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

The result was speedily deleted per CSD A7. -- Merope 17:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1015 East U[edit]

1015 East U (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Ordinary student residence. No claim to notability given. Prod deleted by author. Nehwyn 21:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete per WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 21:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete House has a nice paint job (and a horrible name in The Bone Zone), but this meets WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Also not a very smart idea to post an article with your real names and interesting college activities here; Google will cache it and embarass these people at their future job interviews. Nate 23:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete WP:N Brianlucas 01:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete -- could be considered an attack page, since there's no guarantee that the people mentioned are the ones who created the article.--SarekOfVulcan 12:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Bearian 18:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Happy Bunny[edit]

It's Happy Bunny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nom - not notable, self sourced, primarily spam. Rklawton 20:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Week Keep I've seen this fad on posters, etc, and I'm far from the target audience. It does badly need sourcing, though. Some assertion of notability of creator's page, awards that could be confirmed. Edward321 21:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N and WP:SPAM. STORMTRACKER 94 21:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep It's certainly a well-known product, but barely passes WP:N. A quick google search found some legitimate articles including some stuff on a project between Happy Bunny and Partnership for a Drug-free America. Needs a lot of work to meet standards, but I suspect it could become a acceptable article.Blcfilm 21:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*I will not !vote right now, but if there are no reliable sources provided, then I will !vote for deletion. Corvus cornix 22:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added a citation for the award-winning Happy Bunny campaign against drugs, and a quote from the Wall Street Journal (which is behind a paywall) that's from their website. Not the strongest third-party evidence I've ever provided, but I am prejudiced because I'm looking at the It's Happy Bunny 2007 calendar over my desk. Yeah, I know, "I like it" is a lousy reason. I'd welcome other cites and will try and find some. Accounting4Taste 01:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Found and added three more cites from arm's-length third party sources -- fairly reputable business-oriented ones. (No blogs.) Accounting4Taste 01:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the press coverage now cited by those above is sufficient to pass WP:N and WP:V. I have also added a ref from The San Diego Union-Tribune here. --TreeKittens 04:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see these things all over the place Roadrunner 16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. If interested editors wish to merge the content, request a copy of the article from me. --Haemo 00:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Worms weapons, tools, crates and objects[edit]

List of Worms weapons, tools, crates and objects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Oh, boy! Another Game-guidish, crufty weapons article. No relevance to outside world; no references, let alone coverage of the weapons. Basically, the guidelines "which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. It is not veribfiable since it has no sources, has plenty of OR, and isn't written from a neutral point of view. 'Nuff said. See also: Halo 2 weapons, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Half-Life 2 (2nd nomination), and Weapons in Halo: Combat Evolved. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think StrategyWiki is a better home for this article--Lenticel ^(talk) 20:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT. STORMTRACKER 94 21:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT is my opinion as well. Pig^man 22:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lame guide. SolidPlaid 22:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - game guide. Hal peridol 00:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 02:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Ridernyc 18:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because it passed an earlier discussion with nearly all keeps, is well-organized, even contains a nice picture, people are willing to edit it, etc., but I do think references would help. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point bringing up the earlier discussion. It's important to have a good (and preferably new) reason to renominate something for deletion after an earlier discussion on the subject. However, I think this nomination does that, by bring up several core policies that weren't discussed in the previous AFD. Consensus can change when new arguments are raised. That said, it's possible to clean up the POV problems, but even if sources for this exist, it's pretty close to a game guide already. There is some legitimate debate over whether Wikipedia should remain an encyclopedia or become a knowledge megacompendium with game guides, etc. But its character is still fundamentally an encyclopedia. --chaser - t 20:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Worms or a similar article, or keep as per Le Grand Roi. Stifle (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. RobJ1981 16:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Crufty game guide. --Oscarthecat 06:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT a video game guide.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong KeepYhere is far too much information to merge with the worms article. Also, many weapons appear in all of the games so merging would be a little pointless. It did pass a previous nomination for deletion before so it clearly is a worthy article. The people that say that wikipedia isn't a game guide are right, but neither is the article. If the article was part of a game guide, it would say where and how to use the weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looneyman (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment in Wikispeak - Perhaps, but per WP:NOTAGAIN, WP:CCC, also WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. WP:N, too. Remember, WP:AGF. --WaltCip 18:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Trivial, not particularly encyclopediac. • Lawrence Cohen 15:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I don't see any reason it shouldn't be kept as a part of the Worms (series) or something like a Common Themes in the Worms Video Game Series article --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE, or transwiki it if there's a better wiki for it.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 07:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but possibly trim some of the less notable weapons. --128.2.160.253 23:25, 12 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. --Aarktica 09:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Konjiki no Gash Bell!! Media[edit]

List of Konjiki no Gash Bell!! Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A POV fork from Buh6173 (talk · contribs) who is on a campaign to make separate pages for the Japanese version of Zatch Bell! despite an agreement having been reached some time ago that the English names are to be used. In any case, even given that he'd be right in the end, this page still contains no useful information beyond what's already in the Zatch Bell! page, other than a list of image songs. JuJube 20:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:POVFORK. STORMTRACKER 94 21:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the small amout of useful content to Zatch Bell!. Edward321 21:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and create redirect to Zatch Bell!. POV forking is not an approved method of resolving a disagreement. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CFORK, merging any useful info.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 07:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CFORK as redundant and unnecessary. —  Satori Son 01:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 13:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intintuator[edit]

Despite my researches, I can find no such object as an "Intintuator". There is the "intinuator" which appears to be a car part related to the alternator. Marketing technobable or hoax? — Coren ^(talk) 19:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Well, the car part isn't mentioned in the article, so delete as hoax. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's not automotive related, but rather audio related. Not that I am a know-all expert on this, but I've not heard of such as stage. When I search the term on google, it suggests intinuator which is automotive related. I'm wondering if the article name is misspelled? Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• adding to my comment The best I could find is attenuator, which does pretty much what the nominated article claims: adjusts power to compensate for harmonic distortion. /shrug, I'm pretty indifferent either way. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. For all intensive purposes, this is a mondegreen and not a likely search term. --Dhartung | Talk 20:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you use "intensive purposes" (a mondegreen of "intents and purposes") on purpose?  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 21:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Careful or I'll throw an eggcorn at you. (Actually that's a better word for this.) --Dhartung | Talk 22:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Coren Dhartung. STORMTRACKER 94 21:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Dhartung. Edward321 21:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Aarktica 09:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A56 (software)[edit]

A56 (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possibly non notable assembler. Hard to search for sources because of the generic name, and, in any case, I am unfamiliar with Usenet, and this article seems to relate to it, so perhaps I am missing something key. J Milburn 18:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The DSP56k is a well-known product family, but as there does not seem to be a parent article for the DSP56k, I'd say keep it. DSP development is a little more specialized than general processor development, and there aren't that many (or at least that I am aware of) Yngvarr (t) (c) 19:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum to above Well, I'm not going to strike my vote, but I did do a little bit of work on the article. I am afraid it'll never get beyond the stub phase. However, I did find that the 56k family does have an article, so I've properly linked it. Maybe it'll be better to merge these two sentences to that article? Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, just another piece of non-notable software. I would like to see an improvement before the decision though. BASE101() 19:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BASE10; this article should get cleaned up before final consensus. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NASCAR Fan24. STORMTRACKER 94 21:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, notability of processor is irrelevant as notability is not inherited. No attribution of notability to independent sources kills it. --Dhartung | Talk 22:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per NASCAR's reasoning. • Lawrence Cohen 15:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I added an external link for it to the Motorola 56000 article, but that's about all the merging I think it deserves. —David Eppstein 17:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as virtually empty.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 07:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No assertion of notability, much less one verified by reliable, third-party published sources. —  Satori Son 01:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. --Aarktica 09:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Andover Middle School[edit]

North Andover Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I simply don't see how this is notable. Also: WP:OUTCOMES. şœśэїŝәқι^{ￆṱᾅἻқￂ} 18:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable school - the article is chiefly about the three "houses" the kids are divided into. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 21:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. JJL 01:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Definitely not notable. Delta 01:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - i've seen worse middle school articles. --MarsRover 02:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to North Andover, Massachusetts per our well-established WP:REDIRECT guideline, which trumps any sort of "outcomes" essay by a mile. Burntsauce 17:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per the bastardized school and locality guidelines, not to mention WP:REDIRECT which remains unscathed. Silensor 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Silensor and per WP:REDIRECT as well. RFerreira 20:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Burntsauce, as definitely not notable. --Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 07:16, 12 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. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sphinx C--[edit]

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

Non notable compiler. I can find no reliable sources. J Milburn 18:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:N BASE101() 19:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An concise argument I've used many times today: No sources, no assertion, no notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave. It has an historic value and was predecessor of C-- (intermediate language), that is target for many compilers including Haskell. Here in Russia, it had some following. 85.140.17.254 19:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nascar Fan. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable and unsourced.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 07:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as insufficiently notable. —  Satori Son 01:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Jreferee t/c 21:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Campaigns[edit]

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

It's an article on history, apparently either completely or extensively plagiarized from a U.S. Army account (here) with a potentially biased perspective. (U.S. Army was a party to the conflict.) Agyle 18:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV article, biased towards US, seems plagarised. Needs to be wikified and has no sources. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completely plagarised; but is not a copyvio as I'm pretty sure works of the US government are in the public domain. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Kudos to Agyle for investigating and documenting a revolting example of word-for-word plagiarism. I'm fairly sure someone will argue that the solution would be to keep and improve, but no amount of cooking can remove the taste of tainted hamburger meat. Perhaps someone can write an original article in their own words, instead of pretending to do so. Mandsford 19:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well said. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We use U.S. military sources for many things such as Medal of Honor recipients, United States Navy ships, and so forth. They are public domain because they are works of the US federal government. The addition of a simple attribution ends the "plagiarism" concern. The cautions at Wikipedia:Public_domain_resources#Please_don.27t_data_dump.21 are certainly appropriate. But we have no comprehensive list of U.S. military operations against the indigenous American population and this resource could be reformatted to be one; deletion is supposed to be a last resort only. Agyle has good intentions but may be unfamiliar with some of the materials we have used to flesh out the encyclopedia in the past and how we have incorporated them in encyclopedic and policy-compliant fashion. --Dhartung | Talk 20:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dhartung, I understand your point, and know that plagiarism is easily addressed by putting block quotes around the whole article, but my objection is that it's a one-sided account of a controversial military conflict. Uncontentious facts like medal recipient (who, when, what, and military's reason given) are different from an explanation of what led up to and took place during a military conflict. The general tenor is that the "treacherous" and unreasonable Indians kept leaving the U.S. with no choice but to kill them. As an example of bias, the first conflict describes U.S. losses to the "hostile Indians" as "disasters," and the U.S. victory as "characterized by Wayne's excellent tactics and the able performance of his well-trained troops." This is not an even-handed treatment of the topic. The material that isn't overtly biased-sounding still seems questionable; it may say "attempts at peace negotiations failed", while an impartial historian might describe that as "the tribe rejected U.S. demands." -Agyle 21:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that "plagiarism" of a public domain source is NOT a rationale for deletion. Nor do we need blockquotes; see, for example, the template ((DANFS)) or ((1911)). If you believe this has no value as a WP:POVFORK of Indian Wars, that's one thing and we can debate that aspect, but there seems to be a witchhunt here where there is no justification. Wikipedia uses public domain resources all the time. If credit is missing, the appropriate quick fix is to add attribution. --Dhartung | Talk 22:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your first sentence; I didn't suggest deleting it because it's plagiarized, I suggested deleting this plagiarized material because it's from the potentially biased perspective of the U.S. Army. I don't know the Army created it, so I said "apparently." GlobalSecurity.org also publishes the same text, without attribution, and may have supplied it to the Army. I was unfamiliar with citation guidelines for this; I just added citations according to the 1911 Britannica examples. -Agyle 01:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the US Army is a definitive source for a list of campaigns undertaken by the US Army, if you want that sort of thing. As for bias, even the 1911 encyclopedia articles are often full of outdated language or goofy and discredited ideas like eugenics. FYI, the Pentagon employs thousands of people who write these sorts of things, while GlobalSecurity.org is little more than one guy; and half their stuff is cribbed from the FAS anyway (which while not always attributed is usually from govt. sources). Anyway, I just found the right citation template, so I'll modify your attribution accordingly. --Dhartung | Talk 04:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Attribution most emphatically does not excuse plagiarism. Regardless of whether the documents are public domain or not, there is no excuse for plagiarism in an encylopedia article. I'm sure a properly-written article can be created on the subject in the future, but there's no reason to keep an obvious copy-&-paste job here. -- Kesh —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as they're attributed, there's no policy against wholesale use of public domain text. You might want to check out Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, currently numbering in the tens of thousands. Thomjakobsen 23:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• And attribution is a simple fix. --Dhartung | Talk 04:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of us are more disgusted by plagiarism than others. The whole point of Wikipedia, as I've understood it, is that it invites everyone to contribute, regardless of their writing skill or experience, and that those who participate improve their abilities. As Kesh says, attribution does not excuse plagiarism. It's unethical, and no matter how many Wikipedia principles you can argue to say that it's okay, it's never okay. It's the difference between someone learning to knit a sweater, and someone shoplifting a sweater. I don't want the stolen item, no matter how fine its quality. I'm not sure why anyone, who has taken the time to write a contribution, would want to defend some dumb asshole who takes 15 seconds to cut and paste a new article. Mandsford 19:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Topic is already covered by the Indian Wars article. Edward321 21:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwikify to Wikisource and link to Indian Wars. As an aside the community has no problems with plagiarism with articles using text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition with a mass of articles populating Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica its only plagiarism if an attempt is made to pass off the work as your own, and has been already stated this work is in the Public domain and there is a willingness for attribution. I guess the main concern is not so much with plagiarism as with the bigoted and outdated attitudes. However rather than being a POV that serves the purposes and reputations of the US Army and the US people, this article condemns with their own words. KTo288 23:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepImportant part of American history. If someone thinks the United States version is biased, then by all means cite well documented Native Amercan sources for balance. If the areticle copies public domain sources, then it is in the best tradition of Wikipedia starting off with copies of the 1911 Britannica public domain articles. Edison 02:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you meant that "best tradition" bit as irony. The use of the 1911 Brittanica at the beginning may have added bulk when WP needed bulk, but it shackled us with a immense amount of out of date content with obsolete POV, disregard for a century of scholarship, and an air of having adopting the features of an old-fashioned encyclopedia. Personally, I love the old EB--read with the appropriate skepticism, its a marvelous way to get the feel of a different era than our own. And I'd say the same or worse for much of the PD content added at the time. We're just beginning to emerge from our outdated and irresponsible treatment of the serious side of human history.

This source isn't quite that bad--its a convenient summary of narrative history from authoritative sources. But it's a source, to be rewritten as appropriate for WP, with careful attention to POV and implications. I call attention to the parent page [8] and to the very useful bibliographic resource U.S. Army Chief of Staff Professional Reading List Again, the solution to editing problems and POV problems is not deletion, but editing., so

Keep and edit I think all in all its a useful start at a summary. DGG (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and transwikify. The value of this article is the out of date attitudes and POV, this tells us most about these people and their attitudes, than as a chronological summary, it is most useful as a source that illuminates the motiviations greed, prejudice and avarice for these campaigns. If it was left here and edited in line with Wikipedia policy that POV will be lost and with it any real reason to keep it than to write it from scratch. This is pretty much a primary source and the next best thing to putting the entire article in block quotes as suggested by Agyle is to move it to Wikisource. KTo288 11:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unencyclopedic. Can be sent to Wikisource if desired. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite - currently poor and possibly POV, but could be made good.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 07:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Since this is plagiarism, it would be better to restart from scratch - if and when it is demonstrated that there is a need for this article (i.e. that it isn't a content fork of Indian Wars). Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete by WP:SNOW based on WP:N, WP:OR, and WP:RS. Bearian 18:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phyxius[edit]

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

Mississippi State University's entry into some competition, which it didn't win. I don't think notability is asserted but this article is three years old so I figured I should bring it here. Calliopejen1 18:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No notability assertion. As there are no sources to back it up, it may be OR. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N and WP:OR. STORMTRACKER 94 18:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are no independent sources to back it up. It seems non-notable. Minute Lake 18:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete it serves no purpose at all. BASE1011() 18:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 11th out of 42? Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; a failed entry in an old competition which has not otherwise garnered media attention is a textbook example of non-notable. — Coren ^(talk) 19:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete by WP:SNOW as violating WP:NOT and WP:LIST. Bearian 19:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical people portrayed as villains[edit]

List of historical people portrayed as villains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - wildly indiscriminate list, enormous directory of loosely and unassociated items, giant trivia dump. Otto4711 18:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. How exactly the creator planned to keep this remotely up-to-date is anyone's guess. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and NASCAR Fan24. STORMTRACKER 94 18:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. BASE101() 18:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This makes "X in popular culture" articles look relevant and well-cited in comparasion. This article has way too many unsourced "real person X likely inspired fictional character Y" enteries (which is original research), and none of even the more obvious examples can be cited in secondary sources. --Phirazo 19:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Like so many of these lists, impossible to ascertain with any authority who should/should not appear on the list or why someone put them there, nobody can guarantee that a fictional character is "based on" a historical person except the author, fails WP:NOT#IINFO. Accounting4Taste 19:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Odd article that attempts to list every real person who has been portrayed unfavorably in a "work of fiction" (which apparently covers any film that is not a hard documentary, though some books are thrown in for good measure). Thus, we have tyrants such as Hitler, and hard-to-get-along-with folks like Joan Crawford who are movie antagonists. It's a list of folks you always knew were "bad guys", and some you didn't. This one could go on indefinitely. Mandsford 19:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SNOW-close it. There is no way to salvage neutrality here. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep or make into a category. Articles like this should be cleaned up, not deleted as these unique lists help to distinguish Wikipedia as that much more expansive of a reference source than say paper encyclopedias. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Categories for "villains," "heroes," "antagonists," "protagonists" and the like have been repeatedly deleted at CFD because of the subjective nature of the categorization. That same subjectivity plagues lists of "villains" and the like. Did you have any response at all that actually addresses the points raised in the nomination? Anything? Otto4711 04:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that Roi is voicing the opinion that something that is "wildly" indiscriminate, or an "enormous" directory or a "giant trivia dump" is not beyond being "cleaned up" as an alternative to deletion. No need to go ballistic. I think that your nomination will prove successful. Mandsford 23:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis 01:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete as implemented, this does seem to be a rather indiscriminate list, and the list of possibilities is so great that I do not see how to readily deal with it. Let it get deleted, and start over in a more focused way--probably as several lists --or -- much better--sourced general articles about historical figures in the cinema, etc. DGG (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, yet another useless trivia dump. Fuck. Burntsauce 17:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• "Delete" yet another endless unsourced list that will grow out of control.Ridernyc 17:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just a highly subjective list. Where are the sources? JJL 18:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LC points 1 through 4, 6 and 8. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Verrai 18:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardy Jackson[edit]

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

The primary reasons I am proposing deletion is because Wikipedia is not a memorial, as well as the article failing to provide notability. Thousands of people died during Hurricane Katrina, and tenfold more were affected by the hurricane. Some might argue for his notability in that he briefly became an international news story on the personal affects. First, this isn't Wikinews, and second, his being on the news was being at the right place at the right time. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article recounts the experiences of a person during a prominent news event. No reason for notability other than having been seen on television during this time period. -Jmh123 22:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The fact that his story was substantially covered in multiple places and the fact that, even recently, there've been follow up articles on him, makes him a cut above the average Katrina victim. I don't believe WP:NOT applies, as the man is not deceased, however I certainly don't feel we should have articles on every Katrina victim, either. And I think, in light of the subject matter, the nom should reconsider the phrase "right place at the right time".--Sethacus 22:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is neither Wikinews nor a memorial. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable. Should have been deleted after the first nom. --Strothra 20:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sethacus.Lustead 16:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 07:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very sad story, but subject does not meet the inclusion criteria of WP:BIO. Newsworthy is not always encyclopedic. —  Satori Son 01:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Muller[edit]

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

Non-notable YouTube "celebrity" - No secondary sources. Article was speedy deleted before and recreated. I'd like to get a little more consensus on this. While this is sort of a procedural nomination, I am advocating deletion. Mr.Z-man 18:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No notability here, just some random guy on Youtube. It may be a little early, but can I get some salt on those deletion fries? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's only been speedied once to date. WP:SALT should be restricted to repeated violations. --Dhartung | Talk 18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - complete non-entity who uses a website. He may be controversial and even popular; but controversy + popularity doesn't = notable. B1atv 18:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence of non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 18:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, need attribution of notability from independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable BASE101() 18:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Z-man and NASCAR Fan. GlassCobra (Review) 18:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above, non-notable. Dreadstar † 19:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Delete I have added articles about directors of CERN, heads of companies, etc which are less known than CapnOAwesome, but because they had a single snappy reference they haven't been touched. Something tells me you guys have it out for YouTube and now I know why most of the main YouTubers don't have pages in Wikipedia. I think it's funny you characterize YouTube as just "a website". More people have watched some of Muller's videos than watch the evening news in most cities. I don't see you deleting any local television stations. This seems to be a severe bias of Wikipedia. And that's not even talking about radio stations! Just look at WAAX for example. Only 100,000 people live in the Gadsden, AL metro area. I'd be willing to bet the video Muller put up today will get more viewers today than that radio station will have listeners. And that's just media. Have a look at the endless pages in Wikipedia on asteroids sometime. I would estimate less than a 100 people are aware any particular one exists. Not to mention the pages for various people who have discovered an asteroid! (Mario Jurić for example) I just think y'all need to apply your standards for "notability" a little more evenly and not discriminate against YouTube. Wogsland 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:BIGNUMBER, just because a lot of people watch the video doesn't make it notable. Now, WAAX may be a small radio station, but it is well-established in its area of broadcast and has been around for sixty years. We are not biased against YouTube, just that websites have higher notability standards than, say, radio stations. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that starting a radio station, getting the necessary permits, and maintaining it is a whole lot more work than posting offensive videos to YouTube. (Not that this has anything to do with notability, I'm just saying it's not a fair comparison). Mr.Z-man 19:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:Notable; there is no confirmation of notability from other reputable third-party sources. And the argument above about radio stations, etc., is covered at WP:WAX. A car accident is not notable, no matter how many people slow down to look at it. Accounting4Taste 19:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; YouTube fame is not notability, period. — Coren ^(talk) 19:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G4: Recreation of deleted material, and tagged as such. It was deleted earlier today. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • G4 does not apply to pages that were deleted through speedy deletion, only XfD discussions. Mr.Z-man 20:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction, the tag reads "Previously PROD-deleted articles are not eligible under this criterion, and Speedily deleted articles are not automatically eligible for this criterion" but could be eligible. It was speedily deleted exactly 8 minutes before it was recreated. I think G4 applies. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The tag is misleading. The policy states: "Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes to it do not address the reasons for which it was deleted. This does not apply to content that has been moved to user space, undeleted via deletion review, or deleted via "proposed deletion", or to speedy deletions (although in that case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply)." And please re-read my nomination reason. I know it was deleted once before and it may be speedy deletable material. I'm just trying to get a consensus on a borderline speedy case. Mr.Z-man 04:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Either way, this AfD should run its full course so that it will be an unambiguous speedy and salt if it's created again. -- Satori Son 18:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable Vgranucci 15:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Has yet to attain Chris Crocker level of fame. Burntsauce 17:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estudillo Center[edit]

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

Short, amateurish article on a strip mall in San Leandro. The article makes no claim to notability; in fact, it seems to do just the opposite by stating that the shopping mall is "one of many". Only Google hits are for yellow pages listings. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No sources, no assertion, no notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - malls are inherently nn unless they are remarkable from an architectural point of view or else had some momentous event happen inside them.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 07:32, 12 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. —Verrai 00:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Marketplace (San Pablo, California)[edit]

International Marketplace (San Pablo, California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, half dead strip mall in California. Page's content has not been changed significantly since creation. No claim to notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No assertion of notability and no sources. The mall's dying anyway, so why have an article on it? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dying strip malls are not notable enough for inclusion. The Wikipedist 18:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If it was the only dying mall, that would be notable. --Victor falk 03:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, yes, I know about "one death is a tragedy, a million statistics"--Victor falk 03:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - these articles are important, and notability is inherent.139.48.81.98 15:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as inherently nn.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 07:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Kappa's research established that the topic meets the general notability guidelines, which was not rebutted by the delete arguments. The spam was cleaned up during this AfD (see WP:HEY), and the importance/significance concerns do not rise to the level of the topic meeting CSD A7. -- Jreferee t/c 21:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note The prior AfD for this article is at No consensus, 10 September 2006, AfD#1. -- Jreferee t/c 21:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Vista Mall[edit]

Sierra Vista Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mall in California. A search turns up no reliable sources to verify most of the page's content. Borderline spam. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think that's enough to be considered spam. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Note that this AfD was created over the previous one which was closed as no consensus. See [9]. JoshuaZ 18:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & nascar fan. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 18:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N. BASE101() 18:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per spam. -- Magioladitis 01:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete can someone explain to why malls are listed on wikipedia at all?Ridernyc 17:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notability is derived from economic impact - Citations and infobox added Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A community development 3-page glossy brochure is hardly a reliable proof of notable economic impact, is it?--Victor falk 08:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. as long as it is produced by other than the shopping centre itself. May I ask why you do not believe it satisfies WP:RS? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I also want to know the answer to Ridernyc's question. --Victor falk 03:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To awnser your and Ridernyc question; I have always contended, Shopping centres are notable for their Economic Impact to the local community. notabilaty guidelines (yes, admittedly only a guidline) mention having effect on an economy is enough to give notability, and in my view, especially in smaller communities, a shopping centres effect is staggering. When they are constructed, during their lifecycle, even in its death throws, it is still having an effect upon the community. After the place has met the wrecking ball, I would still contend it deserves an Article because they had a staggering economic effect upon the local community. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, passes WP:N with a great deal of press coverage of the topic throughout its history. [10], even the cinema opening [11] Kappa 03:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is going be deleted as "spam" we can just make a new version anyway. Kappa 03:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, the fact that the article could be re-created does not mean that the current article is not spam. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 08:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be stupid. Kappa 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ahem, please be civil Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - these articles are important, and notability is inherent.139.48.81.98 15:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• See WP:IMPORTANT Jbeach56 21:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mall with no claim of notabilty, the only sources found are too local. Jbeach56 21:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Citations from that locality no longer as valid as any other Citation? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources are the mall themselves, that isn't independent, another one is a trivial mention for a city development plan, and the google news sources are only local news, only interesting to the local public and that's it. Jbeach56 16:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason #1.. ok, but as for "trivial", Did you read the PDF? The Mall fills the first page, its got a picture of its own, in every paragraph its mentioned! It is a full 1/3rd of the entire publication, that isnt trivial. #3 "interesting to the local public " ... so you admit it apparently is "worth noting" to some people, am I correct? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nn.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 08:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is that the article is original research. If the table was a sourced summary of a publication by Roald Dahl (or someone else) that noted the differences between the book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, that may have turned the deletion argument since it would have been Dahl's research rather than a Wikipedia's research. As it is, the source for this article is concluded by consensus to be original research. -- Jreferee t/c 21:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory[edit]

Differences between book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article fails to be verifiable as the content is wholly based on the subjective determinations of editors regarding what differences are appropriate, which violates Wikipedia's no original research policy. Furthermore, this topic fails to be notable as there is no significant coverage by reliable sources about adaptations of the source material. Basically, the table is pieced together indiscriminately, with items like whether business cards were shown, the presence of contracts, the act of getting out of bed, etc. There will be creative and conventional differences in any, if not most, adaptations of the source material, and the threshold for inclusion is for there to be real-world context, based on the preceding arguments of notability and relevance. This article meets none of these factors, being the originally derived piecemeal of editors that do not use secondary sources. According to WP:WAF#Secondary information, "The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information." No secondary information is used here. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination) for similar precedent. Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, because well put together table concerning incredibly notable films and book. Anyone watching the films or reading the book (which would be thousands, if not millions of people) can verify the information with ease. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Well put together" is not an argument to keep an article, and "Incredibly notable" does not apply to the differences between them. Star Wars and Star Trek are both incredibly notable, but we don't draw connections between them because there's no real-world precedent for it. The Chocolate Factory relation is closer, but the fact remains is that this article is originally derived by like you've admitted -- people who read the books and watch the films and come up with ideas of what should be included. The lack of verifiability and real-world context of such differences fails to establish a threshold for differences -- the scope is subjective and limitless as a result. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most of the differences are trivial, there are no sources and therefore the article is OR, and I don't see why this should be included here. Major differences can be noted on the main article. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is agreeable -- I think that it's completely acceptable to find out from filmmakers why they deviated from the source material in the way they did, and to note that on the film article. However, an unsubstantiated observation (he wears shorts in this book, he wears pants in this film) obviously does not add any encyclopedic value. I believe that for the Harry Potter differences, the cited differences were placed on their film articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete There is some information which might be considered important, but it would be based on notability within the book and movies (I guess you would call that an in-universe viewpoint). It might be better to note the non-trivial differences in the individual articles, but there will surely be arguments about what is considered "non-trivial". Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's why we need to back such differences with real-world context. In the article, it mentions Willy Wonka's father flashbacks in Burton's adaptation, but does not explain why. In this interview, Burton says, "It just felt in the movie, you've got a guy that's acting that strange, you kind of want to get a flavor of why he's the way he is, otherwise he's just a weirdo." Perspectives like these should be added to the film articles -- they're not long at all. In addition, a table in this article forces the need to specify the element of the third subject even when an explanation is only given between the other two subjects. Items like what the candy shop owner looked like in each presentation have no backing and are very indiscriminate details. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete hopeless OR Will ^(talk) 20:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's an original research based piece of analysis. As Erik says, particular changes which have real world significance (ie have been discussed in the context of commentary or reviews) could be mentioned in the film's main articles. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More fun to write than it is to read. Author (a) read the book (b) watched the Gene Wilder film (c) watched the Johnny Depp film, although not necessarily in that order. If you did all three, why read the article? If you don't care enough to read the Roald Dahl book, author of this article is no Roald Dahl. If you don't care to watch either movie, you probably won't want to find out what happened. There are some things that people ought to do for themselves without help. Mandsford 22:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR. Keb25 23:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR. Chris! _ct 00:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete exactly as we deleted all similar articles for Harry Poter, Narnia, etc. -- Magioladitis 01:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research based analysis. Looks like Differences between film and musical versions of The Producers might be the next one to be nominated. Or it could be Differences between book, film and TV versions of M*A*S*H, or Differences between the W.I.T.C.H. comic and animated series, Differences in versions of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Differences between Stargate and Stargate SG-1, Differences between book and film versions of Timeline, etc. Crazysuit 02:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep People are confusing OR with primary documents. This isn't original research, its using primary documents. Comparative literature is the stuff of college courses, and is encyclopedic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OR is just one of the concerns for this article. Primary documents are used to shape the plot summaries of books and films, but they exist to support real-world context. This is just details from the primary documents side-by-side, mostly written in an assumptive tone, such as the "Boat ride" row, where it's written, "Wonka offers mugs of chocolate to Charlie and Grandpa Joe, apparently out of compassion." These subjective and interpretative examples are scattered throughout the table because there are no secondary sources to keep the information discriminate, neutral, objective, and verifiable. Besides, if this is considered comparative literature like from college, the original contributions of editors to derive this "paper" would be original research. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all this article is fiction. What's important is why those film versions felt need to change from the novel. Alientraveller 19:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Sadly, delete. Original research at its finest. There's a place for this, but it isn't Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete violates OR policies. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I'm sad to say, especially since so many of the similar nominated articles seem salvageable to me. Alternatively, merge to main book article, but only after significant cuts. The level of detail here is excessive for the subject, and many of the comparisons made here are based on illustrations that may or may not be present in all editions of the book as well as the author's description of the appearance of various actors, etc. It would be interesting to keep a list of some of the more notable differences if they can be properly sourced. --Roger McCoy 18:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOR.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 08:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR or WP:SYN unless multiple independent sources can be found which compare and discuss the differences between the book and the film, thus establishing the subject's notability. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or integrate it to, say, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the article about the book itself. I believe one article here (I think it would be Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, the 1971 film) says that due to the 1971 film's differences from the original book, Roald Dahl did not permit a sequel to be made. The table could help people who stumble across that statement to identify these differences. Hallpriest9 (Talk | Archive) 23:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's still original research, though. We don't know why Roald Dahl really did not permit a sequel to get made. From what I've heard, the newer film intended to capture the dark tone of the book better, so if Dahl's dislike was over tone, then that certainly cannot be objectively and originally reflected by editors. We just don't know what changes influenced Dahl's decision, and we certainly should not present a table of possibilities -- we should try to find verifiable content from reliable sources to reflect the real-world context for the the lack of a sequel. Even if we found information, it would not need this "Differences" article -- it could be mentioned at the 1971 film's article or the sequel book's article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of current and past books related discussions on WP. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus/keep. W.marsh 21:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MadV[edit]

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

Notability: MadV does not meet the notability requirements for a biography of a living person, as stated on the Wikipedia Notability page. Copyright Infringement: V is a character copyrighted to Vertigo and DC Comics, and MadV does not have the rights to use it. Images: The image on the page is of very low quality, and is hardly encyclopedic. Bias: Although I know that this is not criteria for deletion, the article needs to have (be?) NPOV Content not suitable for an encyclopedia: It is badly written, misspelled, and does not state the name, birthdate, place of birth, or any other biographical facts about MadV. Even where his accent is from is mere speculation.
Nexthoudini 17:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I don't think I need to add anything here. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As above. BASE101() 19:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not Delete. This article has already been discussed and was passed to stay. See previous discussion: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_24 In response Notability: Documented television and media appearances, magazine articles and interview, notable contest nomination, significant video statistics. Complies with Wikipedia's Notability Criteria for category of Entertainer: # Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Copyright infringement: The claimant misunderstands Wikipedia's Copyright Infringement Policy. The article itself is not infringing copyright, as no material is being used without permission, and all images and information is freely and publicly available. Whether or not the character 'MadV' is infringing copyright is not a matter relevant to the validity of the article. Images: Quality is as high resolution as original sources allow. Bias: The article has very little obvious bias. Feel free to re-write whichever elements you consider to be biased to provide NPOV. (Notice that the claimant for deletion calls himself 'NextHoudini' - is this deletion bias perhaps?) Content not suitable for an encyclopedia: Feel free to correct spelling and grammatical errors. This is not a reason for deletion. Biological facts are accurate as far as sources allow. Speculation can be edited, again this is not a reason for deletion. See also: YouTube Celebrities for examples of persons of similar notability and validity (who remain on Wiki). -- Lungsboat 21:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No real-world notability shown. humblefool® 06:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose being featured on MTV, ABC news, and Pepsi 9 doesn't happen in the real world? Lungsboat 11:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep MTV, and ABC appearances look like notability. The article surely needs some clean up, but that's not a reason to delete. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 12:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• EDIT: References are made to him having been in shows on ABC and MTV, although no references are made to anything claiming that he was in them. If references are provided, I may grudgingly accept this as notability, but, as of yet, it's hearsay. I still stick to my original points, and agree that, unless the logo was put in the public domain, it is copyright infringement, as per the last deletion request.--Nexthoudini 19:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response: It appears the claimant has not checked the correct references. I have now alerted him to the relevant sources. Lungsboat 23:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Humblefool. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response: You appear to be correct. I did check the references, although I just scanned the first couple of them (such as the ABC website) and did not see anything about MadV. I stand corrected on the fact that he has appeared in said shows. I still disagree on notability. You claim that this is a personal vendetta because I'm not asking for the takedown of certain less popular YouTube producers, but the reason is because this is the article I stumbled on. Simple as that. You still have not addressed the logo issue from the last deletion request (a cropped screenshot is neither a loophole nor a good excuse, if that's what you claim), nor have you addressed the content not suitable claim properly. "Biological facts are as accurate as sources allow." Yes, that's the problem. Somebody with nothing known about them aside from speculation and a few appearances is not worthy of an article to himself. Possibly a notice in another article, but not an entire article to himself. The fact that others less noticeable are on WP is not evidence in favor of notability on MadV's part, only that said other articles may not be worthy of a WP article either. If you would like to, propose them as AfDs. Besides that, with the amount of information known about MadV, it is impossible for the article to be anything more than a stub, per status quo.--Nexthoudini 03:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Any alleged copyright violation of the image in the article is not relevant to whether or not this article should be deleted. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 03:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• All images have complete fair use rationales, and are freely and publicly available. This is not even a valid reason for deletion, as stated above. The content is suitable as I have stated - in terms of significant fan-base or large cult following. Wiki guidelines do not state 'numbers' per say to qualify for this, but in the opinion of over 24,000 people and well over 6 million combined video views he has a significant fan-base. Finally, whether or not biological facts are known or not is irrelevant. He is a character, not a person. That's like trying to write biological facts about a comic book hero. What is 'suitable content' is documentation of the spread and affect of what the character has achieved through the medium of viral videos - namely nominations for the Youtube Video Awards 2006, Most Responded Video of All Time, and as you now agree features on notable news programmes. Obviously the creator of the MadV character wishes to remain anonymous, so no further information is available about him/her. Lungsboat 04:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per nominator: Upon actually getting some sleep and then reviewing the argument later, I can see Lungsboat's side of things. The article does need some serious cleanup and revising, but I have weakly changed my stance on its deletion. --Nexthoudini 15:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So now what happens seeing as the person who originally nominated the article for deletion has changed their mind? Can we now close this AfD? Lungsboat 17:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Exceptional YouTube prominence + fair amount of appearances in mainstream media = notability. 2 million google hits don't hurt, either. The closing admin should note that the nomination for deletion appears to have been withdrawn. Ichormosquito 04:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ichormosquito--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 08:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included on the WikiProject Internet Culture talk page.-- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment after close - The two references I found were Campaign for Iraq Pullout Hits YouTube and many related to Manufacturers Association of the Delaware Valley (MADV). This comment is not part of the above consensus and is placed here for reference only. -- Jreferee t/c 21:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment after close/followup - I just want to clarify: the link to 2 million Google hits is for "MadV AND YouTube". I realize this doesn't make up for the lack of hard sources. Ichormosquito 22:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post Oak Mall[edit]

Post Oak Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable shopping mall in Texas. A search turns up no reliable sources to verify the page's content (e.g. the cancelled Joske's anchor). Features some original research as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources, no assertion, no notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is notable, plenty of reliable sources: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Tim Q. Wells 18:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It is probably the only mall within the mall in a 90 or so mile radius. And the Joske's proof?

TheListUpdater 22:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as revised. Multiple reliable sources have been located to meet the standard definition of notability. Burntsauce 17:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't have a look at them, did you? See my comment below. --Victor falk 05:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete wow they have a J.C Pennys, no notability, every city has a malls.Ridernyc 17:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No offense, but that's the lamest AfD I've ever heard. Using your twisted logic, half of the malls listed on Wikipedia would get deleted. TheListUpdater 21:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Half? Only half???

• Keep. Article is notable and well-sourced, and the deletion reasoning was querulous. Rebecca 23:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not claim notability over and above being a mall--Victor falk 03:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has many reliable sources that make it notable. Tim Q. Wells 04:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Regrettably, Wikipedia:Notability (shopping centers) could not attain a community consensus. That leaves us with the Wild West of WP:N, which this meets and exceeds given the multiple and non-trivial sources written about the subject. Silensor 04:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-trivial!?

1. unofficial site
2. OAG Travel Information: "Featuring five major department stores, this shopping mall also offers :over 100 specialty stores, a children's play area, and an array of eateries."
3. Yahoo travel: "Featuring five major department stores, this shopping mall also offers over 100 :specialty stores, a children's play area, and an array of eateries."
4. discoverourtown.com: "Featuring five major department stores, this shopping mall also offers over :100 specialty stores, a children's play area, and an array of eateries."
5. cblproperties: a map and stats.
6. Picture from the portfolio of the architects that designed the "Pavilion on Post Oak Mall"

Those sources are certainly not... quadrivial... --Victor falk 05:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for sarcasm friend, I was referring to a Lexis Nexis search which reveals dozens of related articles to this specific subject. Many fall into the non-trivial category. Silensor 05:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. May technically be notable, but I'm going to WP:IGNORE on this. If it was special in some way, I might be swayed - but it's not? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 05:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No indication that it meets WP:CORP. --Elonka 06:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, cited sources are trivial. Quite willing to reconsider my position if the other (claimed) sources are actually cited, but I can't find a thing besides standard fluff and name drops. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - these articles are important, and notability is inherent. This article is particularly well researched and written.139.48.81.98 15:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the way that people are acknowledging that it is "technically" notable and voting to delete it anyway tempts me to ignore various wikipedia rules myself, such as WP:NPA, WP:SOCK WP:Vandalism etc. Kappa 16:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of talk may seem a bit... uncivil to some. What do you mean by "technically" notable? And who has said that?--Victor falk 22:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed Chase me ladies' comment. And, thinking of it, there is no such thing as a "technically" notable article. At least if no wikilawyering is involved. An article can be considered notable if editors judge it meets standards or not for wp:n, wp:rs and wp:v (btw, I still haven't seen no sources that don't risibly fail those criterion, I will happily change my vote if such one is brought forward), and should not keep an article on "technical" merits--Victor falk 22:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per many of the fine comments above. --Myles Long 22:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not the most notable mall on the planet, but I think that it is notable enough and the current sources are sufficient for verifiability standards. RFerreira 21:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, completely non-notable.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 08:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely non-notable? Most of the N.N. malls on Wiki don't have any references save for the official webpage. And you're sockpuppeting, as well. Shame on you. TheListUpdater 14:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to John Grisham. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clanton, Mississippi[edit]

Clanton, Mississippi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's not actually very notable, and though I cherish a deep admiration for the town and its inhabitants, there's no possibility of expanding the article without going into the realms of OR. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable fictional town. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the article is needed for at least one purpose—to answer the sometimes asked query, "I wonder if that is a real town." Alternatively, merge and redirect to an appropriate target (probably John Grisham). Do not delete outright. Newyorkbrad 18:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Redirecting to Grisham is OK; it's not worth having an article just to say that it's fictional, though I did actually believe that it was real until I first came across the article this morning! :-) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to John Grisham. There are a few references in book reviews and Grisham profiles but not much about the town that isn't plot summary. --Dhartung | Talk 18:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Dhartung. mceder (u t c) 19:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't really care what happens, but I would personally find the purpose of the article defeated by redirecting it to John Grisham; it really makes no sense. What harm is this article doing by being a stub? The reason I wrote the article was because, like Porcupine, I didn't know if the town existed - so I looked it up and wrote what I found down. That this is the setting for more than one best-selling Grisham novel indicates that many will ponder the same question that we did. The redirect is probably less helpful and more confusing than just deleting the article outright. Johnleemk | Talk 20:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• RedirectRename to Clanton (John Grisham)Keep and Rename to Clanton (John Grisham), as per Derry, Maine--SarekOfVulcan 12:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How would that help? It'd still have its own article.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So does Derry. If it's a fictional setting in multiple Grisham books, it should probably have its own article. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 14:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - it should only have its own article if it's notable (that is, it has several reliable sources listed that are independent of the subject; there actually are no such sources: I've checked). Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing your vote not just once, but twice - talk about abuse of process! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#AfD Wikietiquette. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 13:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't change your vote, because it disrupts stuff and is not impressive. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#AfD Wikietiquette. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 14:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Grow up. Thanks.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't suppose you've looked at WP:NPA lately, have you?--SarekOfVulcan 16:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume from the fact that you refuse to accept responsibility for your vote-changing means you feel slightly ashamed of it? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (reset indent) "if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between <s> and </s>"--SarekOfVulcan 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Porcupine, there's nothing wrong with someone changing an AFD !vote multiple times. Stop with the rude orders ("grow up") and assumptions of bad faith.--chaser - t 17:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I said that doing it twice is a bit shoddy, particularly just to counter someone pointing out one of your rather silly mistakes. Also see my points here. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect the damn thing already. Now!!! Burntsauce 17:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Opinion - my non-admin closure was reverted because 'people voted keep'. This is absurd, since the reverter was the one person who voted keep. Just for the record, if the process policy mandates that (which I don't think it does), then it is STUPID. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A consensus hasn't clearly been demonstrated here, and since people have voted 'keep', you can't invoke WP:SNOW. And as nominator, you dratted well shouldn't be closing your own AfD, never mind doing it two days early. And for the record, I was not the one person who voted keep -- I voted rename, someone else voted keep, and the article author chimed in with a "I don't really think it should be deleted, but I'm not voting".--SarekOfVulcan 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only one person has voted keep, darling, so stop saying "people". It's so simple it's almost comical. Plus, who in heaven's name mentioned WP:SNOW except you? --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just made my implied "keep" above explicit.--SarekOfVulcan 20:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please leave AFD closures to neutral outside parties. Practice is that no one closes an AFD they initiated.--chaser - t 23:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to an applicable section of one of John Grisham's novels absent more context for the article. I agree that redirecting to John Grisham makes little sense. The_Last_Juror#Plot_introduction seems to be a good option. The text there can always be modified to mention the other novels its used in and accomplish the same purpose the existent article currently does. If not that, then rename it as has been suggested (and flesh it out a little bit. I haven't read any of the novels, but I assume there's more that could be said about this fictional town). Into The Fray ^T/C 20:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge any worthwhile content into a suitable existing article.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 08:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Madonick[edit]

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

First several pages of non-wiki ghits don't show notability as a professor. Movie information not backed up by sources and conflicts with info in sources such as IMDb. Speedy was contested, so I assume a prod will be as well. Fabrictramp 17:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails the notability guidelines for professors and no sources to back it up. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article isn't even funny, just a load of bull. BASE101() 19:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. As near as I can tell from a Google search, completely untrue and fails WP:Verifiable. Also incredibly vulgar with no redeeming humour, hence the "speedy". Accounting4Taste 19:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOT#CENSORED. That's not a criteria for speedy deletion. --Agüeybaná 20:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - G10; vulgarity isn't a speedy criterion, but attack pages are. — Coren ^(talk) 21:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coren, I doubt the jackass who wrote it intended it as an attack. DGG (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment My apologies for using the word "Speedy" incorrectly. I just wanted to get rid of it quickly and wasn't asserting that it fell into a specific category. Accounting4Taste 15:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Coren. I'd assumed, at first, vandalism, given the vulgarity. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that was the original. Probably some pissed off student who flunked the good professor's class or something.--Sethacus 22:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• changing to weak keep In light of the changes made to the article, which should've been gotten rid of in the first place or heavily rewritten. Answers.com has another mirrored version that suggests he also directed This Is Spinal Tap. O RLY? The prize is notable. However, the only things I can find on Google Scholar are a single poem and a thesis paper.--Sethacus 19:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 02:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I stripped out the attack content so that we could focus on his actual achievements. What remains looks innocuous to my eyes; it's copied (and was a copyvio, but I rewrote that too) from his faculty profile. —David Eppstein 02:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep if the Academy of American Poets' prize is notable--I have no information on that. His books are not notable--I can find only 9 libraries on WorldCat. It's wrong to judge an article by the junk people put in it, or all faculty will be at the mercy of the stupider among their students. DGG (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as seems to be notable, but the lack of any third-party sources is not a good thing.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 08:48, 12 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 disassemble (er, delete). Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoAsm[edit]

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

Non notable assembler. I can find no reliable sources. J Milburn 17:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Written like an advert. No sources, no assertion, no notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam... Given that the thing was developed by someone called Jeremy Gordon, and that the article and logo were both created by a seemingly single-purpose user calling themselves Jorgon, I think it's a fair bet that this violates both WP:SPAM and WP:COI, so speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. Maybe it could be rewritten by a neutral writer/team of writers, but I still doubt it'd pass WP:N.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 08:59, 12 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. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SjASMPlus[edit]

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

Non notable assembler. I can find no reliable sources. J Milburn 17:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Written like an advert, NN piece of software (?). NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. Spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam...--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 09:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 21:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peach (film)[edit]

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

Unfinished film with no claim of notability in article. (Perhaps once it's released, it might be notable.) Contested prod. Fabrictramp 17:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No notability assertion. Since it's unfinished, it shouldn't have an article yet (at least until sources and a reason why it's notable are found). NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:MOVIE until further down the production line. Accounting4Taste 19:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've seen more trivial entries in this wiki!--87.109.236.84 18:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That argument is dismissed at WP:WAX aka WP:OTHERSTUFF. Accounting4Taste 18:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sure it will be notable once released. No harm will be done if readers are redirected to a short write-up at Blender Foundation. Ichormosquito 17:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N and WP:CBALL.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 09:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Blender Foundation. Here's a source, from Ars Technica: [18] Ichormosquito 17:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I took it upon myself to merge. I think a redirect is the most sensible option now. Ichormosquito 18:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 18:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tasty planet[edit]

Yet another flash game article. Nothing notable about it at all. A^RendedWinter 17:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No assertion, no sources, no notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Fateh Singh[edit]

Captain Fateh Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, seems to have been an Army captain, but I can't find anything that asserts notability. Also, extremely difficult to read even after much editingKernel Saunters 17:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources cited. Article is poorly written, confusing, and difficult to read. Article strays off topic and has too much information about subject's family. Either a severly major cleanup, or throw it in the trash. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnotable captain with no major awards Clarityfiend 20:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A copy of this article's information is in [www.sikhiwiki.com]; it doesn't meet our biographic standards. Accounting4Taste 20:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Edward321 22:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seemingly nn. Also, isn't it funny that, while it's recognisably written in English, you still feel like you need a translator?--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 09:05, 12 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 16:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Park, Co. Leitrim[edit]

Deer Park, Co. Leitrim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. This article is a weird mixture of garbled a garbled piece of local history and an attack page. Attempts appear to have been made to tidy it up, but I don't think there is anything worth salvaging. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Confusing and poorly written article. Nothing worth keeping here. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:COATRACK. There is probably an article to be written about the place, but this certainly isn't it. --Dhartung | Talk 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Poor text, but still not entirely sure about the notability of it. An improvement would be good to see for this. BASE101() 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any evidence of notability in the article itself. I know the area a little, and hadn't heard of the deer park, and all that I can find on google are a few references in the Manorhamilton area to roads named after it. I suspect that there is or was a deer park in the area, but an article on it would need some credible evidence of using reliable sources. If this is deleted someone may write a proper article which actually demonstrates at least a hint of notability, but there's nothing in this version to improve on: it needs a complete rewrite from the sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There is a small area near Manorhamilton called Deerpark (more often rendered as one word from what I can see) and as BrownHairedGirl pointed out, there are a few roads named after it, but I can't see anything that couldn't be included in the Manorhamilton article. (Although very little from the existing article: "In 1815 Napoleon Bonaparte, the great French general, rested his forces in Deer Park"... made me laugh.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hoax, hoax, hoaxity hoax... Delete. IF (and it's a big if) this place DOES really exist, the article would need a total rewrite anyway, so I reckon we'd best just delete this, as it certainly falls foul of WP:NPOV.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 09:11, 12 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 16:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Tapes 2[edit]

The Lost Tapes 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has no reliable sources whatsoever. It is also contradictory as it claims to be a compilation album yet it also claims to be by rap singer Nas. The article states the album was never released and never will be. If there is anything here worth keeping it ought to be on the Nas article - that's if its notable at all, which this article isn't. B1atv 17:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't really deserve an article if it will never get released. Nothing to write about besides the four sentences already included in the article. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is not inherited. Also an unreleased album cannot really be notable unless it has indepedent reviews from reliable sources (main criteria of WP:Music). Might just warrant a mention on the artist's page if the recording was in some way important, but I doubt it. A1octopus 01:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This was just speculated with no credible sources to deserve an article by itself. No reference on a future release either.--Sosa 02:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per comments above.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 09:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#G4 GRBerry 14:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B'nai Elim[edit]

B'nai Elim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Stub article on a subject that fails WP:ORG (the same reason the previous version of the article was deleted). Little potential for growth due to the lack of available third-party sources. For the same reason, any potential additions would likely fail WP:V. Google hits virtually all link to the organization itself or to blogs authored by its proponents. No press coverage.
--Rrburke^(talk) 17:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Just not notable enough. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and NF24.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 09:16, 12 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.