroniclers of fascism and governmental funny business.

Here is an article about a ham-fisted attempt to silence Emory

• Zinko, Carolyne (1996-04-30). "Airwave Pirates Block Show Foothill College". Peninsula Edition. San Jose Mercury News. p. 1B.

This article has a couple of paragraphs devoted to Emory

• Thomas, Kenn (1994-01-16). "Clinton Era Conspiracies! Was Gennifer Flowers on the Grassy Knoll? Probably Not, but Here Are Some Other Bizarre Theories for a New Political Age". Outlook Section. The Washington Post. p. C3.

There's more ... Victoria (B.C.) Sun, San Francisco's City News Service, Chronicle of Higher Education ... but I think the point is made.

Peterhoneyman 22:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Struck through my prior vote. Sources have been provided. The article is a mess and in serious need of clean-up, but in light of the recently uncovered sources by Peterhoneyman, this seems to longer be about a non-notable person, and thus, should not be deleted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The above sources work for me, although the article itself could use a POV cleanup. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agreeing with FisherQueen, the article could use a POV cleanup but I don't think it should be outright deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mendali (talk • contribs) 14:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It hardly matters wether he's right or wrong, the point is he exists and makes the claims the article says he makes. Surely Wikipedia has no policy against biographical articles about people who other people disagree with? Badjeros 17:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per FisherQueen. --AliceJMarkham 11:58, 6 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. Meets WP:MUSIC. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy Fall[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable band; completely unsourced article and while there are shedloads of ghits, they all appear to be blogs, myspace pages & Wiki mirrors. Much of the article also seems to be a cut-and-paste from AMG. Not prodding due to the multiple article contributors, none of whom appear to have seen any problem with it — perhaps there is some notability here that I'm missing? — iridescent 16:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If it doesn't have significane coverage in reliable secondary sources, it's not notable no matter how many mayspaces or forum posts (which are defined as unreliable) it appears in. Subdolous 17:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Found these examples of significant coverage in reliable sources: Billboard magazine and Saturday Night Magazine and Hard Alternative and Arizona Central and The Gauntlet and Hard Rock Haven. There appears to be enough out there to indicate notability exists. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on Jayron32's findings, I think it meets the guidelines and should be kept. –Kadin2048 20:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless reliable sources are cited to establish notability. Stifle (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What about the sources I cite above? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, one of a million bands just like it. -RiverHockey 13:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article needs much work, but they did have a Billboard charting hit[24] so there's WP:MUSIC for you. Precious Roy 15:48, 6 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. Page renaming is a subject for the talk page. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of China on Taiwan[edit]

Republic of China on Taiwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

neologism, POV fork of Republic of China, Taiwan, History of Taiwan, and Four-Stage Theory of the Republic of China Ngchen 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Possibly redirect somewhere. Pavel Vozenilek 17:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is not POV, appears to be well-covered in reliable secondary sources, and is therefore not a neologism, and verifiable. Subdolous 17:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an entirely redundant article. There is no need to have two articles on the exact same subject; having two articles encourages each to take different points of view. This article should be cleared and redirected to the appropriate article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:POVFORK and move any relevant material into History of Taiwan. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The History of Taiwan does not detail this period very well , although History of the Republic of China has some detail but nothing like the detail in this article. I say, expand the article,tidy up, link and categorise. scope_creep 18:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The articles if you have read them, do not have the same detail. The article we are discussing has much more, so merits its own page. Expand it. scope_creep 18:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, this is not neologism. I suggest, however, to move it to Taiwan post-war era.--Jerry 19:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Taiwan (province) or History of Taiwan 132.205.99.122 20:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jerry, or merge. Content is definitely encyclopedic, although may be at the wrong title. Stifle (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Jerry and per the comments made by Scope creep. All the article needs is some major revision and overhaul, which I am attempting to do. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 14:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an appropriate expansion of the related sections in History of Taiwan and History of the Republic of China. While the article is yet incomplete, it is worth keeping. WilliamDParker 18:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for irrelevant content. not neologism, but the term is not used to refer to a specific period of Taiwanese history. Rather, it is used to refer to the polity (the Republic of China) itself, and the preferred form used by the ROC government in the 1990s. redirect? --Jiang 22:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So shouldn't it be merge instead?--Jerry 23:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is enough difference between the ROC that existed between 1911 - 1949 on mainland China and the modern state known as the Republic of China that exists only on Taiwan and a few other minor islands that a seperate article is warrented in a historical context. I suggest classifying this article somwhere under Category:History of the Republic of China. The main ROC page should still redirect to Republic of China as the modern status of the state is still controversial. -Loren 11:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Loren.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  16:11, 6 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 nominator's argument that this is not covered in "reliable published works... such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries... and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations" was not addressed, let alone refuted. It is apparently true based on Google news, books, and scholar searches. WP:IAR seems irrelevant here as retaining an unsourced article is not improving Wikipedia, which is the only time that we ignore rules. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bash.org[edit]

Bash.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Bash.org does not meet the guidelines for notability. Please read those notability guidelines. Just because a website is moderately popular does not mean it meets those guidelines. This article should be deleted.

1. Bash.org has not been mentioned in "reliable published works... such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries... and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations."

2. Bash.org has been mentioned in websites, but only in two forms: a. "Trivial coverage, such as... (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores." b. Unreliable, obscure websites that focus on an obscure period in which a few moderators argued with the administrators. Reliability is a key criterion for Wikipedia sources. Both of these types of sources are unacceptable according to the notability guidelines. Since there is no reliable, non-trivial source that has covered bash.org, this article should be deleted.

3. Finally, Bash is not sufficiently popular to justify overlooking the rules. According to Alexa, it's not even in the top 10,000 most popular sites. Slashdot, by contrast, is the 765th most popular. I think if Bash were in the top 1000 or even possibly the top 5000, it might be justifiable to ignore notability rules. Bash just isn't popular enough.

I think Bash.org is a fine site, and I've enjoyed it for a long time, but that doesn't mean it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

PubliusPresent 16:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - bash.org is undoubtedly a significant part of popular culture, and is still emerging. 17:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.225.52.9 (talk)
• Delete - Even if I personally know of this website, it doesn't make it notable per reasons given by nom. Subdolous 17:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Come on, it's notable. Unless you've never been outside of Wikipedia I suppose. Besides, bits are free, let's not pretend Wikipedia is an actual paper encyclopedia and is what it is, a place to archive crap trivia. 166.70.27.1 18:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree about references, OR, and most importantly notability. Peaceduck 19:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems hard to believe that outside sources cannot be found for this site. JuJube 20:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as it is certainly notable. If the guidelines don't include Bash.org as notable, then the guidelines are ludicrous. A quick Google turns up lots of references to it, even software that uses it as a data source, and there are thousands of links to it on Usenet (mostly in people's sigs). There are at least two spinoff sites (openbash and the Russian one), as well. –Kadin2048 20:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete When somebody visits Wikipedia for information about this very popular and well known website, I want them to be confronted with an empty page. Not because nobody wrote anything worthwhile or verifieable about this obviously notable site. I want this information deleted because I find this website, which gets more hits in an hour than you can imagine, is not notable (according to the standards of information_killer). Delete as much useful and noteable information from Wikipedia as possible. Bit trollent
  • Comment See WP:INTERESTING and WP:POINT. Notability is defined on Wikipedia as "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". You may not like this, but they are policy, and regardless of what you think Wikipedia should be, Wikipedia is very clear about what it is, and it disagrees with you. If it fails WP:N, it should not stay. Subdolous 21:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So all the information on Wikipedia is in other, better sources? I guess don't have to go out of my way to destroy Wikipedia, as somebody has already put a stake in its heart. Outstanding. Is there a website out there that lives up to Wikipdedia's far superior past? Bit trollent —Preceding comment was added at 22:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I'm of the opinion that Google should have managed Wikipedia (or something similar), due to their mission statement "organizing the world's information and making it universally accessible and useful." It seems to suite the concept of an online and freely editable encyclopaedia, better. 58.178.215.183 10:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bit trollent. In over 3 years no one has managed to add a single source showing notability to this article? Stop whining and add the sources, and I'll change my !vote. Crazysuit 21:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was actally being sarcastic, although if I can help remove this and other useful and noteable information from Wikipedia all the better. Ever since the last time I went to show somebody a wikipedia page that had been deleted to help inform them on a subject I have vowed to destroy Wikipedia. My strategy is to destroy Wikipedia the same way deletionists are, by deleteing useful information. Want a poorly written article about a common subject? Wikipedia is here for you. Want to learn about something that is obscure even if it is noteable? Go somewhere else. Wikipedia has been ruined by deletionists. Bit trollent —Preceding comment was added at 21:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep quite notable, and has over a million Google hits. I have gone to this site several times and am amazed to even find it up for deletion. The article needs work, but is definitely notable. --Explodicle 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Explodicle and WP:IAR. It's definitely worthy of an article. Stifle (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In cases of obvious notability like this one, we should IAR and forget about the need to have mainstream media sources. There are some topics which are notable, which wikipedia becomes more complete for having an article on, that do not receive mainstream media attention. Isn't that the whole idea of a user-generated encyclopedia? To reduce reliance on the mainstream media? THE KING 23:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable site. JJL 02:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Look, I enjoy bash.org, but Wikipedia's rules about notability are clear. If a subject is not covered in reliable printed sources (bash.org has not) or in reliable, non-trivial websites (bash.org has not), then Wikipedia should not have an article about it. The authors of arguments for keeping this article say that they like bash.org or that bash.org is a "popular" site. That you like the site is irrelevant--I like it, too, but that doesn't make it notable. As to the second point, it's not even that popular. See, e.g., Alexa statistics. Moreover, popularity is not a part of the notability guidelines and is therefore irrelevant. Please read those guidelines before making irrelevant arguments. I think the case is clear here. PubliusPresent 02:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wow, you'll argue that the site isn't popular by using Alexa which only counts IE hits by people who happen to have the Alexa tracking software installed. The site is notable by every definition except the WP:WEB "standards" Hansonc 02:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sometimes, if something is sufficiently popular, notability can be overlooked. Bash.org is not popular enough to justify ignoring the notability rule. Alexa, because of its large statistical samples, allows for a reasonable approximation of a site's traffic and popularity, and Alexa says Bash doesn't even break the top 10,000. By contrast, Slashdot is number 765 and has almost 10 times Bash's "reach." Bash.org is not exactly obscure, but it doesn't even approach Slashdot's fame even though it's been around for almost as long. Since Bash.org is not notable, and since it's not popular enough to justify overlooking Wikipedia's notability rule, this article should be deleted. PubliusPresent 03:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Here's the problem ALEXA IS NOT AN ACCURATE JUDGE OF POPULARITY. Alexa only tracks users who are using IE and have the Alexa toolbar installed. If I had to guess I'd say less than 50% of the 1.5 million hits bash.org gets daily are from IE users and since I don't know a single individual who has the Alexa toolbar installed, I'd bet that the site is quite a bit under represented in your flawed popularity stats. If this vote doesn't end with a keep Wikipedia loses creditability yet again. 166.70.27.1 15:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (Sorry didn't see I wasn't logged in) Hansonc 15:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:IAR for this particular case. Frankchn 02:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm a huge fan of Bash, but Wikipedia's quality is more important than the fact that I like Bash. Bash is not popular enough to justify overlooking the notability rule in this case. Slashdot, for example, definitely would be, but it has 10 times the reach of Bash, according to Alexa, and is the 765th most popular site on the Internet. Bash doesn't break the top 10,000. PubliusPresent 03:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: You don't need to say that three times for it to sink in. Bash is smaller than Slashdot. We got it. However, many of us think we should just ignore the rules because we think Wikipedia will be better off with a Bash.org article. This is why the deletion process is not automated. --Explodicle 13:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Severe application of the rule leads to reductio ad absurdum. The earnest pleading for "Wikipedia's quality" (by throwing out an article about a longtime web site used by millions -- because of some quibbles over the posture of references to the site in published sources) makes it hard for me to sustain my assumption of the nominator's good faith. Kestenbaum 04:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good faith? I don't know how to respond other than to say that I've read Bash.org since its inception and enjoy it; I have no personal interest in seeing the article deleted. I think that the notability rule is a good one and that it should be applied neutrally and consistently. This article fits the non-notability criterion (because there are no reliable, non-trivial, third-party sources) and should be deleted. PubliusPresent 06:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Sorry, WP:IAR doesn't trump WP:N, and if someone disagrees it's not a good application of IAR. If we start factoring in the subjective opinions of Wikipedians on whether something is notable or not, then we start getting in trouble. Let's not go there. Coverage = notable. No coverage = not notable. hbdragon88 06:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd argue that WP:IAR tends to trump every rule, because it says it does. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There must be a reason behind ignoring the rules in a particular case, though. Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves, does including an apparently all-original research article (except for the unreliable sources about the Bash strike) about a mildly obscure website really serve to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia? PubliusPresent 15:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Assume Good Faith. Lots of people want to keep it for some reason, so unless you can prove some massive campaign to subvert Wikipedia, I say keep it. --Vrmlguy 05:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain as owner/partner of bash.org, but I'd like to comment. This article is what originally brought me to Wikipedia, and one of the first things I learned was WP:OR, because I could not appropriately correct factual errors that, as the owner, I knew to be incorrect. It should be noted that the article has been nominated twice before, the results being keep and unanimous keep. I don't have the links handy; they were both in the VFD days. I have mixed feelings about this... on the one hand, I know how many users visit bash.org (think between 100k and 500k unique hosts per day, 1.5-2 million pageloads/day), and I know our google pagerank hovers around a 6 or 7. That being said, we have a real Catch 22... there is no doubt that bash.org is notable in the literal sense of the word, however this article has always seemed to exist outside of WP:RS and WP:N. The only thing I can offer regarding notability are the multiple diggs that all made it into the 24-hour (and possibly multiple-day) listings. It would be a shame to see this deleted, but I understand the WP:N/WP:RS problems (I often nominate other articles of the same nature). Unfortunately, this sort of topic just isn't covered by reliable sources, as it has no real-world impact beyond the web. For what it's worth, we were at one time in the top 5,000 sites on the web... traffic ebbs and flows. Alexa rank as of 07:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC): 10,107. Also, I note several innacuracies given by the nominator (age of bash.org, ignoring historical traffic and rank, etc.) Hope this helps. /Blaxthos 07:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a reference to a 2004 Vote for Deletion (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bash.org) to this AfD. I can't find the second discussion, but this one was closed as a Keep. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Historical traffic, widespread impact on the web and web culture, coupled with a highly significant number of GHits, indicates to me that the site is (or at the very least, was) notable. If Alexa rankings are indeed the be-all and end-all, then historical numbers would indicate that Bash was more notable in the past than now. Fine. But Notability has no expiration date. If Bash was at any point notable, then it was notable, and coverage here is warranted. Digg isn't a reliable source as such, but it is a gauge of widespread notability. I'm not sure what coverage we could expect, other than articles headlined "Bash still online and still funny" or some such. The site is (semi!) regularly updated, but the format and purpose are static. That doesn't impinge on notability. As a caveat, I visit the site regularly and love it - and enough other people do to suggest that it is notable, despite a lack of independent coverage. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would change my vote if someone could find sources that suggest that Bash really has had a widespread impact on web culture. PubliusPresent 15:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment umm it has a wikipedia article? :-) Ok that's probably not going to convince you but it's worth a shot. But seriously just because it's not something that is commented on by mainstream media doesn't mean it's not notable and well known. Take this conversation for example, everyone here has heard of it independently and more importantly independent of the Wikipedia article. Bash.org will never be written about in the NY Times or WSJ but it's obviously something that longtime internet users know and even "n00bs" should have the opportunity to research its usage and history and what better place than Wikipedia? Hansonc 16:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as abstaining WP:COI party - Previous discussion: unanimous keep. I know there was one more, but I have thus far been unable to find it (it was sometime in 2005 I believe). I would like to again state that I believe this article has existed in a state of cognative dissonance because of the unique nature of web phenomenon not existing in traditionally reliable sources. I would also suggest that the mere existance of so many people showing up to voice strong opposition to deletion (every time) is an indication that the site is indeed notable in the pure sense of the word. If you could see how many instant messages and emails I get about bash.org, or saw the weblogs you'd think twice about calling it a "mildly obscure website". I also urge you to reconsider basing your argument (in part) on Alexa rankings -- a site need not be a slashdot to be notable. The major problem that I see is not with WP:N, but with WP:RS. There will likely never be a source that fully complies with WP:RS that will cover bash.org. One of the major tasks I've always tried to undertake has been ensuring factual accuracy of the article, which has been massively difficult because of WP:OR. I think the arguments that "it's not notable" (a guideline) have been obviously trumped by common sense (as the comments on this page show); I do see the problems with WP:RS (as a policy) and can only promise that if NYT or NBC want to do an interview on bash.org I will fully comply.  :-) /Blaxthos 19:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Re: WP:OR: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources." So, if you see a mistake, fix it; just make sure you point out where others can go to verify your repair.--Vrmlguy 05:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment More important than any individual policy violation is just the fact that it's a bad article. It's authored primarily by one person, an administrator of the site--which violates the policies against original research and conflict of interest--and the sources are weak at best. When I saw the state of the article, my original idea was to fix it myself, but I think the article is irretrievable. The site has never been covered by any media outlet, however big or small--no local TV station, no local radio station, no small college newspaper, no alternative weekly. It seems we're in agreement that the article must be improved. The question is whether that's possible at this time. If it's not, the article should go away until someone can write something decent with a few solid sources. PubliusPresent 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - The main thrust of your argument was that it is not notable (you used the words "mildly obscure"). Only now, after I have (intentionally) given you the WP:RS argument (gift wrapped!) have you moved in that direction. Beyond that, why are you adding a second delete !vote to this discussion? Finally, why are you now piling on WP:COI, a guideline which you haven't even mentioned until I disclosed it (twice)? Are there specific allegations of serious COI concerns (WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM, etc.)? /Blaxthos 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I voted once for delete. What are you talking about? Reliable sources and notability are inextricably wrapped, and both are part of the original articles; if there are no reliable, non-trivial sources about a subject, a subject is not notable. Considering the ease with which you link Wikipedia policies, I'm sure you know that. Are you deliberately making disingenuous arguments to protect this article, which you have a vested interest in keeping? PubliusPresent 09:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow up - I am trying to insure that things are accurately represented. I clearly notified everyone that I am the owner of the site (twice), and clearly stated that I recognize the cognitive dissonance which has thus far ameleorated the WP:RS/WP:N concerns. I would also note that I was the one who brought up the WP:COI and the WP:RS problems -- your nomination and additional comments focused on WP:N. What is of great concern to me (and to other editors who have commented on such here) is the vehemence with which you are prosecuting this deletion, oft repeating your points ad infinitum, and slipped in a second delete vote after your nomination. Others have noted that your shepharding of the AfD smells of bad faith; I have treated it in good faith (and handed you additional ammunition, so to speak) because I want the AfD to be both fair and wholly encompassing the issues surrounding the article. You, on the other hand, have now implicitly and explicitly stated that my COI has significance. I ask again three questions: (1) Are there specific allegations of COI concerns (WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM)? (2) Why did you try to slide in a second !vote? (3) Why are you now accusing me of "deliberately making disingenuous arguments to protect this article", especially given the fact that I was the editor who brought up both WP:RS and WP:COI? Thanks. /Blaxthos 15:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow-follow up On points 2 and 3: your disingenuous argument is that I voted twice! What an absurd claim. I tried to make a second paragraph in a comment and the formatting was messed up as a result, so I edited it to make it all one paragraph. This is the second time you've linked to that edit and called it a "second vote." Now that is, I think, evidence of bad faith on your part. Your primary evidence for bad faith on my part is that I disagree with you. As I've said several times now, the original research, the lack of reliable sources, and the lack of notability--it's all wrapped into one problem, which is this. An owner of Bash.org (Blaxthos, you) created most of the article's content (original research), and you have no reliable sources to back up what you say. The content is, as such, unverifiable. Should the article be deleted because of COI? No, because I don't think that's a major problem with the article. The article should be deleted due to the lack of reliable sources, lack of verifiability, and lack of notability. Finally, about repeating myself--actually, when I thought people raised legitimate objections, I edited my original articles for deletion and even some of my previous responses to address those objections. PubliusPresent 16:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you all but ignored the questions I presented, I no longer feel this thread is worth continuing. The diffs above clearly show a second delete, and simple checking of timestamps (or diffs) should show that I was the one who brought up both WP:COI and WP:RS problems, and should assauge any worries you may have that I'm "deliberately making disingenuous arguments to protect this article" -- if that were the case, I certainly wouldn't have handed you both WP:RS and WP:COI on a sliver platter. Best of luck. /Blaxthos 16:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you stand by your claim that I voted twice. I didn't realize that a line break would put my two paragraphs in two different places. I wrote "delete" once and had one signature. I voted once. Period. You're embarrassing yourself. PubliusPresent 16:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, your first !vote was the nomination. Your second !vote, more than ten hours after your nomination, was your addition of a delete comment (after eleven editors had commented on the nomination) as if you were not the nominator. I would counter that an editor who makes more edits to his first AfD than he has for the rest of the project combined, changes rationales, accuses other editors of bad faith when he is handed additional rationale for deletion, and seems to not understand our norms and mores embarasses himself more than I have. Hopes this clears up your confusion. (I'm really done now... just wanted to make sure you understood that it has nothing to do with a line break). /Blaxthos 17:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, this is not a voting process. Votes don't get tallied, so it makes no difference, anyway. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. I haven't accused anyone of bad faith except you. In retrospect, I should not have argued that Bash was non-notable (even though it is non-notable) because it sounds offensive, particularly, I'm sure, to one of its managers. What I should have referenced is the reliable sources policy, which probably would not have ruffled your feathers so much. For that I apologize. I've never changed rationales, and only edited my original nominating articles for clarity. If I've referenced several different Wikipedia policies, it's because I believe the bash.org article violates them. PubliusPresent 22:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Bad argument. Have you ever seen mainstream media coverage of Goatse.cx I sure hope not! It's an internet site with a specific audience. The pure traffic to this AfD by people who know bash.org should support WP:N. I'll also point out that it's easier to destroy than it is to fix so AfDing this just because you don't know how to fix it is the wrong way to use AfD. I'm also willing to bet if this actually gets deleted it will be recreated in an even worse form so the Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't in this case. Hansonc 23:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If it is recreated, I'll tag it for deletion per WP:CSD#G4. In fact, I'll watchlist this right now so I can prevent this from happening. If it gets too persistent, an admin will happily salt it. Don't argue to keep it just because something worse might happen. The admins can deal with it. hbdragon88 02:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - All of that is a bit premature, isn't it? We haven't even gotten through 48 hours of the AfD, with keep outnumbering delete by four (by my count, as of 02:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)). /Blaxthos 02:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• LOLOLOL We don't vote, we discuss. If there were ten delete arguments but the keep argument offered a real great reason why the article should be kept, it would be kept. Likewise, if there were ten keep arguments but the delete argument was better than all the keeps, it would be deleted. Anyway, it just seemed that the user was basing his comment on what would happen if it was deleted, and I was just saying, trust me, it won't be a huge problem. hbdragon88 00:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, if there were a whole bunch of keeps and the delete argument was "better" in the eyes of the admin, the article would still be kept. A consensus must be formed in order for action to be taken. Administrators are more like janitors than judges; they just enact what we've already agreed upon. --Explodicle 14:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's where policies such as WP:SNOW come in. That doesn't appear to be the case here, but there are several good arguments both ways. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actually... in the Goatse.cx article, I see references at Snopes.com, Time magazine, the BBC, and CNN. I didn't say just "mainstream media" either. Any reliable source, per Wikipedia policy, will do. PubliusPresent 10:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Cleanup is not a valid reason to delete an article. Conflict of Interest is not a valid reason to delete an article, if the article is in salvageable condition (which it is). COI is a valid reason to moderate potentially biased input with valid, NPOV edits that restore balance and neutrality to the article. The argument that the article should be deleted due to COI on the part of a primary editor (Who - to his credit! - has been open and honest about the association, and has made contributions to other areas of the project) is not a valid argument in favor of deletion. I concur that, like Goatse.cx, a site may be notable without independent coverage. I note further that the high level of interest in this debate is also not a reason to Keep - though it does say something about the subject that we've had such a lengthy debate in just over 24 hours. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why does anyone use Alexa as a definition of notability? Why not use wind direction or something else equally random? I've heard of it, even if I don't frequent it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrmlguy (talk • contribs)
• Delete No verifiability. No reliable sources. Clear COI. Notability is not the main issue here. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 05:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nom's rationale focused on the Notability issue, which is why I think it's gotten so much discussion here. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I understand it may not be considered "notable" enough to meet Wikipedia Guidelines, but I have to wonder: who are we hurting by keeping this page here? If it is informative, useful and accurate, why must it go? Since so many users have taken the time and effort to create an accurate, useful and informative page, why delete it on the grounds that the subject is "not notable enough"? What harm are we doing by leaving it as it is? - 82.6.124.104 17:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: I'd like to rebut the 'popularity' and 'obscurity' arguements. Bash may not be as popular today as it was in the past, but what Alexa ratings don't measure is reknown. You'll scarcly find an IRC-goer who hasn't, in some way, been introduced to Bash. I'd say Bash falls under notability as much as any other website. There's being critical and there's being petty, and while not every two-bit website should be mentioned on Wikipedia; a website with interest to (at least) 965,692 IRC users (as of SearchIRC statistics at this time) is relevant enough. 212.235.15.78 21:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: If Slashdot is so low on the Alexa, then I don't know why we are basing notability facts using Alexa stats. mimithebrain 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Alexa stats are not notable enough or reliable enough to use in judging this. Let's not forget this is a NICHE site, not a mainstream site like wikipedia or bloomberg.com so obviously it's not going to have as bigger hits as other sites. HOWEVER, it is notable in that the site itself was the FIRST of this type and has been around for almost as long as slashdot.org and other "geek" sites. - 202.10.80.69 01:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 17:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Dog Publishing[edit]

Black Dog Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable publisher. Article was recreated shortly after being deleted per an expired prod. Only outside reference is trivial, and a Google search only really indicates that yes, they publish books. Author of previous version Andrew2312 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also spammed articles like No Wave and London Eye with ads for books by this publisher. --Finngall ^talk 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I take it you don't wish to apply the same standards here that you give to other independent publishers? Was most surprised when you deleted the original article, to be frank, given wikipedia's acceptance of articles focusing on some of Black Dog's publications as referenced. And likewise your bizarre statement that the only contributor to the article was the spamming poster mentioned, seeing as I was in the process of expanding the entry significantly before deletion. Poului 16:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Finngall didn't delete the article, he tagged it for deletion and an administrator agreed with him. And he didn't say Andrew2312 was the "only" contributor. Katr67 18:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Wikipedia policy on articles like this are not clear. It is notable, as its been selected as the best small publisher in London, which by definition means England. This is one of the great weaknesses of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians, do a quick google on an article and if nothing found, then its non notable. Please remember that Google themselves have said that only beteen 3%-8% of the worlds information is online. scope_creep 18:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Where does it say it is the best small publisher in London? That's not in the article. The article originally said "Black Dog was recently selected by Time Out magazine as one of London's most important...", though the article actually says "In an industry almost entirely dominated by big boys and blockbusters, it's a delight to discover the delicate charms of the capital's little literary imprints" and Black Dog is relegated to the "Other petite publishers" section. There is no mention of any of these publishers being "best". Katr67 03:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment First of all, Katr67, Finngall (or whichever obsessive it was who got the last article deleted) did claim that Andrew312 was the only person involved as a reason for its triviality - he certainly ignored all of my contributions all too conveniently. And secondly, the standards you apply to TimeOut's "ranking" of the publishers it covers is patently ridiculous, especially when considering that two of the "relegated" publishers in the article have wikipedia entries themselves, whilst three of four featured more prominently do not. Last of all, scope_creep didn't claim that the TimeOut article said Black Dog was the best in London, only that it has been selected as the best in the past. Poului 15:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Referring to admins as "obsessives" might not be the best way to further your cause. Regarding the other articles, please also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Katr67 16:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment

• "Finngall...did claim that Andrew312 was the only person involved as a reason for its triviality..." False. I only referred to him as the original author. Apologies if I wasn't clear on that point. And even if we allow for your interpretation that I said he was the sole author, there's nothing there that says I claimed that as a reason for anything.
• "...he certainly ignored all of my contributions all too conveniently." False. I did not ignore the changes you made to the previous version of the article after I placed the PROD, but I didn't think they addressed the concerns that I raised. And again, I didn't perform the actual deletion--I have no way of knowing whether the deleting admin ignored your improvements or simply didn't believe they were sufficient. You'll have to ask him.

I'm not going to plead innocent to being an obsessive at times, but flinging accusations like the above is neither productive nor particularly relevant to the discussion. --Finngall ^talk 19:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Ignoring" is not the same as denying; you declined to mention any of my contributions, yet you still went out of your way to spontaneously point out the original poster's supposedly lone campaign to set up the article. Exactly why would you care to mention such things on a discussion board exclusively created in the interests of discussing the reasons for the article's deletion? Seeing as this new article was set up by me, may I suggest it best not to insult my credibility and suggest some equivalence with me and the original poster purely on the grounds that I decided to re-open proposals for the publisher's inclusion on the site, and furthermore that we stick to genuine observations made in regards to the entry, the majority of which, as you can see, favour its inclusion. Poului 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]