< August 31	September 2 >

Guide to deletion

The result was Keep. Comments were fairly split and absent a consensus to delete the article would be kept. However in this case the article was improved and sourcing added as well which supports its notability. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 20:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The labor problem[edit]

Not a notable subject. vague and incoherent DreamsAreMadeOf 23:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No context whatsoever, any notability of the subject is not established. Is covered in various other articles. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak out loud!} 23:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "a term widely used ... with various applications" ..?! Joestella 00:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the source says the term was widely used at that time in history. Operation Spooner 05:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Perfect Proposal. I'm pretty much sure that this issue is discussed in other articles.--JForget 01:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's probably an article about the "labor problem", but this is an article about the phrase "labor problem", which was a capitalist euphemism at the height of the industrial revolution (or just after, perhaps) for giving labor enough (time off, money, rights, etc.) so that no lower-class political revolutions would take place. The phrase remains resonant and can bee seen in book titles and politics headlines, though many probably have little understanding of its origin. The article has two good references already, though perhaps suffers in the context department.--Dhartung | Talk 05:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I accept Dhartung's argument about the notability of the subject, but the article needs to explain this and perhaps be retitled to show the distinction. DGG (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Renaming would be inappropriate. The phrase is always "THE labor problem." Operation Spooner 05:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung and DGG. Bearian 02:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More can be said about this topic. There's enough sources discussing it. It's just a matter of people getting around to adding to the article, which should happen in time. Operation Spooner 05:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess this article could be turned around, but when? There's enough sources? Ok, use them. It's just a matter of time before?... Why haven't they already? It suffers in context? Dhartung just gave a better definition of this subject than what is currently on the page. What I am saying is all the arguements seem to amount to the "Could of, Would of, Should of type". If you can improve the article do so. If not, delete it.--68.0.125.230 04:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per dhartung. IP198 22:12, 6 September 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 result was delete A mention may make sense elsewhere. JoshuaZ 00:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hodgson's paradox[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hodgson's paradox

This is not a paradox. It was never a paradox. It was a mere observation (1-page note) by Hodgson of a well known fact that X/Y has Cauchy distribution for normal X and Y. Is this observation notable? Yes, and it may rightfully belong to properties of Cauchy or normal distributions. Does Hodgson have anything to do with it? No. Is it a paradox? No. If you search for Hodgson's paradox you will not get anything except for this Wiki article. Igny 23:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and specifically per WP:V. No evidence that this is a paradox, no use of "Hodgson's paradox" in mathematical literature, no nothing. --Cheeser1 01:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only occurence of "Hodgson's paradox" I could find was "Hodgeson's paradox of punishment" which is unrelated to mathematics -- [yaroslavvb]
Delete. Ill-chosen neologism. As noted by nominator the few Google search hits all lead to this article. Google books + Google scholar together give one hit, but for a different "Hodgson's paradox" by a different Hodgson, directed against the doctrine of utilitarianism.[1] --Lambiam 06:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that the standard Cauchy distribution does not have a well-defined mean is not a paradox. DavidCBryant 12:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admins When I was nominating this article for afd, I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/reason by an accident. Could someone delete that? (Igny 14:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

done. DGG (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could someone with knowledge of probability (and preferably access to the cited sources) review this? It seems like WP:OR but I would prefer to hear an (uninvolved) expert opinion. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 17:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even though I am involved, I consider myself an expert in theory of probabilities, and I do have access to the cited sources. (Igny 17:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Response I've looked them both up, and although I am not an expert in probability theory, I am know a little (which is enough to settle this matter). You see, it's not the probability theory that's in question: it's the WP:V and WP:N concerns. Neither reference establishes that this is a paradox, or that Hodgson is necessarily the one who discovered it. Munley's note states that Hodgson "point[ed] out that X/Y has Cauchy distribution with neither defined mean or variance" (ie pointed out something that was already well known). Munley's note is, actually, a good source for the fact that there are often other ways to characterize these troublesome distributions (he gives an example and explanation).
- Hodgson's original article (or note, perhaps, it's hardly what I'd call an article) speaks to normally distributed variables, and their sums, differences, products, and quotients, in terms of how he teaches such concepts. While the non-normativity of X/Y is labeled as "curiosity" and "paradox" by Hodgson, it isn't actually a paradox, and his labeling it a curiosity is neither new nor notable (certainly, it is not something that has been dubbed "Hodgson's paradox"). So while I'm not versed in probability, I don't think one needs to be an expert to see that these two articles do not support the notability/verifiability of this article and its so-called "paradox." (Unrelated question: is there a way to align one bulleted and one non-bulleted paragraph, instead of bulleting the second?) --Cheeser1 18:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the term gets zero Google hits should already be sufficient. Apart from that, the fact that the mean of the ratio of two independent normally distributed random variables is undefined is not deep; in fact, it should be completely obvious to anyone who understands the concepts involved, and it must have been well-known long before Hodgson was born. --Lambiam 20:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, Google is only a crude measure of notability (although 0 is, crudely, 0). However, the term returns no results on any of the journals, libraries, or anything else I can search. I think that's far more relevant (I can search at least abstracts/keywords of quite a number of journals). There's definitely no notability or verifiablity here. --Cheeser1 21:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for your input, everyone. My first feeling was correct. Delete as non-notable, since it was referred to as a paradox, but not "Hodgson's paradox", and has not been apparently discussed in those terms (or any other). Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 21:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Delete and incorporate elsewhere There is definitely verifiability here. The fact would be good to include in Wikipedia, possibly in the Cauchy distribution article. What is questionable is whether Hodgson's contribution is notable. Here is the first page of an earlier (1965) paper on the same topic. Note that people occasionally call this the normal ratio distribution. Cardamon 00:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cascadia (independence movement)[edit]

Couldn't find reliable independent non-trivial sources to establish notability/verification for this movement. It doesn't look like any third parties have picked up on this independence movement- it's just a few minor political organizations. The only non-organizational sources provided are not related to Cascadian independence- one refers to a different secessionist movement, and another is from a brewery. Wafulz 23:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm surprised there's no references available - it seems to ring a bell to me. MarkBul 00:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It probably sounds familiar because it's turned up in a couple of novels - Titan and The Handmaid's Tale are the two that spring to mind. Don't recall it being called "Cascadia" in either, though. And why would a "Republic of the Pacific" not include CA, anyway? — iridescent (talk to me!) 02:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The concept was discussed extensively in the popular 1981 nonfiction book The Nine Nations of North America, in the context of the novel Ecotopia. --Mathew5000 03:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The region's often called Cascadia up this way, but there's no real independence movement that is happening now. I find lots of news articles talking about Cascadia, but the claims in here don't seem to really be supportable. Delete unless some good sources come together. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My delete is based on this article being focused on a virtually nonexistent independence movement, for the record; Cascadia is a reasonably documented concept, but the idea of an independence movement is what I'm saying is not documented. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search on Google for "Cascadia (free OR independent OR independence OR autonomy)" yielded over one million hits. Of those, the first several that were not wikipedia mirrors are: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. You could possibly use the argument that the documentation of the movement is specious and unencyclopedic, but there is certainly an abundance of documentation. Whether the movement is real or bogus, it is certainly well documented. Compare Emperor Norton. samwaltz 04:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but can any of those be referred to as independent reliable sources discussing the independence movement discussed in the article? I was more looking for news articles, etc. I'm obviously thinking wrong on this one, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Cascadia Free State blockade at Warner Creek is related to the independence movement, in terms of having the same sort of folks likely to be interested in both, but CFS was really only the WC area. Those articles do show how "Cascadia" can refer to the bioregion, but can't be used to reference an article about independence movement. Katr67 16:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the information above, if it is integrated. DGG (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and get more sources. I had heard a reference to Cascadia in the 90's, when I was looking into the Conch Republic, etc.; however, I'm afraid I can't track down the reference. There have to be more out there. samwaltz 19:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename. I'd suggest moving the article to Cascadia (bioregion) (currently a redirect to Pacific Northwest), and rewriting, as Cascadia as a concept is bigger than just the independence movement. If you follow the talk at Pacific Northwest, you will see that even the concept of what PacNW encompasses is controversial, so I think it's a bad idea to integrate the Cascadia material into the PacNW article. The independence movement material could be shortened and made a section of the bioregion article. If you follow the history and talk page of the Cascadia disambiguation page, you will see that the resulting arrangement of pages is a sort of compromise solution to an unwieldy page. As far as the movement itself, it does seem to be alive, but since it is considered a "fringe" concept, it has gained little mainstream media coverage. See also the article's talk page for some mentions I found of the idea of Cascadian secession (as well as the idea, as used by economists, of Cascadia as a global trading region) in the media--most are trivial, but it has been covered in the press. If I have time I'll see about using them in the article. Katr67 06:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This I could deal with; there's actual documentation of the bioregion concept, as compared to personal websites. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welbeck Street[edit]

As with everything else I'm dredging up whilst cleaning up Category:Streets in London, sending it to AfD instead of prodding as named geographic locations are always contentious. Yet another of the streets with a famous former resident but nothing else to indicate why they warrant their own article. As with all of these, I'm perfectly willing to be convinced if anyone can dig up anything interesting about the street. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't look to be a major notable street in London.--JForget 01:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. It'll be directory level to have pages for every street out there Corpx 05:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — this is a notable London street in the history of medicine, including a blue plaque. Notice its range of categories. Do any experts on medical history here disagree? — Jonathan Bowen 14:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - just scrapes in on notability imo. -- Roleplayer 00:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jonathan Bowen. Bearian 02:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are (and were) a number of other major medical institutions there--I've just added a few but don't really have facilities for a good search on this. DGG (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP not being a directory, but I'm open to changing this !vote if someone has a different interpretation of WP:NOT. Coldmachine^Talk 06:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, not voting: I just looked up this article because I wanted to learn about the street. This shows that some people do look up the article. I looked it up because of the hospital there and I wanted to see if the street had some history (it seems inappropriate to mention the history of the street in the hospital article). My feeling would be to keep but I am not yet well versed in wikipedia policy. Mrs.EasterBunny 19:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Again, this is one of those sections of London where you'll find historical significance on almost any street, if not written about in the internet age. User DGG's findings above, for example. --Oakshade 23:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete JoshuaZ 00:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abropernol[edit]

This article is extrmely small and not notable enough to have it's own article. It can't be added to the homeopathy article and really serves no real purpose as an article. It should be deleted. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Serves no purpose in article. -Flubeca^Talk 23:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little context, if any. Does not manage to ascertain notability in it's extremely short description.Perfect Proposal ^{Speak out loud!} 14:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Windmill Street[edit]

As with everything else I'm dredging up whilst cleaning up Category:Streets in London, sending it to AfD instead of prodding as named geographic locations are always contentious. (I'm not making myself popular today, am I?) An article about a former name of a street that doesn't have its own article under its current name; the only possible use I can see for this is as a one-liner on Great Windmill Street along the lines of "Why there's a Great but not a Little". — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really a notable street.--JForget 01:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. It'll be directory level to have pages for every street out there Corpx 05:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fascinating, but not notable. -- Roleplayer 00:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bearian 02:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great College Street[edit]

Delete per lack of notability. It'll be directory level to have pages for every street out there Corpx 05:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Roleplayer 00:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bearian 02:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curzon Street[edit]

As with everything else I'm dredging up whilst cleaning up Category:Streets in London, sending it to AfD instead of prodding as named geographic locations are always contentious. Again, I can't see any reason this street is special enough to warrant its own article — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't look to be a really major notable street.--JForget 01:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The improvements in the article with especially some historical bits, forces me to change it to Keep.--JForget 02:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. It'll be directory level to have pages for every street out there Corpx 05:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - just misses the trailer for notability -- Roleplayer 00:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to strong keep following rewrite. -- Roleplayer 21:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I love Dorian Grey and Oscar Wilde. Bearian 02:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep on the basis of changes to improve the article to the Heyman standard. Bearian 22:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commentI am a little puzzled about how to deal with the nomination of the many articles. quite possibly they are in fact not notable, but i would like the time to be able to check, and I do not see how anyone can be reasonably expected to do them all in the few days provided. DGG (talk) 05:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment This street had an MI5 HQ too, and other stuff. Secretlondon 09:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a main street in the historic Mayfair. It was at Curzon Place where Keith Moon and Mama Cass died in Harry Nilsson's now infamous flat. --Oakshade 19:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep — this is a very notable street in central London. User:Iridescent seems to be attempting to delete a number of historic London streets without checking on their historic importance. I believe this and other cases are a case of WP:SOFIXIT. I would humbly suggest more effort on improving stub articles like this would be more worthwhile and beneficial for Wikipedia than being summarily deleted without research. There is plenty on Wikipedia that is much less noteworthy than most streets of any size in central London. Similar London streets that have been unsuccessfully been put up for deletion in the past include Dover Street and Albemarle Street. These are developed significantly through contributions. This and other stub articles for central London streets (a large number of which are notable due to the historic nature of central London) could easily do the same if not deleted. — Jonathan Bowen 22:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep following expansion by Roleplayer — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good job Roleplayer on improving the article — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 22:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved. I think the other articles could similarly be improved if time were given. These AfDs were premature. DGG (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved, thanks to Roleplayer. I too believe, with Jonathan Bowen and DGG, that way too many improvable articles are unnecessarily and/or prematurely nominated for deletion (across all of WP). The only aspect of an article that absolutely can't be improved is intrinsic non-notability. All else is fixable. Kudos to those that changed their recommendation to keep. — Becksguy 01:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep much better now. Secretlondon 09:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notability demonstrated by independent references. --Gavin Collins 10:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. The article makes no assertion of its own notability and has nothing to suggest it is notable even within the art world. Although the discussion suggests notability, not one single WP:RS has been added or demonstrated. Article can be re-created when these are found and added. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 20:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cork Street[edit]

As with everything else I'm dredging up whilst cleaning up Category:Streets in London, sending it to AfD instead of prodding as named geographic locations are always contentious. This one's been up for a year now & I don't see how it's rescuable (although happy to be persuaded) — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really a notable street.--JForget 01:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. It'll be directory level to have pages for every street out there Corpx 05:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — this is one of the most notable London streets in the art world since it largely consists of contemporary art galleries. Notice its range of categories. Do any art experts here disagree? — Jonathan Bowen 14:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per above, but article needs to be expanded to be worthwhile. Kbthompson 15:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand. -- Roleplayer 00:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as very notable. Lots of RS's can be found, I am sure. Bearian 02:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP not being a directory, but I'm open to changing this !vote if someone has a different interpretation of WP:NOT. Coldmachine^Talk 06:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, especially Jonathan Bowen. Very notable in the art world. --Oakshade 19:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has nice galleries, but notability, none. --Gavin Collins 10:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metafore, LLC[edit]

Queried speedy delete for db-corp. Anthony Appleyard 21:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to be much more than a pseudo-advert. No sources, nothing to show it's any better or any worse than any other firm of its type. Doesn't meet WP:CORP as it currently stands. I've no idea what grounds they had for querying the CSD. Personally I'd have left it on, it's something I would have speedied. They didn't even bother to use ((hangon)) and just went for your user talk. Even then they used the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. --WebHamster 01:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CSD#A7. I don't see anything that asserts notability. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete. Notability is subjective. Of course, for someone not interested in engineering, new product development or product lifecycle management, this article does not seem to be notable. But for people interested in those topics, it is notable as it illustrates the growing importance and increasing coverage of the PLM market and introduces one of its main players to the interested public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.209.86 (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not subjective, we have very clear guidelines. -- Roleplayer 00:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to A7 speedy it too, but let's give it the full run. It fails WP:CORP. - KrakatoaKatie 12:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above, in particular, fails to assert notability, reads like an advertisement. Contributor history indicates WP:SOAPBOX violation promoting this org, thus WP:COI. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. No indepedent verification of... well, anything. Note that all the available variations on metafore.com, .org, .ca, .net have been registered by different companies (all offering different services related to technology or development), making independent research of this company very difficult. As it stands the article is pure PR. Maybe it could be re-created once they get some press coverage? Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 17:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was move to Rooftop Highway. --NE2 20:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 98[edit]

There are no reliable sources that this is being planned as Interstate 98; the only sources that show that it is ("UpstateNYroads" and "Interstate-Guide.com") are unreliable "fansites". I have found no other mentions of this designation for the road. NE2 21:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but as Rooftop Highway, a term used particularly by New York State in planning documents and public pronouncements going back to the Nelson Rockefeller era. The I-98 designation is merely speculation (even if built the road would not necessarily be part of the Interstate Highway System). Google News Archive results --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks reasonable. I'm closing this, since nobody now wants to delete. --NE2 20:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Xoloz 14:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Bar Crunch Interchange[edit]

The name is a complete neologism. Nobody else uses "Diamond Bar Crunch". NE2 21:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apparently someone else does use it: [8], although it is even admitted as unofficial. That being said, in Southern California I have never heard that term used. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to its colloquial name, the article does not appear to assert its notability; which may partly be because I am unable to understand much of what it written. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 22:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Joestella 00:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe it can be mentionned in the two state highways.--JForget 01:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete-. The article would sustains notability due to the existence of two notable buildings but there is no verification sustained by reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JodyB (talk • contribs) 20:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barton Street[edit]

As with everything else I'm dredging up whilst cleaning up Category:Streets in London, sending it to AfD instead of prodding as named geographic locations are always contentious. I cannot see any grounds for keeping it; the street from The Bill is a red-herring coincidence as the TV series isn't set anywhere near here; is two famous former residents enough to make the street notable? In my opinion, no — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't look to be a notable street.--JForget 01:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability Corpx 05:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing to assert its notability -- Roleplayer 00:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has a Blue plaque - an historical marker. Bearian 02:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Blue plaque's not on the street, it's on a building that happens to be on the street -- and there are over 700 Blue Plaques in London to begin with.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs) 14:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be also 2 other notable buildings. DGG (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of notability for the street. --Calton | Talk 14:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would think any street that close to the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey is notable, ~~certainly as part of the Whitehall~~, being the center of power of an extremely historic empire. Per DGG, several historic buildings on it do make a street notable. --Oakshade 19:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whatever it is, it certainly wasn't part of Whitehall; it's well on the other side of Westminster Abbey. To clarify, this isn't a broad tree-lined avenue, major highway etc but a tiny 50-yard stub of a Westminster side street (so short there's not space for the name in the A-Z - it just shows as "Bar S") behind the Liberal Democrats' offices — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have an A-Z too and see the same thing. I still would say any street a stone's throw away from Westminster Abbey has historical significance and I'm sure with time, probably from actual pre-net age books, content will appear.--Oakshade 16:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lack of notability does not justify an entry. --Gavin Collins 10:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Xoloz 14:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dorset Street, London[edit]

As with everything else I'm finding whilst cleaning up Category:Streets in London, sending it to AfD instead of prodding as named geographic locations are always contentious. Does a street that no longer exist warrant an article owing to events that happened there? This is a procedural nom to get a community consensus on whether it should be kept, so I abstain — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone comes up with more than the Ripper connection. All it needs is a mention on the Ripper page. MarkBul 21:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve content with descriptions and illustrations of the 1888 geography of the street. MattHucke ^(t) 21:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as independent evidence of notability has not been provided. --Gavin Collins 23:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think that a murder case will make this page notable.--JForget 01:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ditto the Ripper connection, though that actually took place in Miller's Court, which would suggest that the latter is the one that needs an article. -- Roleplayer 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above as NN crime scene - the crime is notable, but not the scene. Bearian 02:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Iridescent, could you please give us some idea of where you have already looked so we don't duplicate. I would suggest that perhaps it might have been a better idea to do a smaller number at a time--I want to try to look for famous institutions and residences but I only have time to do one or two in the five days.DGG (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Replied on my talk page — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep Absent stronger evidence, there is a longstanding consensus that all Playboy centerfolds are notable, given the fame of the publication both within and without its genre. No other claims have been to alter that presumption. Xoloz 14:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marliece Andrada[edit]

To delete all Playboy Magazine Covers and all articles where the model's only claim on "Notability" is that she appeared as a playmate once on Playboy. See today's discussion, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Playboy_Magazine_Covers.

Other articles to be deleted are in Category:Playboy magazine covers

Tovojolo 21:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Playboy centerfolds are inherently notable per WP:PORNBIO. If you disagree with this, I suggest that you address it by discussing the guideline itself. As far as the images go, please take them to IFD rather than trying to include them in this AFD. If you meant to nominate the image for deletion (Image:Playboy March 1998.jpg) please withdraw this nomination and create a new IFD in it's place, or possibly just tag it as non-free use disputed. If you would like help/instructions with doing this, please respond here and I or someone else should be happy to help. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per After Midnight. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are these pornstars? I dont think PORNBIO applies to models Corpx 05:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point. In my mind: yes, since most people would consider Playboy pornography (it is age restricted, afterall), hence the people who appear in it would be pornstars. That said, it's not really the same thing as appearing in a hardcore video or some such. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Being the centerfold is covered in criteria #1 of PORNBIO. Also, there is a bit more discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors)#Hustler Honey should not be sufficient for notability. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has already been plenty of clearing out of Playboy wankcruft, with the deletion of all the Cybergirls of the Week and cover models from Playboy ancillary publications. I don't think it needs to be extended to the Playmates, and if a new precedent is to be set, I think the debate needs to be more widely publicized than this relatively obscure AFD. With all due respect to the discussion on AN/I, I don't think Theresa Knott is fully equipped to appreciate the notability of Playboy Playmates. Furthermore, these days Playmates also usually appear in other Playboy media, and in this particular case, she had a part on Baywatch as well. --Groggy Dice T | C 20:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep only because of the appearance in Gex 3. I don't believe PORNBIO applies to models who are not pornstars. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Minimal discussion is sufficient, given the obviousness of the content's unencyclopedic nature. Xoloz 14:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turf Management Degree[edit]

Individual program at one college, therefore non-notable. Alksub 21:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also first section is a copyright violation: [9]. Han-Kwang (t) 22:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Appears to not have reliable sources. Note that a program at an individual college could have sufficient sources to be notable by itself, so the nomination's reasoning does not support deletion by itself. However, this program is not notable. JoshuaZ 00:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danvers Street[edit]

Has been up for two years now with no sign of anyone expanding it beyond its three sentences. I'm unable to find anything of not ever having happened on this street, and IMO Alexander Fleming living there does not make it notable. As with everything else I'm dredging up whilst cleaning up Category:Streets in London, sending it to AfD instead of prodding as named geographic locations are always contentious — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references indicate notability. WP:OUTCOMES states that "minor streets are not generally notable." --Alksub 21:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. MarkBul 21:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Jakew 21:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability not inherited. --Gavin Collins 23:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of Notability.--JForget 01:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless anyone can provide any evidence of notability. -- Roleplayer 00:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Iridescent, could you please give us some idea of where you have already looked so we don't duplicate. I would suggest that perhaps it might have been a better idea to do a smaller number at a time--I want to try to look for famous institutions and residences but I only have time to do one or two in the five days. And what if anything have the people !voting delete looked at? Frankly, I don't think this is a fair way to do it--its very strongly biased towards deletion with too little chance to improve them. DGG (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Replied on my talk page — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. @pple complain 10:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of trance artists[edit]

This list is redundant with the category Category:Trance musicians. It has been around for 2 years and is still not any good and mostly serves as a redlink farm (of nn artists) and is a spam target. I have discussed this with the only other editor who has been trying to improve it recently and he agreed. Leaving this article here increases the amount of bookkeeping while not adding any useful navigation or additional content. For these reasons, I don't believe that this list serves any of the objectives outlined in WP:LIST and should be deleted as redundant to the corresponding category. Wickethewok 20:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need to duplicate the category.--JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 21:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as serving no informational or navigational purpose beyond the corresponding category's. --Alksub 21:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now. Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Advantages of lists advanages pt. 3, "Lists can include items for which there are yet no articles (red links).", which taking a brief glance at this shows there are a really rather large number of redlinks. Whilst normally I don't like these lists (they don't add anything extra to the topic that the category doesn't cover, aside from my point), there seems to be enough redlinks to warrant keeping this one for the time being. At least until a lot of the gaps can be filled in, anyway. (Struck out pending comment below.) AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I missed your covering it (I really shouldn't try and build arguments when I've been up for 16+ hours without caffeine :)), how many of these redlinks are definitely nn? How many would be able to maintain their own articles without being AfD'd? You say "mostly", I know, but how many *can* stand on their own two feet do you reckon? AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as the cat is more then enough.--JForget 01:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless you put this list or an abridged list with the page for trance music itself, I think this should stay. It was helpful to me.--JBRam_2002 22:58, 1 September 2007 (EST)

How was this helpful to you in a way that the category would not be? I don't see the purpose of putting an abridged list in the trance music article - that will just lead to another giant list of trance artists duplicating the category. The most important artists should be mentioned in the text already. Wickethewok 04:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' does nothing a category cant except attract spam links Corpx 05:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was resolved outside of AfD. Mackensen (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small world experiment[edit]

Small world phenomenon:-
- At 08:02, 20 August 2002 it was started.
- After that it was edited 259 times.
- At 22:16, 27 May 2007 User:Luneraako replaced it with a redirect to Small world experiment.

Small world experiment:-
- At 16:08, 5 May 2004 it was started as a redirect to Small world phenomenon, and remained so until:
- At 20:05, 12 December 2006 User:Jerfgoke replaced it by a copy of http://austria.phys.nd.edu/netwiki/index.php?title=Milgram_Experiment (a page in a wiki whose Main Page is http://austria.phys.nd.edu/netwiki/index.php/Main_Page ).
- After that it was edited several times but with little change, until:
- At 22:15, 27 May 2007 User:Luneraako merged Small world phenomenon into it.
- After that it was edited many more times.

The alternatives seem to be:-

If Jerfgoke's action is acceptable, leave Small world experiment and Small world phenomenon alone.
If Jerfgoke's action was a copyvio, revert Small world experiment to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Small_world_experiment&oldid=133231068 (18:49, 24 May 2007 by User:Mikkalai) and replace Small world phenomenon by a redirect to Small world experiment.

Anthony Appleyard 16:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I'm concerned about this (Besides the confusion it generated) is the lack of a copyright notice or licence from other wiki (The AustriAn one). It was also not a very skillful copy, since the text still says things like "See Figure 1". 68.39.174.238 19:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You should discuss this on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, not here on AfD. The source ('netwiki') seems to have been inactive since January 2007 [10] and there's no contact information whatsoever. It is well possible that one of the netwiki editors moved the article to Wikipedia without thinking that it might raise suspicions about copyright without proper attribution. I'd say leave it or try to contact someone from netwiki to ask for explicit permission. Han-Kwang (t) 21:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC) -- I've just sent an email. Hopefully we get a reply with a clear 'no problem' or 'please remove the offending material'. Han-Kwang (t) 23:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got an email reply from someone at nd.edu, saying "I do not know who in the group did this, but probably was part of our class on networks, so any of the 20 students attending could have contributed to the page.". Hmm. On the one hand, I suspect that the original author wouldn't mind having a wider audience like on Wikipedia, but on the other hand, we don't know for sure. And now the netwiki server is offline. Han-Kwang (t) 17:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While this might conceivably be a problem, it does not meet the current standard for being reported as a copyright violation. (The one where you supply a URL to the website that has the same content). We should stand ready to delete the article if someone comes forward to say that their copyright has been violated. As it is, we are trusting that the original contributors had the right to add their material. It is possible that some of them ARE the original authors of the material at the other wiki. Since this appears to involve a university class, there is no commercial author who is losing business due to this article being here. If Anthony feels that this is serious enough to report at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, he could certainly do that. EdJohnston 01:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument about losing business sounds strange to me. I have a website that isn't making me any money, but I still get upset when people rip the content (which has happened several times). As for being reported as a CV, it did meet the standard. Only now the server went offline. Han-Kwang (t) 14:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that we can't assume that the person who contributed the information didn't have the right to do so. At that point, there's no certain violation of copyrights. That is, unless it's a part of a commercial project, in which case whoever contributed it would be doing so in a fashion that makes Wikipedia a source of lost revenue due to copyright infringement. Material being used for commercial projects is (virtually) never released under a copyright that allows its creators to also contribute it to Wikipedia. At least, that's what I think is going on here. --Cheeser1 16:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This matter including the copyvio allegation came to my attention as an entry in Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Anthony Appleyard 05:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 20:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The alleged original source of the text is inaccessible. --Alksub 21:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and discuss issue at WP:CP. There isn't any deletion to discuss here and this isn't a forum for content or editor review. I'm inclined to revert to before the "merge" (or whatever it was), but I think the WP:CP regulars (though overburdened) have more of a handle on what to do in these cases than the broader AFD audience. --Dhartung | Talk 05:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Does not meet any criterion for deletion. Even if the content of the entire article had to be removed for copyright violations, we'd leave the blank page there and have to rebuild it from scratch, not delete it and throw the baby out with the bathwater. --Cheeser1 16:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion . (Anthony, I think you just mixed up which one has the clean content) The solution is to Revert Small world phenomenon to the last clean version, the one before 22:16, 27 May 2007 [11], make Small world experiment to a redirect to it, because its present content is based on an apparent copyvio, and to have people decide on the talk page what the proper title should be, and then restore whatever good original edits can be identified. If there are no objections I will do just that. it's an editing question, not one for AfD. There can be no compromise about copyright when a cut and paste from an outside source is quite this obvious. We do not wait for complaints. Anthony--do you agree I have the sequence right?DGG (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree - this suggestion seems like the most reasonable course of action. --Cheeser1 08:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, OK, I agree. Anthony Appleyard 08:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 2008 (UK)[edit]

The last series has only just finished, the next is not for another 9 months, there will be no information on this until a few weeks before the series starts John Hayes^talk 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Past articles haven't been created until a week or so before the main series: once official information has been released. We should stick to this trend as per the Big Brother WikiProject - ǀ Mikay ǀ 20:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is has been strongly suggested there may not even be a 2008 series given the reduction in average number of viewers and the decline in interest. Delete for now and if/when a series is definitively confirmed, the article can be recreated a few weeks before the series starts or at such a time as there is an abundance of material to write about. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 20:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The auditions have already been mentioned in Big Brother (UK), so since the 2008 article has very little content apart from this, that page is now a bit redundant. I would suggest that it is redirected to the main Big Brother UK article for now, then later on when more concrete information comes out about the new series, the page can be recreated over the redirect. Tra (Talk) 20:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and semi-protect. Redirects are cheap and easy. AfD it again if it's confirmed there will be no new series. Wl219 21:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only non-trivial information in this is the prize money, and that's so completely irrelevent - in the terms of a WP article - that it's really not enough. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL as there's no confirmation the series will go ahead, there's no information worth keeping, and there's no bonus from keeping the article now over recreating it [much] closer to the date. Redirecting could be fine, depending on where. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 21:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there appears to be no real information about this new series yet available, and certainly no confirmation it will take place. J Milburn 00:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, doesn't contain any actual content. When more information is released about the series, it may be re-created. Melsaran (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It was confirmed on the Big Brother 2007 (UK) final, with auditions being held? Channel 4 recently confirmed Celebrity Big Brother would be cancelled; they would've confirmed it then also if Big Brother wasn't to return, I'd have expected. 82.13.40.46 14:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still to early for an article. Any non-trivial information can be handled in the main article.-- danntm ^T _C 16:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love BB & am all for making this article. But if this is supposed to be a reliable. don't you think we need to gather a bit more info?--Hiltonhampton 21:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete future event that hasn't even been confirmed yet. -- Roleplayer 00:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too early for an article. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 02:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. This person would be notable, if her claim as world's oldest pornographic actress could be verified. It cannot, as the only source provided gives a minimal listing for her. With so little information available, BLP concerns are also significant in this case. Xoloz 14:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Agree[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No assertion of notability. Does not appear to meet either WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, oldest porn star, but no assertion of notability. Carlosguitar 20:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Warning Don't follow the link and look at the picture. <shiver!> MarkBul 21:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wish I'd heeded the warning <shudder!>. I have to say an octogenarian in porn has to be notable... doesn't it? It's not as if the industry is crawling with them (thank $DEITY). Gotta admit though it's certainly a niche speciality and that meets WP:PORNBIO #3 --WebHamster 01:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WebHamster. (At the risk of making an uninformed decision -- I'm heeding everyone's advice and staying away from the actual page. But being the oldest porn star alive seems to be prima facie evidence of notability to me. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the information one the page can be verified Corpx 05:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless attribution of notability claim ("oldest porn actress", basically) can be confirmed. --Dhartung | Talk 05:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems it's moot. The article appears to be a copyvio of Answers.com article. On the other hand she does have a page on iMDB. Although I can't find anything that says she is the oldest, there are quite a few links that say she is in her 80s. That alone should meet WP:PORNBIO #3.--WebHamster 18:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answers.com link is a mirror of wikipedia. Honestly, just being an old pornstar is not really being innovative, is it? Corpx 19:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops typo, I meant #2 (the first time too). The Asnswers.com article isn't a mirror, there's a paragraph on it that isn't on the WP version.--WebHamster 19:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answers.com is a mirror of Wikipedia. Please see, 20 May 2007 revision. Carlosguitar 19:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its from an older revision Corpx 19:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable actress. Keb25 13:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete for now, without prejudice to recreation if this package attains wider notoriety. Mackensen (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiveopteryx[edit]

This article was originally PRODed an nn, but an editor left an impolite message saying that he was reposting the content, which is (I guess) one way of contesting the thing. Anyway, no reliable sources, no evidence of notability, slightly advertorial. Delete. Xoloz 19:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A google search yields 12,400 results which do appear to conquer with the content of our article as far as I can see, borderline web-tech article. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 20:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually do this, but I hope you mean "concur", not "conquer"... I was really confused for a second! :) I think web citations for a modern tech-industry product can be deceptive, so I don't agree with apply the Google test here. Xoloz 20:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: article was only restored "from cache" after being deleted, so I have "really" restored the previous revisions to keep GFDL history intact. Миша 13 20:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NN. --Evb-wiki 23:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to do anything that any other mail server can't do, and no sources to say it does it better. I do like the irony of an "archive" being the article's downfall :) --WebHamster 01:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See below for details about its notable features. Or give the stub’s current content a close reading. Also, I find it interesting that you implicate that irony could be a determining factor in your voting behavior. Sean M. Burke 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is just incidental, it has no part in the formation of my 'vote'. --WebHamster 22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since this is a case of borderline notability, it might be worth keeping the article if it explained the technology very well. However I am still puzzled, after reading the article, even after reading everything that sounded useful from the first two pages of Google hits, and some of the package's own documentation.

From the web site, it sounds like it is being written by two programmers in their spare time. So not a real software company yet. This is a mail server. What clients work with it? (e.g. on PC, Mac, Linux) How do you operate all the nifty database search features? (Do the available IMAP clients support that?) Is this server installed in any actual companies? Is it being sold for money? What packages compete with it? Don't any other mail servers use a real database like PostgreSQL? If this package is in actual use, surely the trade press would have written about it.: Just doesn't have a serious air of being a real product that is having an impact on the world. Perhaps later.

EdJohnston 02:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See below for details.
I suggest considering that this is a stub, not an article. Like I always say, "delete the stub, never get the article." Sean M. Burke 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you itching to delete Binc_IMAP too, for all the same reasons? Sean M. Burke 00:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask and you shall receive. --WebHamster 01:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I always say, "delete the stub, never get the article." Or ya know, maybe mail server software in an inherently non-notable class. Speaking of which, you might also choose to spend a few months going thru [[12]] fact-checking the notability of «artist»s' articles and stubs. Some gallery shows make them notable, some are merely vanity shows, and some are probably just fictitious. It's an exciting and rich opportunity to adumbrate and apply new Wiki-policies, thus gaining Wiki-whuffie. Speaking of which, is the article whuffie notable? It's merely a plot device in a single, unimpressive, novella. In conclusion, Carthago delenda est. Sean M. Burke 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A journey of a 1000 miles... If it's truly worthy (and this goes for any article of any topic) then it will resurface in a better form, they always do. It may not be in a week, it may not be in a year, but sooner or later it will. Gardeners have known about pruning for years. It's tried and tested. There's no reason it can't work for WP. --WebHamster 22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an Archiveopteryx developer, so I'm not voting one way or another. I've made minor changes to the article in the past (updating the "current version", for example). I just thought I'd address EdJohnston's somewhat puzzling comments, and then I'm withdrawing from this discussion unless someone asks me a specific question.

I don't know what gave you this impression. The software is developed and supported full-time by Oryx (as it has been for the past three years), which is a GmbH registered in Munich, as mentioned on the "about the company" page.
It is an IMAP/POP server, so IMAP/POP clients work with it. The web site has a list of tested clients and known problems on the page for the appropriate protocol. The details didn't seem appropriate for the Wikipedia article.
I assume you're referring to virtual folders. They're implemented in such a way that existing clients can use those folders, but again, the details of how to set them up seem inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.
I don't know what you mean by "actual" companies, but a number of people do use it in production. It is available on commercial terms, as explained on the web site (but surely that has little bearing on notability as such).
There are a few other servers that store mail in a database (e.g. Dbmail). To our knowledge, Archiveopteryx is the only one that completely discards the RFC-822 storage format, and uses a properly normalised SQL representation for mail (which it was designed from the start to do). That is primarily what makes the software notable, in my opinion. Whether that meets the notability criteria for an entry in Wikipedia is for someone else to decide.
Again, I have no idea what you consider "actual" use.

I had considered editing the article to add more detail (several weeks ago), but I refrained, because articles on somewhat comparable open source projects (e.g. Dovecot) didn't go into more detail; and also because it seemed likely to be considered a conflict of interest, and we have no interest in either advertising or deception.

-- 59.176.72.33 05:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders whether your actually coherent, informative, and relevant explanation will ever compel anyone to change their votes, or do anything other than just reflexively mash "delete". It just seems to be that kind of day around the Wikiwelt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sburke (talk • contribs) 3 September 2007.

Keep - this stub notes the product's unique and notable features. My policy: give stubs a generous benefit of the doubt, or they never get to be articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sburke (talk • contribs) 3 September 2007.
Comment. When we see an article appear about a commercial product, we often assume that the maker had some hand in the creation of the article. If the article doesn't look like a complete job, an AfD debate sometimes follows, and this is essentially the last chance to get the full attention of the creator for improvement of the article. The way the article reads now, it is about the five millionth mail server, that says very little about why we should be interested, or even why we should buy the product. (People who make products are sometimes unaware that a truly informative presentation in Wikipedia is likely to sell more copies).

So here we have a rather unimpressive article, and we have to decide if we should keep it in its reduced state, or try to catch the attention of the creator to make some improvements. I made some effort above, and I see I got the attention of one of the developers, which is good. However he didn't grasp the obvious point that he is free to improve the article himself, and that could make the article more worthy of being kept. Note that Sburke, the one who opines about Wikipedia philosophy, and believes that small stubs can grow into great oak trees, is the creator of the article. The anonymous developer who gave substantive answers above, 59.176.72.33 (talk · contribs), appears to be different from Sburke. Either gentleman is welcome to improve the article. Don't be shy about actually stating whether you have real commercial customers who are paying for the product. If you don't, then complete frankness is often a winning strategy. If the entire product is available as open source, then explain how. EdJohnston 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (again, in response to EdJohnston's comments above).

Yes, I'm different from Sburke.
I was reluctant to expand the article significantly, as I stated earlier, because I thought it might be considered a conflict of interest, and not because I somehow failed to realise that I could.
I looked at the entries for Postfix and Cyrus (among others), and have now expanded the Archiveopteryx entry. I added "Features" and "Security" sections and, most importantly, a "Mail Storage" section that explains the unusual storage model and its consequences. I can add more/other details if there is agreement that the modified article is heading in the right direction. (Suggestions are welcome.)
There are two references to the open source license, and the links to the project's web page prominently feature "download" links and release notes, and so on. This is consistent with the articles for many other open source projects. I don't understand why any more detail is needed here, or indeed, how I could provide it, if it were.
I don't know if it is now permitted to remove the tag that marks the article as a stub. (I note that, e.g. the Postfix article is of comparable detail, and is not marked a stub.)

-- 59.176.72.33 10:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks to 59.176.72.33 (talk · contribs) for greatly improving the article technically. Would still like to see some outside commentary to prove notability. Even if one of the web sites that follows PostgreSQL developments had commented, that would be useful. I agree that the Stub tag can be removed. If Archiveopteryx isn't found notable this time around, I imagine it will in the future if development continues at this rate. EdJohnston 14:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, regrettably, I cant find notability here. The product looks great, but I've only found a lot of minor mentions[13][14] ; we need some significant independent coverage. John Vandenberg 02:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Minor mentions" (e.g. [15][16]) are all there are. Since everyone seems to be opposed to retaining the article, could someone please delete it now, rather than leaving it with a big "scheduled for deletion" banner? -- 59.176.72.33 08:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An admin should be coming along soon to determine the consensus of this discussion; as you have acknowledged minor mentions is all that there are currently, an outcome of delete is very likely. John Vandenberg 08:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Fails WP:V. Xoloz 15:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaka Nayaka[edit]

Fails WP:V; also, notability is not established. No sources have been provided (except two links to fictional works who seem to be related to the topic; these links are dead however). It is not even clear by the article whether Kaka Nayaka is a real historical person, a legendary hero, or a fictional character. Expert review request to WikiProject India did not clear up the matter either. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately without sources, there is no way to assert notability and verification. Carlosguitar 20:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for verifiability problems. I found one source (reprinted multiple times) that encompasses the first two sentences, but the rest, aside from the play and movie is, thus far, unverifiable.--Sethacus 20:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:V--JForget 01:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete once articles have been categorized. Mackensen (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defence companies of Serbia[edit]

Totally unreferenced and non notable.Harlowraman 19:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is kept, it should probably be moved to List of Serbian defence contractors. It could be argued that this article and Category:Defence companies of Serbia (couldn't link the cat for some reason) are redundant to one another; FWIW, there are only two articles linked from the list and only two articles in the cat. One of the usual arguments for keeping list articles that could be considered redundant to existing cats is that lists can contain redlinks, as this one does (or would, if the names of companies that don't have articles were links). So, the argument would be for deleting the category and keeping this--except that the article has no sources. Could some possibly be added? Heather 20:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strongly resembles [17]. ~~Several of the entries do not appear to be defense companies. --Alksub 21:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)~~ Lacks references and context. --Alksub 21:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete make a category for the notable ones, otherwise this is a directory information Corpx 05:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes-Benz Mixed Tapes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Mercedes-Benz is certainly notable. However, these mixtapes are not the subject of multiple, non-trivial sources. With a typical album article, you have background info, production, themes, sales, certifications, reviews from music critics etc. But these tapes don't really have any potential to expand. Spellcast 18:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not been covered by any independent sources. Wickethewok 20:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At most a nod could be made to them on the band's page. Burzmali 21:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As for notability, the series was nominated for a Gold Lion at the Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival (in the viral marketing category), and a claimed 20 million downloads in a year, which isn't bad. And then you've got a few things like this floating around, and I think I read a comment somewhere that it had been mentioned in some German papers. And of course a bunch of notable bands participating. --Lijnema 22:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not everything is notable simply because it's made by a notable company. JIP | Talk 10:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wormwood Street[edit]

A relatively insignificant street in the City of London, with no assertion of notability (and as far as I'm aware, there's nothing particularly notable on it, other than the fact that it suffered damage in the Bishopsgate bomb). Has been up for two years now with no sign of expanding, other than the addition of the photo (which can be rehoused to Bishopsgate). Not prodding due to the fact that named geographic locations are invariably contested. — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wormwood Street is notable for marking part of the line of London Wall and the name is interesting as denoting the type of plant which used to grow on the aforesaid wall and in other wasteground in the City. The street is also mentioned in other encycopedias such as 'The London Encyclopedia' by Weinreb and Hibbert and books such as Al Smith's 'Dictionary of City of London Street Names' Colin4C 18:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an assertion of notability as providing evidence for the date of construction of London Wall. In historical terms, moving it back over 20 years is significant. This is an intra-mural street, and as such is quite distinct from extra-mural Bishopsgate. If the content were to be merged, it would be better merged as a continuation of London Wall. I would agree that not every street and alley in the City should be listed, but this street does have a 1700 year history and forms an important boundary. Within the city there seems to be a far greater propensity to catalogue ephemeral buildings, many of which have little significance beyond providing publicity for the architects. Cheers Kbthompson 11:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal note I find the name Wormwood Street very evocative. Wormwood is used to make absinthe and is also referred to in the Book of Revelations. In Russian it is 'Chernobyl'... In fact I'm quite surprised that Messrs Ackroyd and Sinclair haven't written a book on it yet. Colin4C 12:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep though it needs expanding, particularly with regard to its history and link to the ancient London Wall. -- Roleplayer 00:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Roleplayer. Bearian 02:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not an expert like Iridescent, but I'd think there would be sources for the notabiity over time of every historic street and alley in the City--though of course not in all of London. DGG (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The City of London is one of those city sections that just about every street has historical significance as the area's history dates back to at least Mercia times. The case demonstrated above is an example of that. --Oakshade 23:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete and salt.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Stoffer[edit]

Was contacted by this article's subject regarding WP:BLP concerns, which given some recent anonymous edits are valid ones concerning unsourced and pretty serious allegations. Given that this seems to be causing quite a bit of distress to the subject of the article and she has requested deletion, I suggest that it be deleted. The biographical notability is borderline at best, I don't really see that we can write a full biography here, and it seems that the information in the article could easily be briefly covered in the articles regarding the television shows. (Note: Below edit was made before this nomination was complete.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YES!! Please delete! It is plagued with vandalism all the time! If someone makes it again, DELETE IT AGAIN or protect it fully!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoptheslander (talk • contribs)
Delete and salt, per nom. This article seems destined to be a BLP violation, and I don't think it could be stopped by a simple delete. Salting would protect the subject from further harm as a result of this article. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 20:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above. It's WP:N is questionable anyway. --Evb-wiki 21:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per subject's request. Durova^Charge! 10:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the history, it's hard to see how a good encyclopaedic article could result from a Keep. Of course WP needs to protect itself from damaging libel cases, but I still think it's sad that a determined vandal can achieve such a result in what might otherwise be a borderline WP:N debate. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 17:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think this would still be an AfD, but it probably would've gone through the process with a lot less vitriol associated with it. Although everyone here seems to be in agreement...would it be appropriate to close it early and delete, given the WP:BLP difficulties inherent? =David^(talk)_(contribs) 19:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I won't do it, given that it's my nomination. If someone comes along and wants to close it early, I have no objection. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#A7. It's possibly an attack page also. - KrakatoaKatie 12:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tandem Hero Records[edit]

Lack of notablilty as per Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines
-- Python (Talk to me!) 18:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, fails to establish notability, and utterly fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO and Wikipedia is not for something made up at Denny's. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably speedy as stated above. --Stormbay 01:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete both.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles related to Omaha, Nebraska[edit]

One of those lists that obviously serve better as a category, "list of articles related to" gives it away. Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also listing List of articles related to North Omaha, Nebraska, Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Theres already a category or Omaha, so articles should be listed there, not in article space. --Hdt83 ^Chat 19:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously redundant with the category. Wickethewok 20:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article and the category serve the same purpose. Useight 00:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an indiscriminate mess, it contains people who were born in Omaha, films that feature Omaha, parks in Omaha, buildings in Omaha. There is also the similar List of articles related to North Omaha, Nebraska, which should probably be nominated as well. Crazysuit 01:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really, indiscriminate information. I dont want to see List of articles by <city> Corpx 05:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Better as category, also unencyclopedic self reference. IvoShandor 11:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make a category per IvoShandor. Bearian 02:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, utterly needless lists. JIP | Talk 10:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quaker Alley[edit]

I am reluctant to prod this, as there might be coverage of the rat-baiting in Victorian publications that haven't made it online. Can anyone find a reason to keep it? Please? — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I love rat-baiting as much as the next guy, but if that's the only notability connection, then this article doesn't hold up. MarkBul 18:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Was the rat-baiting champion the Master Baiter? — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -That's shocking!! How old are you?:)Merkinsmum 19:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to rat-baiting, if the content isn't already there, which the photo is I see. IvoShandor 11:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to rat-baiting and Somers Town, as this gives some flavour of the historic Somerstown, largely eliminated by Kings Cross and St Pancras. Otherwise, it's just an orphaned factoid. Kbthompson 15:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unless of course there are other sources. DGG (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a reliable source can be found. The source listed is a book-selling, Amazon-linking blog and not necessarily to be trusted. Perhaps it's just my suspicious nature, wondering why they were talking about dollars in old London town... Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 21:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy keep. This is heading for a snowball if not already there right now. Questions of the faith of the nomination aren't playing a part in the decision to close this one early. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Runrig[edit]

The article lacks severely in sources and has been tagged as such for months now with no-one attempting to fix it whatsoever. It is generally a bad article which should be deleted and perhaps started over. Boingboingboingboing 17:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the international touring alone makes them notable. Many articles need editing - that's not reason for deletion. MarkBul 18:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Runrig are notable for their part in the Scottish Folk Revival and their music is regularly heard on the BBC's folk programs. Badly written articles need to be edited, unsourced ones sourced, not deleted. I'll have a go at doing both.KTo288 19:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Keep extremely notable band, passing WP:MUSIC on every point. That this is the nominator's first edit suggests a bad-faith nomination. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously passes WP:MUSIC, as it sourced reliably and is also a band that has been on international tours. However, though this is the nominators first edit and perhaps bad faith, let us assume good faith by assuming this was a good faith nom. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 20:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major Scottish band, obviously passes WP:MUSIC, and article is now better sourced thanks to KTo288. Iain99 21:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep Runrig were a big band in their time. Did the nominator look for sources himself before nominating? Nick mallory 23:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was deleted as the user is a sockpuppet of someone I blocked a while ago.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nickirelan.com[edit]

This is a fork from the Dave Winer article. Consensus on that article's talk page was not to include the information there, and I don't think it's worthy of it's own article under web notability guidelines. The article has a whole host of irreperable neutrality and conflict of interest issues. Darksun 17:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article linked to by the Cybersquatting article. The incident was featured on Valleywag and recived a comment from Dave Winer. I feel that any complaints about this article are alleged because Darksun is looking at the fact that the website is not notable. I admit that the site itself is not notable. However the act of cybersquatting obviously is. NickIre
- A brief mention in a (admittadly notable) blog doesn't make the incident notable. Major coverage in multiple reliable sources might, but I see no evidence of this. Darksun 17:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet one more episode in the attack on Wikipedia by multiply-banned Nick Irelan, now trying a new sock and a new tactic to push his POV. See the earlier w:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Nirelan. The incident is not notable, the gossip blogs Valleywag and Eye on Winer are not an encyclopedia-quality sources. betsythedevine 17:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Greswik 17:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:COI vio, WP:NPOV vio, WP:WEB vio. Nothing but a attempt by Nick Irelan to push his point. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 20:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Darksun as a POV fork of the Dave Winer article. No evidence of notability for this incident. EdJohnston 21:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete both per WP:NOT. ELIMINATORJR 14:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hypermode[edit]

Article fails to establish why the subject is notable outside of the game-world: indeed, I don't think that - even with reliable sources, which it currently lacks - it is. Article is poorly written, and whilst that itself doesn't mean it should be deleted, WP:NOT#GUIDE is. I don't see how it can be re-written to be suitable to Wikipedia. Delete.

I am also nominating the following related page, made by the same author:

For the same reasons & recommending the same outcome. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beserker lord and Merge Hypermode, Hypermode plays an important role in the game. -Flubeca^Talk 23:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not game guide Corpx 05:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raimondo Guarini[edit]

Aside from a title which approaches record length, this article has major problems. It appears to have been copied and pasted from some source, though apparently not online. Notability is possible, but verification is difficult. The article definitely lacks encyclopedic tone, particularly with phrases like "One may derive great pleasure by reading...." This article is fixable, but the original author has ignored requests to do so. Right now, it looks horrible. Realkyhick 17:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Nomination withdrawn. Much work has been done to make this article usable. The subject seems to be obviously notable, now that the article has been fixed. The Heymann Standard has been met. Motion to close this discussion administratively, with thanks to all those who worked to rescue this article. Realkyhick 04:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 19:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation. I found some books written by him and, obviously, some about him, that may, on closer inspection, lead to notability. However, this article is an unsalvageable cut-and-pasted nightmare that should be totally rewritten.--Sethacus 20:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, as the subject is notable. I can't argue that it's "an unsalvageable cut-and-pasted nightmare that should be totally rewritten," but that's not really a reason for deletion. Please, go rewrite the dude's article. I've started by moving it to a real title. KP Botany 21:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now at Raimondo Guarini. The redirect has been deleted. --Bduke 00:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fixed the link to the new article. The page title of the debate can stay as it was. J Milburn 00:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep in light of the changes being done by myself and KP Botany. I've just copywritten the article and added information on a secondary school named in his honor.--Sethacus 02:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Oh, thanks, among it, the David Crews and the Anna Wilding articles I thought I'd stepped into a foreign language. This one was the most important, but I just couldn't slog through the English any more. KP Botany 02:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Greatly improved, folks. Good work! I think this now meets The Heymann Standard, and I'm withdrawing the nomination. Thanks to everyone involved. (Is there a place to nominate articles needing emergency help like this, when the subject itself is probably notable but the article itself is a basket case? If not, there should be.) Realkyhick 04:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could always do the clean up yourself, rather than relying on other people to do it or (wrongly) nominating it for an AfD. AfD is not for clean up. You said in your nomination that it was fixable, so why not try to fix it first? Nick mallory 04:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for dictating how I spend my time on Wikipedia via an AfD. Feel free to ask someone on their user page in the future. KP Botany 04:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And move it to a proper title, and speedy the crap title, first, next time, also. Geeze. KP Botany 04:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one was beyond my ability to fix, frankly. I had asked the original author to do so, with no reply. No one dictated how anyone should spend their time. The article, when first nominated, was a bunch of undecipherable crap and deserved to be deleted as it stood. Others with better knowledge of the subject (and more patience) fixed it after the nomination, and thereby salvaged it. There seems to be a few folks who believe that if an article is nominated, subsequently fixed and the nominations is withdrawn, then the nominator should be chastised for wasting time, bandwidth and other precious resources. Frankly, that's a pretty poor attitude. I nominate articles for AfD when I feel an article is beyond hope. But if someone else comes along and fixes it (which doesn't happen all that often), I'm not going to be so hard-headed as to say, "I nominated this for deletion and, by golly, I'm sticking with that view no mater what." If the original article had been deleted, or if it is improved and kept — both are positive outcomes for Wikipedia as a whole, and that is ultimately what is important.

(Yeah, I should've moved it to a different title, though. I'll 'fess up to that one.) Realkyhick 05:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drummond Street[edit]

AfD-ing rather than prodding as I can see a possible (just) case for defending this street. It is a focal point for London's Indian community, but (having worked in the area for some years), I can't think of anything noteworthy or notable about the street itself as opposed to some of the buildings on it — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, if it's a focal point for the Indian community, it should be easy to write more about it. And what is a street but for the buildings on it? The place is notable, and the street is the name of the place. Wl219 21:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage for this street. Corpx 05:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability -- Roleplayer 00:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change of vote to keep per Secretlondon. -- Roleplayer 22:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is notable as an "area", it doesn't have to be about the physical tarmac or whatever. Secretlondon 09:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I can't withdraw this nom as it has delete !votes, on reflection I'm changing my opinion to Keep on this one. While the current article certainly isn't it, this is, as Secretlondon says expandable as an article on the area, as it's become a de facto name for the part of Somers Town west of Euston Station — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge and redirect to Cleveland_(30_Rock_episode). Mackensen (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black crusaders[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Black crusaders

Not notable, w/o references. Brokethebank 17:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cleveland_(30_Rock_episode) --Darksun 17:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Darksun's suggestion -- Robert Moore 08:26 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Cleveland_(30_Rock_episode). Carlosguitar 07:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, as there was no consensus. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 17:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC) non-admin closure[reply]

Jam Master Jay Records[edit]

Fails WP:CORP because there's no non-trivial coverage from secondary sources. All that is really said about the label is that it was founded by Jam Master Jay. So the depth of coverage is not substantial enough for its own article. Spellcast 17:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand; its stable included 50 Cent and Onyx and was founded by Jam Master Jay; that's notable enough in my eyes. Andy Saunders 17:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would think so upon first glance, but notability is not inherited. A famous artist being signed to an imprint label does not automatically make the label notable. For example, see the AfDs/deleted articles for Ca$hville Records, Infamous Records, Dumout Records, G'$ Up, G-Unit West, and 150 Entertainment. 50 Cent and Onyx are notable. This is not. Spellcast 17:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only references seem to be trivial and after Jam Master Jay's passing. Possible redirect?--Sethacus 21:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless non-inherited notability is found Corpx 05:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag: The label appears to have been around during the late 1980s, and survived until his death. Due to the time period when the label was around I would say it is fair to say that many, if not all, reliable sources that may exist might not be found online but in library periodical collections. I don't think it will hurt to let this one go and see if it can be salvaged. IvoShandor 11:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should favour keeping an article on the basis that someone could add a non-online source, which may not even exist for all we know. WP:V requires in-depth, non-secondary sources to establish notabilty. Spellcast 07:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should be saying "on the basis that someone could add a source." I don't think the encyclopedia's policies care where the source comes from.IvoShandor 16:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of ice hockey players who died young[edit]

This list is possibly infinite, and could be better used as a category, if anything. No notability behind hockey players dying, and what is even considered "young"? Ksy92003(talk) 17:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso 19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This could indeed become an indiscriminate list. "Young" doesn't have a definition (this article has defined it at 45) and the oldest person on this particular list is 44. I personally don't consider that young, but young for dying. If that makes sense. However, the only inkling of notability I find is the possibility that hockey players may die younger, on average, than the average person due to the physical strain on the body or something. Either way, I don't think this list is encyclopedic. Useight 17:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Might not be well written at the moment so could use some fix ups but it is a notable list. --Djsasso 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing about hockey players dying young that is notable. If they died young because of playing hockey, that might be different. This is closer to "Hockey Players With Hot Wives". MarkBul 18:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe the purpose is listing players who died during their career through car accidents etc and there is at least two listed though a quick skim who died actually in a game or due to an injury in a game. --Djsasso 19:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not indiscriminate information, since there is ample info in there to discriminate between each person. A category, as suggested by nominator, would be indiscriminate information. Why does everyone want to "categorize" everything anyway? I can confirm that the list is not "possibly infinite". I have looked at it again, and ruled out that possibility, verifying that it ends with the phrase "Categories: Articles for deletion | Lists of people by age" Mandsford 19:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencylopedic list of extremely minimal use and the oppourtunity for the article to become hugely indescriminate. Many sportsmen die young, as their profession often provides them with a lifestyle they cannot physically sustain (e.g. drugs, fast car accidents and lifestyle related injury), listing it is of limited use to anyone. If it were a list of people who died while actually playing professional hockey (old or young) that wouldn't be so bad, but still, who would want that info? WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 20:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It would also be a pretty damn short list; in the history of North American major senior play, Bill Masterton and Owen McCourt are the only players to have died from on-ice injuries. RGTraynor 17:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could use some work but I do not see why it should be deleted. It fulfills all the requirements for a list and covers an interesting topic. On the question of what is young I'd have to say that 45 is relatively young age for a man to die in the western world. And remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. --Krm500 20:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT. This not only enshrines the arbitrary choices of the editor ("professional" and "under 45"), those choices are unevenly applied: there are many non-professional players on that list, including many amateur players of the early days of the sport, non-pros such as Hobey Baker, and Soviet-era amateur Russians. That the list is pretty and well-formatted is nice, but there is nothing in policy guaranteeing inclusion on that basis. RGTraynor 01:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Arbitrary cut-off point, why not 40, or 50? Apparent original research by the article's creator, who has decided that 45 is "young", implying that 46 isn't young (in this context). None of the keep !voters have addressed the obvious problems with this list. Anyone else who thinks this list should be kept should look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 5#Category:People who died before the age of 50, where there was a strong consensus to delete a similarly arbitrary category. Crazysuit 01:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Quite an arbitrary set of people with which to populate a list. - Special-T 02:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RGTraynor. This seems to define an indiscriminate list to me. Young is too arbitrary. We really need to get a better list guideline going. I think User:Moonriddengirl has a discussion going here on how to reform the criteria. Please chime in (Since we seem to be getting a lot of AfD's with inconsistent results). --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is this article trying to prove? Are hockey players more likely die from off-ice incidents? Can I make an article for hockey players who died at 46? Corpx 05:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for lack of any possible objective inclusion criterion. There is no objective definition of "young" so by default the list is OR and POV. Otto4711 12:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree mostly with Krm100. However, to get rid of the subjectivity of "young", I suggest renaming the article to List of ice hockey players who have died during their playing career (compare: List of sportspeople who have died during their playing career), and altering the list to only include the players that were not already retired when they died. (Side comment: There is also a List of people who died young.) --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is a very good idea. --Djsasso 21:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: That would take away much of my objection, I admit. RGTraynor 21:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename list per Idont Havaname's suggestion. -Pparazorback 04:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep per Idont Havaname. This suggestion addresses the major concerns. -- JamesTeterenko 02:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Strong keep, As the article's creator I will say my piece.

First of all, the age is not arbitrary, Tim Horton, the oldest player to die during his career, was 44 and still playing for the Buffalo Sabres when he was killed in a car accident, so if your still young enough to play in the National Hockey League, I'm pretty sure that your still young enough to be called "young". If the oldest player was 42... it would have been listed as under 43, etc. you get my point. So its not like I'm using original research here.
This article is not without precedent, the List of people who died young article exists (among with many other similar topical articles), and has passed deletion, so this is more in a way subletting that lists information, otherwise that list will become too enormous to read (imaging joining all the players mentioned in this article with that one, AND every other sortable topic)
To those who say this should be categorized, it was categorized before under Category:National Hockey League players who died during their careers and THAT was deleted, without me even knowing I might add. So categorization doesn't seem to be an option here.
I'm not opposed to changing it to ice hockey players who died during their careers, ~~but their might be a problem with that in that it could potentially be subject to more WP:POV and original research than necessary.</s.>~~

And finally, yes, for ice hockey fans this is indeed an article of interest, especially when an NHL player dies at a young age, as unfortunate as it is. Its interesting and informative, I don't see where these original research accusations are coming from, just because there is no list anywhere else (that I could find) of this, isn't just cause for it not being on Wikipedia. That's the reason Wikipedia is here. All the information here can be sourced. Yes it isn't written in the best manner, but its quite a long list and merely typing it in and gathering all the information together took days, so I didn't really have the drive to write it in better. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 20:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Tightening up the entry criteria by renaming it List of NHL careers interrupted by death would be preferable. Otherwise, this list gets players like Brian Spencer who was shot in a bad drug deal 9 years after his career ended. Canuckle 21:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am reluctant to comment on an article in this subject area, but it would seem that a list of people who died young, limited to a profession or otherwise, is exactly the sort of indiscriminate and irrelevant loose association that should not be in WP. On the other hand, if the point of this is some specific association between the sport and the possibly high proportion of early deaths, then I can see an article on Early deaths in ice hockey discussing the phenomenon and including a list of some or all of the people.

DGG (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There isn't a specific association. But there are numerous sourced examples regarding reflection of individuals 'cut down in their prime' as it were. "The short, remarkable life of Bill Barilko ended in tragedy just weeks after he became a team's hero." Legends of Hockey being but one example or as The Hip put it: "Bill Barilko disappeared that summer, he was on a fishing trip. The last goal he ever scored won the Leafs the Cup. They didn't win another until 1962the year he was discovered." Canuckle 22:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, at the very least the players who died during their careers should be listed. To say that it is a loose association at best is speaking from a limited knowledge of the history of the game. This article will be of most importance the next time a tragedy in ice hockey occurs, when people are looking for similar occurrences. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 22:25, 5 September 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. No consensus to delete. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 18:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Jan Adams[edit]

Dr Jan Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Ontheveldt 17:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google comes up with very little - Google News shows nothing. Unless appearing on a television show guarantees notability, it's a delete. MarkBul 19:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Strong Keep Google comes up with enough. He doesn't appear on these tv shows, he hosts or presents them. There appears to be a lot of misinformation and acrimony and off-topic personal comments about this AfD that again make this appear to be about something other than this man's notability.KP Botany 21:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note This nomination was the nominator's 3rd contribution to Wikipedia, right after creating the category, "people from Middletown, Ohio," Jan Adams' hometown. Ontheveldt (talk · contribs · logs) did not immediately add Dr Jan Adams to the category he/she just created, but rather nominated Dr Jan Adams for deletion as the second step after creating the perfect category for Jan Adams. I've taken care of this omission, and there don't appear to be any notability problems with this person--but rather some personal issue between the nominator and the subject of the article. Please do reveal any conflicts of interest you have with Jan Adams, Onthveldt, and if it is personal, stay away from the article, as this is a biography of a living person. Thank you. KP Botany 20:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do reveal any conflicts of interest you have with Jan Adams, Onthveldt, and if it is personal, stay away from the article, as this is a biography of a living person. Thank you. KP Botany 20:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attn: KP Botany - I have no conflict of interest whatever with Dr. Adams or any other subject I worked on. I actually had never even heard of him previously. (I don't have cable TV and am not a woman of color.) I came across the name while compiling the category about people from Middletown, where my significant other comes from. I did not add Adams' name to the list because I did not consider him as "notable" and felt the article was crappy (you have since improved it somewhat, although I am still not crazy about it.) I asked a friend, who introduced me to Wikipedia and uses it extensively, what to do. After viewing the article, he agreed and recommended that I put the article up for deletion and showed me how to do so. Sorry for any misunderstandings. Btw: total number of Google hits I came across for "Dr. Jan Adams": 30! Yours, Ontheveldt 15:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Link to your search, please. This encyclopedia isn't about who you consider notable. He has far more than 30 google hits, in fact, he's had over 30 tv appearances as a guest on various talk shows and news shows, on top of the shows he presents. So, give a link to your google search with 30 hits. KP Botany 03:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails requirements of WP:BIO. Doc Hollywood he ain't; notability to come. --Gavin Collins 09:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Again, you haven't provided how he fails Bio. He doesn't. It's nominated by someone who doesn't want him in the category, who apparently knows he's written a book for "women of color," and is on cable tv, but finds this insufficient for notability, because she "did not consider him as 'notable'" and felt the article was crappy. Did you ever consider that once you identify what you perceive as his target audience, then remove yourself from it, you might not be the person whose "considerations" about notability matter? Your arguments that you are not a "woman of color" don't really have anything to do with this AfD. So, let's take your personal situation out of the AfD, especially since that is, again, what your AfD seems to be about, something personal between you and Dr Jan Adams. And please read about nominating articles for deletion rather than just asking a friend, and the instructions do request that you do this. These are NOT reasons for AfDs--no users considerations on a topic are a reason for an AfD. A claim about the total number of google hits without a supporting link also is not sufficient. KP Botany 03:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He presented a 14-episode series on network (not cable) TV in the UK. [18] That in itself should be enough to establish notability. Iain99 09:18, 8 September 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 04:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sex limits[edit]

Not really encyclopedic. Information in article is provided in other articles. Captain panda 17:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Age of consent Kesac 17:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Non-encyclopedic, border-line WP:HOWTO, provides no WP:RS. Most importantly, the claims made, if true anywhere, are not universally true. See, e.g., Statutory rape and Age of consent. --Evb-wiki 17:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A hoax, and not a terribly good hoax. If you're 18, it's recommended that you not rely on this article when deciding whether to have sex with someone three years younger than you are. Mandsford 19:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Not only is it a totally unsourced opinion and starkly unencyclopedic, it is patently false and dangerously misleading. It also constitutes original research, with some really poor research involved; bordering on something ~~made up~~ heard in ~~school~~ the locker room one day. Age of consent laws vary from state to state and from nation to nation. Obviously the intent was to spell out an opinion on statutory rape and age of consent, but even redirecting to those does not necessarily make a lot of sense. Unless: Is "sex limits", a modern reference to barely legal underage sex, or a common expression among youths these days? If it is an expression that is in common use among teenagers, then I suppose we could redirect there as a courtesy for them. Frankly, I thought this article was going to be about - umm - quantity, and was bracing myself for some amazing and outrageous (or not) claims. Ah well, moving on.... --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 20:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately, wrong information isn't a criteria for CSD (G1 specifically excludes "fictional material... hoaxes of any sort"); but this is probably a good candidate for WP:SNOWBALL; and hopefully all the warning templates will ensure no impressionable young persons pay any heed to it before that happens... -- simxp (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, it is also a good candidate for an ignore-all-rules speedy. --Evb-wiki 01:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iffy if the CSD rules specifically exclude deleting for this reasons... But then, a snowball close of this AfD would have precisely the same effect as an IAR speedy, so I suppose it's a moot point. Incidentally, I've replaced the "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed" template with a custom one which says "This article is indisputably factually inaccurate" (plus a link to Age of Consent) to more accurately reflect the situation... ;-) -- simxp (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Actually, per the 1st sentence of WP:SNOWBALL, "The "snowball clause" is an interpretation of the Ignore all rules policy. . . ." Six? Or a half dozen? --Evb-wiki 01:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (edit)This reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half-Your-Age-Plus-Seven Rule, a recent AFD about a law of relationship ages that said the younger partner could be no younger than half the age of the older partner plus seven years. It got merged to Age disparity in sexual relationships. Curiously, if the older is 20, the youngest allowable age would be 17, per this rule. But if the older were 30, the younger would have to be 22, very different from this rule. Sounds like a half-remembered version of the other, or a new one made up in school one day. Edison 01:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete due to OR and falseness.--JForget 01:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good for a laugh, though, for those looking for a BJAODN fix. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - File under category WP:BOLLOCKS--WebHamster 01:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under WP:SNOW per WP:MADEUP. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:51, 2 September 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. Maxim_(talk) 18:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scrabble variants[edit]

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

The page is a harbor for people to post their own home-grown Scrabble variations that are original research and have not been reported upon independently. Anything that is notable has its own article already. Andy Saunders 17:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this would be better served by a category, [[Category:Scrabble_tile_games]]? meshach 17:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have an opinion yet, and the nominator has a point, but I'm sympathetic to the article: Scrabble is clearly one of the most popular games in the world, so it's natural that there are variants. Some variants themselves may not be notable, so they might not be worthy of their own articles, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't cover them at all. I notice that multiple editors have contributed, that we've got images here and there are actually some references. It seems to me that if even two of these variants have some notability (and that's the case), then it seems fair to say that variants of Scrabble have notability as a whole. Perhaps the contributors can add some references/footnotes, and then we'd be able to better judge whether this was stuff made up at home or not. I'll ask them.Noroton 19:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely there's a source for these variations on a popular game. Aren't there any websites for the International Scrabble League and similar things? If all else fails, look at the inside of the box top. Mandsford 19:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some footnotes and it now has six, so a good number of variations are confirmed elsewhere, and I think that shows that Wikipedia has a verified, notable subject and that the article, while still flawed, remains valid. One or two of the new footnotes had been deleted by the article by someone on External Links patrol. Some other footnotes come from the articles for some of the variants. I've added "citation needed" tags as well. Perhaps someone else who thinks the subject worthy of a Wikipedia article will look for citable sources on the Web. Noroton 20:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, commending the excellent WP:HEY by Noroton bringing this article up to standard. There are sources including books and articles in magazines such as Games (magazine) over the years, but they may not be online. Certainly a game that has had a book written about its national championship (Word Freak) has had some of these variant rules distributed through WP:RS at some point.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhartung (talk • contribs) 06:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve/cite. This article currently has some questionable variants (Volost? Seriously?) that should be deleted if they can't be cited, and the other variants should be cited to show notability. However, the article still is a coherent, focused, and informative list when properly cleaned up and deserves to stay. --TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:19, 4 September 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 nomination withdrawn per alteration to WP:NOT.--Strothra 18:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity by country[edit]

Christianity by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete or move to Wikisource. Article is simply a list of statistics thus violating WP:NOT#STATS. Strothra 16:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing nom Per alteration to the WP:NOT policy. --Strothra 18:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NOT#STATS doesn't apply; this is not a "long and sprawling list of statistics" but a neat and maintainable set of tables. RandomCritic 16:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep useful encyclopedic list. IP198 17:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per WP:NOT#STATS, "Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic. MarkBul 19:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've now removed that sentence from WP:NOT per my comments below and on that policyls talk page. Iain99 12:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there's a misunderstanding about NOT#STATS. While statistics listed without comment are frowned upon, we LIKE statistics. They are considered an objective measure of otherwise subjective claims. I note that, on this article, it is not just well sourced, but also includes a warning to contributors about not throwing in unsourced changes. Mandsford 19:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. The point is not to take on some crusade against statistics. Rather, it is a minor point of housekeeping - Statistics are used as primary sources and thus are better suited for Wikisource rather than Wikipedia since simply listing statistics is not encyclopedic. --Strothra 20:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Then I don't think I would recommend you for housekeeping..... Mandsford 15:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither would I. Wikipedia needs improving, not eroding by deleting important articles. I've just had a look at Wikisource and it's completely not the right place for trherse articles.Vexorg 12:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful list, is encyclopedic, even though it does use statistics. Hello32020 20:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is highly relevant for people researching informations about Christianity. I agree with RandomCritics that it is not a long and sprawling list of statistics, so WP:NOT#STATS doesn't apply here. Remember WP:PAPER: there is no limit to the number of subjects Wikipedia can cover. Canjth 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's something wrong with this part of WP:NOT as my reading of Wikisource policy is that they expressly exclude statistical data. [19], [20] As such, simply copying the information to Wikisource seems not to be an option; the information is useful and encyclopedic, and should be kept. Iain99 22:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep I can't believe this article is being nominated for deletion. It most certainly is NOT WP:NOT#STATS - The only caveat with this article, and indeed it's sister articles Buddhism by country, Islam by country and Hinduism by country is the difficulty in finding accurate and upto date sources. However these articles are extremely valuable in providing at least a good estimate of Religious Adherence on the planet. The article is properly annoted with the caveats and warns the reader of such. Deleting this and other similar articles would really devalue wikipedia. Vexorg 22:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Informative, encyclopedic. Should be improved. — JyriL ^talk 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--SkyWalker 14:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:FIVE "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers. It incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." (emphasis added). --JayHenry 22:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. JayHenry hits it out of the ball park here. Can we get a speedy? --Kizor 08:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Proposed_deletion

If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page.

In line with the above I'm going to remove the tags. There are NO grounds whatsoever as has been pointed out. Let's make better use of our time than wasting it on this.Vexorg 16:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing Proposed deletion with Deletion discussions - please don't remove the tags, as this needs to be closed by an admin. However, I think it may be time to invoke WP:SNOW and close this early. Iain99 16:37, 3 September 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 nomination withdrawn per alteration to WP:NOT.--Strothra 18:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam by country[edit]

Islam by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete or Move to Wikisource. Simply a list of statistics with barely any context thus violating WP:NOT#STATS. Strothra 15:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Note that WP:NOT states: "Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic."--Strothra 19:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing nom Per alteration to the WP:NOT policy. --Strothra 18:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've gone ahead and removed that sentence from WP:NOT per my comments below and on that policy's talk page. Iain99 12:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NOT#STATS doesn't apply; this is not a "long and sprawling list of statistics" but a neat and maintainable set of tables. RandomCritic 16:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep are we also going to remove the Buddhism by country, Hinduism by country, Christianity by country, etc, articles? These are useful encyclopedic lists. IP198 17:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Improve. I have been away from Wikipedia for a long time, so please excuse me if I am ignorant of newer changes in policy. I took a long look at the article in question. There are lots of numbers associated with countries, and very little text. My first response was to can it. When I reluctantly went to the discussion page, I wasn't suprised to see it was HUGE. I couldn't read it all, and chose to only look at the last 1/3 or so of the posts. There are complaints about numbers not adding up, and people ignoring the talk page altogether. Again my reaction is to X it. But there does seem to be a few people trying to pull everyone together. I say we keep it, threaten them with deletion, and tell them they have to IMPROVE their page or we gonna X it for sure. (Myhorses 19:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Good Lord (or Allah Akbar)! Is there someone who thinks that there's a ban on including statistics in an encyclopedia article? Good luck in college. Mandsford 19:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. The point is not to take on some crusade against statistics. Rather, it is a minor point of housekeeping - Statistics are used as primary sources and thus are better suited for Wikisource rather than Wikipedia since simply listing statistics is not encyclopedic. (Also, it's "Allahu Akbar" not "Allah.") --Strothra 20:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems everyone else disagrees. There are plenty of great articles in wikipedia that are based upon numbers and lists. Are you going to waste everyone's time by putting them all up for deletion.Vexorg 12:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful encyclopedic list, NOT#STATS does not apply, it is not a "long and sprawling list of statistics" as said above. Hello32020 20:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is highly relevant for people researching informations about Islam and the demographics of religions. I agree with RandomCritics that it is not a long and sprawling list of statistics, so WP:NOT#STATS doesn't apply here. Remember WP:PAPER: there is no limit to the number of subjects Wikipedia can cover. Canjth 20:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one ever said that was the part of the policy that meant to be applied. Rather, I specifically pointed to the part of the policy about articles that are "primarily comprised of statistical data." --Strothra 20:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's something wrong with this part of WP:NOT as my reading of Wikisource policy is that they expressly exclude statistical data. [21], [22] As such, simply copying the information to Wikisource seems not to be an option; the information is useful and encyclopedic, and should be kept. Iain99 22:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Informative, encyclopedic. Should be improved. — JyriL ^talk 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Help I am very much in favor of keeping this article. It is a handy source to have. I orginally got involved with this project becasue I wanted to find some reliable info. One good thing about the editors involved, is that they are highly motivated by their interest in the project. Sadly, these good intentioned people (for some reason or other) ignore the Discussion all together, and then make sweeping unilateral changes, throwing the page into utter chaos. Currently, lots of the info is unsourced and the figures can't be reconciled. Keep the article and advise this community what consensus is and how we achieve it. (TS Brumwell 00:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:FIVE "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers. It incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." (emphasis added). --JayHenry 22:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - personally I think this is a ridiculous waste of time putting this and the Christianity by country articles up for deletion. Nobody has opted for deletion on either of them.Vexorg 12:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Proposed_deletion

If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page.

In line with the above I'm going to remove the tags. There are NO grounds whatsoever as has been pointed out. Let's make better use of our time than wasting it on this.Vexorg 16:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing Proposed deletion with Articles for deletion - please don't remove the tags, as this needs to be closed by an admin. However, I think it may be time to invoke WP:SNOW and close this early. Iain99 16:38, 3 September 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 Redirected to Skyphone - there is currently nothing else for the page to disambiguate between. ELIMINATORJR 14:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabula[edit]

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

This is several articles kludged into one, masquerading as a disambiguation page. It doesn't really link to anything, but I didn't want to speedy it because it is more like several stubs in one. However, I can't see that any of the topics are notable, and so I think the whole thing should be deleted. J Milburn 15:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it is proven not to be original research Corpx 05:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Evb-wiki 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Keb25 05:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, its a dab page. The entries on it merely need to be relevant search terms to other notable topics. John Vandenberg 05:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:05, 8 September 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. Mackensen (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wubi (Ubuntu)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, the first five pages of google show absolutely no signs of notability or reliable sources, no relevant results on Google News, no results on Google Scholar seem relevant. It makes me sad, since I love Ubuntu and Open Source, but this article presents no display of notability-- all of the references are forum systems, not a single source from an outside perspective. lucid 15:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appears unsourceable. Jakew 18:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Ubuntu (Linux distribution). The installer does some rather neat things (I consider it notable in terms of being a non-partitionaing method for installing Ubuntu on a Windows system) and there should be mention of it somewhere on Wikipedia, even if just put into a section of the main Ubuntu article (which currently links to the Wubi article). -- Limulus 19:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Sadly Wubi isn't notable (no Gnews hits, for example) but I believe a 'trivial' mention in the Ubuntu article would be justified. Computerjoe 's talk 21:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ubuntu if it is notable enough.— JyriL ^talk 22:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepLooks good to meHentai Jeff 03:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I actually agree with lucid's basic assertions, but this is simply a case where mechanistic and rigid application of WP:N is not in the interests of the project. When multiple people who are well-informed with the subject matter all think to themselves "hmmm ... I would have thought this to be notable, but alas, it is not on Google Scholar (yet), even though it should probably be in Wikipedia anyway" ... then it should probably be in Wikipedia anyway. This is an appeal to the collective insight and sagacity of WP contributors who know compelling and legitimate content when they see it. WP:N should not be used as a self-imposed intellectual straight-jacket. dr.ef.tymac 05:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I never said that "I would have thought this to be notable", I said that it makes me sad to delete something I like for the sake of the encyclopedia. --lucid 13:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I never said you said that. In fact, I never said anyone (in specific) said that. It was a reference to a particular "state of mind" (please re-see the words: "think to themselves"). Probably more than zero Wikipedians have shared that "state of mind".

Perhaps you disagree. Perhaps I'm wrong. There may indeed be zero people out there who have thought that or something similar. No biggie. Life goes on. No one is here to put words in your mouth, or tell you what to think, or hijack the buttons on your computer keyboard.

If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. dr.ef.tymac 15:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wubi has been making some news lately on digg and other sources which piqued my interest and lead me to this wiki page. I would like to see more information (for example an analysis on the performance impacts of this system), not less. 70.171.53.143 18:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Digg is not a WP:RS, nor is it a qualifier for WP:WEB. In addition, see WP:INTERESTING --lucid 19:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: He's not saying that Digg should be used as a source; he's saying that he heard about it there and wanted to learn more... And isn't that what an encyclopedia should do? (help people learn more about a given subject) I think this is a good example of why "there should be mention of [Wubi] somewhere on Wikipedia" as I previously said. Also, why did you reference the "Notability (web)" link? ("This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia.") It makes little sense in this context since he's not even remotely suggesting a Digg article and the Wubi article isn't about the website. -- Limulus 21:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepWubi is a recent development, and is still beta software, which may explain why there has been little news coverage. However, I noticed that CNet TV has reviewed Wubi; see the third external link. Would this qualify as an objective, 3rd-party source? Minhmeoke 23:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For other objective, 3rd-party sources see http://www.download.com/8301-2007_4-9723017-12.html which is a featured review of Wubi from Download.com and http://news.softpedia.com/news/Install-Ubuntu-from-Windows-in-3-Steps-Without-Using-a-CD-61304.shtml which is a featured review of Wubi from Softpedia. Tuxcantfly 22:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not speculative, and it's fairly significant software that already--even in Beta form--appears to have lots of press. Is there any honest reason to acknowledge it won't just grow in time? The article will just get bigger • Lawrence Cohen 13:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:05, 8 September 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban Council[edit]

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

Article is spam and contains no links to verify notability. All inline links are to external sites but not even one mentions this company. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 15:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertisement. --Strothra 16:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely seems to be written from a biased POV also no real notability --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11 advertisement.--JForget 01:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertisement, no apparent notability. Jakew 20:35, 2 September 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 fails WP:V. Xoloz 15:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A shoreline dream[edit]

A shoreline dream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an article about a non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC; fails WP:RS; fails WP:V JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 15:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a hint of notability apparent. MarkBul 19:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETENotability is apparent in the fact that the band has been on over 1 million samplers nationally in the past year, including spots on Sundance Film Festival CD's, Filter Magazine, Paste Magazine, and is distributed through tonevendor, who has them in their top ten sales currently.12:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpolicky (talk • contribs) 18:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC) — Rpolicky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Solely primary sourced, no claims of notability documented in the article. SkierRMH 03:49, 4 September 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legion (band)[edit]

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

Band fails to meet up the the notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC: has not released any records etc. Has no references and no official entry on this band or it's founding member was found using various search engines (this article was the only piece of information I found of the band). Grinder0-0 15:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources and fails notability per WP:NMG --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest speedy --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy D.O.A. MarkBul 19:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - An example of a CSD if ever there was one. Should be used as an example in the tuition of New Page Patrollers--WebHamster 01:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - agreed, it doesn't do much to indicate notability, and is unsourced. Fails WP:MUSIC by a mile. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and expand. ELIMINATORJR 14:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Tronchetti Provera[edit]

Marco Tronchetti Provera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Queried speedy delete: non-notable ("unmentioned at Pirelli"). Anthony Appleyard 15:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On ground of lack of notability and lack of meaningful content Computerjoe 's talk 21:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. President of Pirelli, member of the European Round Table of Industrialists, 56 hits on Google Scholar [23], 41 hits on Google Books [24]. See also it:Marco Tronchetti Provera, [25], [26] etc. Notable international business figure. --Edcolins 18:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep President of Pirelli one of the largest tyre company in the world.former president of telecom italia.One of the main capitalist of Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifero4 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think he was also a leader in Confindustria. Every Italian has heard of him. it would be like deleting Richard Branson because he is only known in the English-speaking world. user:myth1727 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myth1727 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - you have to be bloody joking - this man is the president of a major international tyre manufacturer (see: http://www.pirelli.com/web/governance/board-dir/default_Tronchetti.page) Did any of the delete votes bother to see if this man was well-known? Bigdaddy1981 01:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information: It was speedy-delete-tagged at 11:28, 1 September 2007 by User:Davidprior. Anthony Appleyard 05:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop suggesting deletions without thinking. This man is very well renowned in Italy. The person who suggested the deletion I gather is the same one who suggested the deletion of Laetitia Zonzambé and Davide Stefanini. Just because these people are not notable in her/his country (US ? UK ?), it does not make them un-notable. If a person is notable in a country, this is enough for notability I think, and the same applies to all three cited here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edges273 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although you couldn't get much more of a stubbier stub the guy is the president of an internationally known corporation which I believe satisfies WP:BIO though some could argue (and will) that it is borderline as there are no citations or references to demonstrate what his notability as Pirelli's president is. Someone definitely needs to do some work on the article.--WebHamster 11:00, 7 September 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; no consensus to delete --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 18:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laetitia Zonzambé[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete db-bio. Anthony Appleyard 15:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability, the only sentence that there is appears biased, the sources don't assert anything mentioned in the article apart from the fact it isn't made up --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable African singer. "Laetitia Zonzambe est une artiste au talent polymorphe, reconnue comme la nouvelle voix féminine de la chanson centrafricaine" [27] which means "... recognized as the new female voice of Central African music..." --Edcolins 18:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'. She IS the most famous singer in a whole nation, and also known in the region and among Africans in France. The article just needs to be improveed, like many other stubs. user:muth1727 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myth1727 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bigdaddy1981 01:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. She is the most known singer in a whole country, and there are plenty of references for that, as noted by a user above. Isn't that enough ?? If the article is not good enough, that's a different matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edges273 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the WP:BIO also states that it must be used with "common sense" and a person is notable if "the person has demonstrable wide name recognition". Just call up any Central African person or embassy and they can demonstrate this wide name recognition, if you are too lazy to read the websites in French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerh38 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information: At 11:32, 1 September 2007 User:Blowdart tagged Laetitia Zonzambé ((db-bio)). Anthony Appleyard 14:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 18:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm strongly suspecting socks. All users who didn't sine have numbers at the end. Very suspicious. Maxim_(talk) 18:52, 8 September 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 deleted as a copyvio. --Haemo 01:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman sacrifice[edit]

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

This article has no sourcing and appears to be original research, see WP:OR. There is no proper sourcing (WP:RS and no verification of the claims in the article (WP:V. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 15:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Doesn't look like original research. Given a few days I couuld come up with some sources (The Rotten romans by Terry Deary)--Pheonix15 16:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is nothing here worth saving. There is already a Roman Religion article - this looks like bored schoolkid material. MarkBul 19:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is likely inaccurate. Attempting to bunch the romans into such a broad article is almost certainly a recipe for errors as the romans went through many phases of being pro-sacrafice and then anti-sacrafice. The roman culture went through many phases which this fails to discuss. I don't think there is anything to keep or merge from what I can see. Roman views on the gods, gladiatorial sacrafice etc. is already discussed at length elsewhere. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 20:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but for copyvio, this article is a rip off, copy and paste of this page. They even copied the spelling mistake of "thee" when it should have been "the". Can we decide things here or should I add a copyvio tag.KTo288 21:35, 1 September 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. Minimal discussion, but sufficient, considering article fails WP:RS, and makes dubious claims. Xoloz 15:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fousekis[edit]

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

Little claim of notability in article; gsearch does not reveal notability in first several pages of non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 15:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of coverage. Although I cant read greek, I am confident to say that a tripod.com page does not confer notability Corpx 16:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 11:56, 8 September 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hengen[edit]

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

Political hack from Saskatchewan. Never been elected and article fails to show notability. Suttungr 14:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject. This subject also fails notability guidelines as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hengen very nearly became the leader of a recognized provincial party in the mid-1990s, and has since been a candidate for federal office. Wikipedia has a strong precedent of keeping articles on leadership candidates. CJCurrie 03:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia isn't a memorial. GreenJoe 03:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the general point you're making, but I believe it's misapplied here. Hengen came very close to becoming the leader of the Liberal Party of Saskatchewan at a time when the party still had strong representation in the provincial legislature; he's not a public figure today, but he emphatically was in the mid-1990s. CJCurrie 04:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IF he wanted a Wikipedia article, he should have won. You snooze, you loose. He didn't win, he's not notable. It's not misapplied at all. GreenJoe 05:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. But he didn't become the leader, or get elected. The BIO criteria seem somewhat clear cut to me. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC) See below[reply]
With respect, I disagree with this interpretation. I believe that Hengen fulfills the criteria for inclusion listed on WP:BIO, with reference to "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Hengen received extensive press coverage in Saskatchewan (and fair coverage in the rest of Canada) throughout 1996 and 1997; the fact that the original articles aren't currently available online shouldn't be justification for deleting the piece. CJCurrie 04:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. He does seem to have enough coverage that's verifiable to meet WP:N. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence based on this article, that Hengen received significant press coverage. If these articles exist they should be listed as references. Also, just having a mention in the day-to-day news is insufficient according to WP:BIO. It needs to be in-depth coverage. Unless you can provide those references, I think this article should be deleted. Suttungr 12:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep vote change per CJCurrie. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Leadership candidates are notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a former leadership candidate who was notable. Just because the sources are not online does not make him fail WP:BIO. Davewild 08:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates for the leadership of a political party with representation in a state, provincial or national legislature should always be kept, IMO. Bearcat 21:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per several of the above arguments. Besides that, as a candidate for the Canadian House of Commons, his article shouldn't be deleted - if he's not found notable on other grounds, the information should be merged into Liberal Party candidates, 1997 Canadian federal election. Sarcasticidealist 09:56, 4 September 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennings_Rutter_Battle[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Jennings Rutter Battle

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

Original research including completely arbitrary segmentation of the battle AJarvis 13:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious WP:OR. /Blaxthos 13:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the original research. If we put the slightly clumsy attempt to group the main events under stage headings aside, it seems that the author has merely attempted to lay out a chronological summary of the rivalry. This is a convention adopted in the majority of Wikipedia articles dealing with a series of events. However, I don't agree with this particular presentation of these facts. The references (you can't deny the article is at least well-referenced) don't seem to suggest that the particular rivalry between Jennings and Rutter is anything more than one of the more prominent rivalries between game show contestants. Therefore, I think the articles should be moved to something like Rivalry between regular game show contestants, and then expanded to cover rivalry between game show contestants in general. Terrafire 13:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR. And, if it's not original research, the article is poorly written and would require a lot of revision. TheInfinityZero 15:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research. Keb25 15:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take Wikipedia for $600. "It's what happens to articles that are original research at Articles for Deletion." What is delete?. Correct, select again! Andy Saunders 17:07, 1 September 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holman Fenwick & Willan[edit]

Holman Fenwick & Willan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable law firm; only claim to notability is a passing reference by one of its previous employees. Randomshoes 13:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced & no assertion of notability. /Blaxthos 13:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the 38th biggest law firm in the UK and a well-known name here (see http://www.thelawyer.com/uk100/2006/law/38_holmanfenwick.html). That isn't as major as some, but pretty big. Randomshoes, I am confused as to why you added very random references to this law firm's page before nominating it for deletion. Unlikelyheroine 00:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep #86 here. Plenty of third-party coverage establishing notability [28] [29] [30]--Chaser - T 03:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on my earlier comments, I've replaced Randomshoes' references with some more relevant refs, added others and expanded the detail in the main body of the article. It's not true that its only claim to notability is as stated, as some looking on the internet shows. This is not some little outfit, but a notable firm (and no, I don't work there!) Best regards Unlikelyheroine 11:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:CORP as nominated by Randomshoes. There is an important principal at stake regarding what qualifies as an independent source; as the summaries of more legal cases become available on the internet, links to these cases will be used by law firms to demonstrate notability. However, these court circulars are a matter of record only, and are not an independent source per se. This may not be a little outfit with some history, but this article still fails to establish its notability and a few internet links are not a substitute for proper research from books and journals. --Gavin Collins 09:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Collins, _none_ of the links in the references in the article are from court circulars, so your comment does not makes sense here. The links are from major legal news sources. Do Wikipedia articles need to contain information from books? If so, do note that the Chambers Guides cited are available in printed form also. If you have a problem with any of the sources actually cited for this article, then by all means go ahead and explain. Best regards Unlikelyheroine 12:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC) 12:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue with the references in that they are very thin in terms of context and are not really independent: Chambers & Partners - a legal directory; The Lawyer.com is a magazine about law firms, both of which publish more or less what is fed to them in terms of corporate press releases. I can only observe that outside of the usual trade publications, the article does not cite any notability. WP:CORP states that Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". Press release and trade awards on the internet may make them significant in the trade, but outside the trade the references cited are not evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins 13:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourced and to the point, its international offices and its winning of a industry award imply notability. Concerns elsewhere was that this article was spam and served to promote the interests of the firm, if that is the fear of editors than be open and honest about it and bring it up on those concerns, not try and skirt around the issue.KTo288 12:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks pretty notable to me. --Dweller 19:00, 5 September 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 Kept, nomination withdrawn following improvements in sourcing. Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trowers & Hamlins[edit]

Trowers & Hamlins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Law firm whose only claim to notability is unsourced and has been for some time. Randomshoes 13:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Invoking the dreaded "Keep, I've heard of it" argument here, but (while this is an appalling article) T&H is a bona fide major player in the market with a lot of press coverage (416 hits on Google news, albeit some are press releases of theirs); tons of coverage in reliable sources including plenty using phrases such as "preeminent" and "leading". The Middle Eastern arm is also apparently the oldest law firm in Oman — iridescent (talk to me!) 13:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a couple of references, and my google search suggests that there should be more. This and this, for example, help substantiate their claims. --Moonriddengirl 13:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Could use better sourcing to buttress notability claims. /Blaxthos 13:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes it's a lousy article, but the work by Moonriddengirl (thankyou!) shows it is notable and that the information is verifiable. No issues that can't be resolved via copyediting. Pedro | Chat 13:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to withdraw the nomination with respect to the changes on the page - well done that user! Still could do with a bit more work. In short, keep. --Randomshoes 16:06, 1 September 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inkha[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Inkha

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

Lacks notability - being on Blue Peter doesn't make someone notable, no evidence the appearance in newspaper/magazine was vast.--Moglex 13:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom - WP:N. /Blaxthos 13:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks notability for stand-alone. I wonder if there's a larger article that could bear mention? It obviously doesn't fit in Domestic robot and Industrial robot. It's too specific for inclusion in Robot, which page needs really to address general categories and ground-breaking prototypes. --Moonriddengirl 13:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does anyone even try to look for sources before saying sources are impossible to find? Inkha got an article in Nature (behind a subscription wall but the link is here [31]) and the BBC in connection with the Faraday Lecture [32] in addition to the Blue Peter appearance. It's in front of house magazine [33], a trade magazine for receptionists (who knew?) and, oh yeah, The Times [34] ran an article on it too. Here [35] is an article in the Deccan Herald, an Indian newspaper. Nick mallory 13:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't see anybody above stating that sources were impossible to find. :) I looked for them, and I read a few. General notability guideline notes that "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." It's one of several similar devices mentioned in the BBC article, Front of House and times. That's why I suggested it would be better in an article about a robot type. I didn't see the Deccan Herald article. I'm not sure it's a strong contender. At this point, I still believe Inkha lacks notable for a stand-alone. --Moonriddengirl 14:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said 'delete per nom'. The Nom said there was 'no evidence' that the coverage of it was 'vast'. Well, it doesn't have to be 'vast', whatever that means, it just has to pass WP:N. So does it? Well, it's got multiple independent coverage in credible third party sources including the BBC (twice) and the Times.

The Times said this about it "JUST before Christmas, Inkha got a job as a receptionist at King’s College London. She has all the prerequisites for the post: she can talk about the weather, give directions and look bored. But Inkha is a robotic head — her name stands for Interactive Neurotic King’s Head Assembly — that glowers from a glass box at the college’s Strand campus.

Her creator, Matthew Walker, a college alumnus and now an independent animatronics consultant, says her “mood” depends on the weather (she culls meteorological information from the Met Office website) and the time of day. Walker says: “If it’s a rainy Monday morning, she’s obnoxious. If you ask her for fashion tips, she’ll ask you if you got dressed in the dark.

“She has no intelligence, but certain behaviour makes her quite lifelike. People do get rather attached to her.” It helps that Inkha has a huge red pouting mouth and large, long-lashed eyes, the latter made for her by a specialist at Moorfields Eye Hospital.

But Inkha also deals with around a third of reception inquiries — mainly providing directions — and has cheered everyone up. “People come in looking glum and go away smiling,” Walker says. “And the other people on reception don’t feel threatened — they see her as an aid rather than as a replacement.” It's hardly just a passing mention.

It was covered as far away as India in the media so it's hardly just of local interest. How many more sources are needed? This makes it notable enough per Wikipedia standards WP:N for its own article. Nick mallory 14:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, but nom said coverage was not vast, not that it was absent. At the moment, I still support that reading. The Times article linked leads with three paragraphs about Inkha, but the majority of the piece is on "a much more calculating "scientist"...outperforming graduate students." There's no question that Inkha has attracted some attention, but notability is distinct from fame. (adding: I'm not sure you need to quote the Times piece; I think the link is probably sufficient.) --Moonriddengirl 14:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You implied the Times article was only a passing mention, i'm showing that it wasn't. You can't say that it's too long to quote here but not long enough to quote as a source. WP:N says it should have multiple independent coverage, it's got that, i don't see what the problem is. Nick mallory 14:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly wasn't my intention to imply that. What I said was that it is one of several similar devices mentioned; it is. I can understand how the word "mentioned" might have been misleading in regards to my intention; perhaps I should have said "discussed." Anyway, the problem with quoting it here is that it becomes more difficult for people involved in the discussion to follow it. That's why the link is sufficient. My issue with Inkha's coverage is breadth & depth, as I stated above. Also of potential interest in this discussion is duration. I don't feel Inkha satisfies notability requirements for a stand alone article. Obviously your opinion differs. Other editors will undoubtedly weigh in. --Moonriddengirl 14:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Nice name by the way. Nick mallory 15:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've had occasion to wonder if including the name "girl" in my username was such a good idea, but oh well. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nick mallory sources. - Fosnez 15:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources provided by Nick Mallory are easily sufficient. —David Eppstein 16:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if the rationale doesn't fit, you must acquit. Artw 01:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a good article. Well, the article should be improved in the future. This article is good enough for Wikipedia. RS1900 13:02, 4 September 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. There is reasonable disagreement regarding the question of whether reliable sources are provided, and whether notability conferred by forking from Wikipedia constitutes some sort of self-reference and/or conflict of interest. However, it is clear that consensus to delete will not emerge from this discussion; although consensus can change, the extensive record of past nominations concerning precisely the same questions suggests that the community's feelings on this article are unlikely to shift. Further nominations are discouraged, absent new information, or new arguments. Xoloz 15:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinfo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Wikinfo

Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (3rd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (4th nomination)

Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (5th nomination)

Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (6th nomination)

Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (7th nomination)

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

Wikinfo has previously been nominated for deletion four times, and honestly in every one of them I don't see any actual claim to notability. The only arguments I see on the side of keep are:

Functioning Fork of Wikipedia
This is a huge example of bias toward ourselves. If we're going by the size of a Wiki and it's ability to function, instead of WP:WEB, certainly we would have articles on many more Wikis than we do. Compare Wikinfo's statistics to another wiki. You'd think from the statistics alone that Wikinfo is less notable than the other one, yet the other one has been deleted no less than six times. If it is infact notable because It's a fork of an existing project which is notable, then it should be merged to Wikipedia's article, not given it's own article, per WP:N, which states that the notability of something applies to articles subject, but not content.

Notable
These votes never actually link to a reliable source that shows that it is in fact notable.

Bad-faith nom
While this can be a legitimate reason to close an AFD, it's not a valid reason to keep an article that just doesn't meet our policies.

Now, there are only two reliable sources I see on Wikinfo that mention it at all, and the name only appears three times in one paragraph, while the article is actually about Wikipedia. This almost certainly qualifies it as a "trivial mention" at best. A quick look at google shows no reliable sources in the first five pages, which there almost certainly would be. A Google News search returns zero results, and a Google scholar search returns only one thing (other than our existing sources) which, and I'm not even sure if it's a reliable source, given it's in German, again only mentions Wikinfo twice, in a single paragraph.
I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest that this page is being kept for anything but WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, and WP:OHHEYTHEYRETALKINGABOUTUS. Furthermore, even their own main page has red links to fairly major topics, as well as a redlinked project page. I have seen absolutely nothing that makes me think this article is a "Special Case" that gets to ignore our notability requirements, and a lot that makes me think that people are only voting keep because they are an offshoot of ourselves. If being an offshoot of Wikipedia is the only reason they are mentioned, Merge it with Wikipedia, and watch it get worked out of that article. I'd be more than happy to keep this if it had more than trivial mentions, or mention at all in the press. However, it does not and should be deleted for a total lack of reliable sources, or any proof of notability under WP:WEB. lucid 12:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Zero reliable secondary sources that actually deal with the subject (trivial mention). Beyond that, it certainly fails WP:WEB. The WP:IAR arguments are unconvincing. /Blaxthos 13:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of significant coverage from this wiki. Corpx 15:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, fails WP:WEB etc.— JyriL ^talk 22:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous nominations and role in the history of Wikipedia (one of the first and longest-functioning fork). I frankly don't see the value of nominating an article of this nature for deletion for the 5th time. Newyorkbrad 01:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - per agruments that was written in previous nominations. 5th nomination? I see that some editors of Wikipedia only don´t like rival encyclopedias. --Dezidor 01:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did we feature an article on by far our biggest rival? Your argument doesn't stand up. --W.marsh 00:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Above two comments show what I'm talking about perfectly. Notable because it's a fork of Wikipedia (Being a fork of Wikipedia is NOT a notability criteria. If it is only notable because it's a fork of Wikipedia, that would be a grounds to merge it to Wikipedia, not keep it), "Keep, it was already nominated" votes, which is not a valid reason to keep an article, and "Keep, bad faith nom". This has nothing to do with Wikinfo being a fork of Wikipedia, or me 'not liking rival encyclopedias' (I loathe Conservapedia, but they are notable), and everything to do with them not being notable. WP:CCC As well-- just because it was nominated before doesn't mean that consensus will change, or even that consensus was correct. Again, nobody has been able to find any reliable sources that give it more than a trivial mention. --lucid 04:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Arguments about notability have been made before, and consensus was that Wikinfo is notable as functioning fork of Wikipedia. Third-party sources have been provided and rejecting them as "trivial" is unconvincing, the article is accurate and complete, and there's no reason to reject the consensus achieved in many prior AfD's. Casey Abell 17:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As nobody has actually shown any third party sources that give Wikinfo more than a trivial mention, would you care to back up your statement? Without actually showing a source, there's absolutely no proof one exists like you claim they do. And actually, the article is very poor, there's three external sources, used as such: 1- A source that requires the user to log in, that might not even mention Wikinfo, the main article (what people can actually see about it), and is only used to back up the statement "They use SPOV instead of NPOV" 2- The second source is from this extremely unreliable website, and only mentions Wikinfo once in two sentences, only to really again say "It's a fork". 3- A German source that only mentions it in a single paragraph of a large article about wikipedia, and only used to back up the statement "SPOV not NPOV". Everything else is derived directly from their site, with some things referencing their VP archives!. There's been absolutely no case made that they're notable as an offshoot, just "oh well they are so there", which sounds suspiciously like WP:ILIKEIT. --lucid 04:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A fork of a very well known project can be notable if t here are sources to show it's well known, and there are. Just barely, but sufficient. Paid sources are acceptable. Paid external links, no, but as sources, sure. DGG (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the publication's own article, we see This full version (which needs to be removed), it only mentions Wikinfo once -- and that mention is referencing Wikipedia. I see no actual discussion of Wikinfo itself on the site, just a very trivial "this is what someone else says" reference, which could've come from any of our criticizing websites. Again, there are no sources that show that Wikinfo is well known or notable, and the fact that four keep votes have not found a single source that even suggests that is evidence of this. All of the sources provided have been extremely trivial mentions. In addition, there is no notability clause that states that forks of well known projects are notable-- and the fact that Linux Distribution articles are ever deleted is proof of this. They are all forks and derivative works of the Linux kernel and other Linux distros, but many of them are still deleted. In addition, not even official Wikimedia project Wikipedias are always notable, see Assamese, Inuktitut, Irish Gaelic, Luxembourgish, Mongolian, Nahuatl, Quechua, Scots, Uyghur, not to mention the large number of redlinks on List of Wikipedias. If Official Wikipedias are not notable, how in the world is an unofficial fork of Wikipedia? --lucid 11:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how the official/unofficial distinction has the least thing to do with notability one way or another.DGG (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If OFFICIAL WIKIPEDIAS are not notable, how in the world is an UNOFFICIAL FORK OF WIKIPEDIA? If notability IS INHERITED, then WIkimedia projects would BY DEFAULT always be notable --lucid 00:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete were this a random forum, or worse yet, a site critical of Wikipedia, it would probably be speedy deleted. Keeping it around just has always seemed like bias, given the lack of sourcing... and we need to counter bias. --W.marsh 00:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepElmao 11:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:50, 8 September 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T G Baynes[edit]

T G Baynes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable local law firm/estate agent Randomshoes 12:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of coverage - Directory listings/trivial mentions etc do not confer notability Corpx 15:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lack of independent sources to demonstrate notability under WP:CORP despite its long history. --Gavin Collins 22:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete because it is an orphan that lacks reliable sources, and the primary user Chgough (talk · contribs) removed the Afd notice. John Vandenberg 09:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Keb25 09:53, 8 September 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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead end social club[edit]

Dead end social club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article offers no reliable sources for verification and seems non-notable. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 12:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability. Completely unreferenced and unverifiable. /Blaxthos 13:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to Wikipedia: Notability (music), an important indie label is one "with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Dead End has only been around since 2004. Its website claims releases by Lucky Soul, The Georgetown Orbits and The Revlons, but only Lucky Soul seems to satisfy notability. Three may not qualify as a "roster of performers," but even if it did, only one of them seems to be notable. --Moonriddengirl 14:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N and does meet the band requirements. TheInfinityZero 15:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted CSD G11

David Crews[edit]

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

This appears to be an attempt at advertising but may be notable. Certainly an improvement is needed. In any case I bring it to the community from CSD for consideration JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 12:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC. A google search for "David Crews" + elvis (link) turns up fewer than 3k hits, none notable that I saw (mostly advertising). Precious Roy 12:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spam or not, this guy fails WP:MUSIC and has no real significance. /Blaxthos 13:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because. THE REST OF THE INFORMATION CAN BE VERiFIED BY HOARY IN A LEGALLY SWORN AND NOTARIZED DOCUMENT WHICH CAN BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST BY HOARY. -- Hoary 14:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Has been deleted twice already. -- RHaworth 14:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple previous deletions should have been noted in the nomination. In that case, I also move to salt the earth. /Blaxthos 16:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both previous deletions were speedies including one for COI and lack of verification - neither of which is a proper CSD. Personally I think it should be deleted but there is, at least an assertion of notability. -JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 16:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spam and fails WP:N. If an article is truly notable, it doesn't need a bunch of capatalized words at the end. TheInfinityZero 15:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, fails WP:MUSIC. Hello32020 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's pretty crappy, and even though written by the guy, it can't really stand as an unsourced BLP. I have offered Mr. Crews that if he does the research and posts verifiable sources on my talk page, I will write the article. I have no interest in doing the research, though. I moved it to the correct name, also. KP Botany 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, delete as unsourced and failing WP:MUSIC. While the claims of being the first may be verifiable by phoning people, that would be a primary source, and we just don't have reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:30, 2 September 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Martin[edit]

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

many advertisements, rest is unreliably referenced and is possibly an affront to human dignity Jeff Biggs 12:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & cleanup - Obviously notable (hosting a show on satellite radio, howard stern appearances, etc). We may need to cull some content from the article, and ensure that claims made are attributed and verifiable. /Blaxthos 13:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are here to Determinenotability, not Assert it. 'Obviously' doesn't do anything for the discussion. If he is notable, give us some suitable references and add them to the page. MarkBul 15:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, probably trim - I'm not sure if he's notable, but he is vaguely amusing, until you get tired of him. He WAS on the Jerry Springer Show, and he's been on Howard Stern's show many times, and he has his own weekly show on Sirius Satellite Radio, and he's published a book, and I believe he does a podcast-type show.. AND he was captured by aliens twice! MGlosenger 07:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup: 1) Martin is clearly and undeniably a radio host with an audience following and a media history, he therefore passes notability. 2) No redflag claims are made about him, therefore the sources are reliably enough for the purpose (you don't need peer review journal entries to prove that somebody is a radio host). 3) There are no Wikipedia policies covering human dignity in relation to the greater population the last Afd point is therefore mute. - perfectblue 07:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR - only 1 RS. Bearian 02:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup: Notable, celebrity of multiple media formats and outlets, fanbase. Article does need more references and more notations, but I think it's workable. --Bark 13:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:I'm pretty sure that Riley Martin has already survived a deletion discussion. Xpendersx 01:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Citations within article show he is a national radio personality. Citations show he hosts a national show and is a noted guest on shows such as Coast to Coast AM. Citations for his Howard Stern Show appearances should be found though. MrBlondNYC 21:53, 5 September 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. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OLPC XS[edit]

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

This article was tagged for speedy but I think there is some assertion of notability. However I am not sure it meets the requirements. OLPC itself is notable but this is a product that seems not to have been produced yet and demonstrates no notability yet. I leave to the community to decide if its notable at present JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 12:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Take your pick:

We're not a crystal ball.

Entirely unreferenced.

Mostly original research.

No assertion of notability.

/Blaxthos 14:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Crystal ball or not, wikipedia normally does cover announced products. Have a look at the expected future Intel processors if you doubt this. We even have a ((future product)) template and a Future_products category for them.

Feel free to add the references. (see wiki.laptop.org) BTW, you have quite a backlog of long-existing articles without references...

Uh, WTF? It's not original research at all. What flakey theory is being suggested?

I hereby assert that it is in fact notable. No, it's not notable like the Pope, but it's good enough for an article especially when there is no name conflict requiring disambiguation.

AlbertCahalan 05:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Arguments above don't address specifics of the 4 WP guidelines and are simply opinion. Calltech 14:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge/redirect to OLPC. John Vandenberg 09:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:06, 8 September 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. Issues of referencing and criteria were not sufficiently addressed by those arguing to keep. Chick Bowen 15:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christians[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of Christians

Articles for deletion/List of Christians (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of Christians (3rd nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of Christians in entertainment and media

Articles for deletion/List of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian

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

An unmanagable list that violated Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (BLP). Perhaps this is a bit of a test case for other such lists, but I will only nominate this one for now. We have a category system that works well enough for this and I'm not convinced that the mini-biography at the side of the names adds anything special to make this list acceptable. My major concern is the BLP worry though, as this list comprises information about people (both in the mini-summary and in their inclusion in the list itself) that is totally unsourced. Would people be offended by being called a Christian? Well I don't know, maybe, but the mini-summary is also problematic. Further this, I would say, violates WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. violet/riga (t) 11:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD seems to have not gone through the full process. The consensus was for a rename but the AfD was not properly listed and was never officially closed. violet/riga (t) 12:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per the previous AfD, I'd suggest it be renamed to something to extent of List of Notable Christians. Pursey 11:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Pursey suggests. Most of the people on this list are dead, nearly all of them had positions in the church one way or another and it's not as if it's about satanism so I don't see where the BLP concerns come in. Nick mallory 12:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The inclusion criteria is arbitrary: "This is for people whose Christianity is important to their notability or significance, but who may not fit above lists. This largely means people whose denominations do not have lists of their own for varied reasons, but others might not fit any existing denomination yet be known to history for their Christian philosophy or activities." WP:LIST, however, states that "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics." Jakew 12:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it's a list of people with professed christian beliefs who aren't included in other lists of christians - popes etc. I don't see what's contentious about it. Nick mallory 12:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with Nick here. Even in the event it wasn't renamed, I'd be inclined to put in a comment in support of keeping it before I'd put in one supporting its deletion. Pursey 12:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically a self-reference, since it is defined as that which is not in other Wikipedia articles. It isn't based upon an established definition that's meaningful outside of Wikipedia itself. Jakew 12:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unmaintainable list with overly broad (and unclear) requirements for inclusion. Beyond that, the epitaphs next to the names are completely unverifiable. This should be a category. /Blaxthos 14:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as described above. Although the title is way too broad, the criteria for inclusion aren't hard to understand (Christian persons who became active in their church). Nor is there any difficulty in verifying the descriptives; you might try clicking on the blue name at the left of the line and it will take you to a Wikipedia article about the person. Mandsford 15:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete or Rename - The requirements for this list is unclear. The article should either be deleted or nemaed to better specify the list. Perhaps it should be a category? TheInfinityZero 15:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The second section is absurd. Done to completion, it would include many thousands of people. MarkBul 15:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I honestly do not think their religious affiliation has much to do with their notability. This is almost to the level of List of Scorpios etc Corpx 15:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)--at least unless and until that guideline is changed per some kind of consensus (not a huge problem if the list is merely renamed). This list is specifically mentioned in the guideline "how to" in composing lists of people. The fact that the list is up for AfD rather confirms my belief that there is widespread confusion about what constitutes a proper list and why this flagging policy conversation at On list guidelines really needs to happen. :)--Moonriddengirl 16:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no position towards delete or keep, but I would suggest that we not rename it to 'List of Notable Christians'. Such a list would have a rather large WP:POV problem by definition. It'd be better to pick a more impartial name. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It also seems to violate the naming conventions set out at Lists (stand alone lists). --Moonriddengirl 22:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how the list itself is a problem, if people are not added to it without proper evidence -- as the article itself mentions. On the other hand it doesn't seem very useful. I can't see why someone would want to use this list to look up a person's article. Steve Dufour 18:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of the entries are referenced at all. violet/riga (t) 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Inclusionism and WP:PAPER, however, sources should be added for every person on the list. Canjth 20:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment re: sources. What would be your interim suggestion for those without sources? Should be remove all unsourced entries until they are readded with references? violet/riga (t) 20:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article could stay the way it is until references are found. Otherwise it would become unmanageable due to the enormous task of finding references for every person on the list. Canjth 17:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doubtful that such references would be forthcoming, thus leaving the article as it is at the moment. violet/riga (t) 17:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those two links above isn't a reason for keeping an article. AFD is not a vote. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 03:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unmanageable because way too broadly defined. Use categories if person's religion is relevant. Weak keep and rename if it is only kept as a super-list of lists.— JyriL ^talk 22:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial delete and rename - delete all individual names and retain page as a meta-list called lists of Christians. Girolamo Savonarola 03:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial delete - per Savonarola. Unless the individual names are found to be notable as christians (and sourced as such), they should go. But a meta-list would satisfy WP:LIST. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the 'List of Christians who are not listed in one of the above lists'. Unmanageable list with weakly-defined entry characteristics; some of the more questionable entries (eg Adolf Hitler) strike a defensive tone, which is not a good sign. Keep the rest as a sort of disambiguation page, rather like List of Muslims and List of Jews. PS the List of Buddhists, List of Hindus and List of Sikhs may need looking at as well. Sam Blacketer 19:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unmaintanable. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 03:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't consider it to be a BLP issue. We're not talking about List of ax murderers. But the fact is, it's a horribly unmaintainable list that doesn't really tell us anything. --B 05:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete – Hey, I'm a Christian. Can I put my name on this list? Ksy92003(talk) 05:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Making absurd arguments is fallacious. This is a list of Christians with Wikipedia articles, not of Christian Wikipedians (for which a category probably exists). If you want to have this article deleted, please exlain it more rationally and cite which Wikipedia policies would back up your position. Canjth 21:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My argument isn't fallacious. The article is "List of Christians," and I am a Christian, so by that logic if I put my name on there, then you can't delete it because I am a Christian. Per the name of the article, I would be allowed to put my name there. If it were a List of "notable" Christians, that would be a different argument. Ksy92003(talk) 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOSLIST, no list article should include "notable," "famous," or the like in its title: those terms are always assumed. Thus List of Sun Microsystems employees is all blue links, as is List of collegiate a cappella groups, and so is List of Christians. Many of the deletionists here (and those proposing renaming) seem to be forgetting that. UnitedStatesian 18:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if renamed to notable christians; but the actual limitation seems to be those for whom Christianity was in some way relevant to their career or other notability. The evidence for this seems obvious in many cases, and is always clear from the information in the linked WP articles. It can be repeated of course, but i think such indirect referencing acceptable. My bias is that there needs to be some actual evidence. Surely most Jews would regard it libelous to be called a Christian, and I assume the same is true of other religions. Ksy can put his name on if he gets a WP article on other grounds, and it talks about his religion in some significant way. DGG (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My concern is BLP in nature: Lists are very similar to, and often used in place of (or even to get around) categories. WP:BLP#Categories requires that two criteria be met before a religious or sexual orientation category can be applied. I am inclined to apply the spirit of the BLP category restrictions to lists of this nature as well. It is very difficult to verify these things in list form, so I am inclined to not have such lists. - Crockspot 19:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessarily large, nearly impossible to maintain list, not to mention the fact that it is entirely unreferenced. According to WP:WPBIO, there are 426,053 biography articles (and there is likely a lot more). According to Christianity, about 1/3 of the world's population is Christian. Now I doubt anyone has determined the percentage of people famous for being Christan or doing Christan related things, but if only 1% of Christians meet the definitions used for this list (if there is much of a definition), that would correspond to over 1,400 articles. This is a situation where a category should be preferable. Mr.Z-man 21:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is there a legitimate need for this list that categories somehow don't satisfy? Besides, with the current title, it could never be compleated, listing the couple billion theoretical names of just living people alone might make the page too large to even view, but of course, there aren't notable sources for every single Christian that could go on this list. Furthermore, leaving more fighting grounds for the ridiculous Adolf Hitler: Can We Insult Christianity By Claiming He Was A Christian battle intact when they don't have to be seems like an unnecessary time sink for any editors involved in the battle. Homestarmy 00:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I strongly concur with Crockspot above. This is why we have categories, so they can be checked with references on the subject's page. Also, the principle of dual notability is central to categorisation and there is no reason why that should not be applied to lists as well.(That being said, the qualifier heading this list does tend to meet that objections halfway.) Hornplease 18:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG.Baka man 23:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Has two severe "what the Wikipedia is not" issues. --Eqdoktor 12:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - its a huge sprawling list, unmanageable and ripe for BLP abuse/vandalism.

Wikipedia is not a directory - Wikipedia is not the white pages for Christians (or any other religion, race or creed).

Strong Delete Well, many people in this list may not believe in Christianity. Many people may have been atheist, agnostics, deists, non-believers, theists but rejected Christianity, etc. This list is just too much! There is no way to prove that all the people in the list believed in Christianity. Delete it. RS1900 12:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issues and other articles[edit]

As I mentioned in the nomination there are BLP concerns and several other articles that we need to look at. List of evangelical Christians, for example, includes a great list of living people that have no citation and naming them as "evangelical" could be a problem. Perhaps we need to have a new discussion area for this. violet/riga (t) 13:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close as no consensus pending development of additional consensus around policies and guidelines related to list articles (and lists articles, which this actually is). While trying to assume good faith, I also detect the possibility some anti-Christian bias in the nomination and discussion - why was this one nominated first and not List of atheists, Lists of Hindus or Lists of Muslims? UnitedStatesian 15:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus?! The AFD has been open for just over 24 hours - how could this have possibly had time to even develop a consensus? I also have a problem with accusations of "anti-Christian bias" - there is none that I can see, and the evaluation of impropriety based on the fact that other religions weren't nominated first is baseless and should have absolutely no effect on this AFD. Just because this article was (rightly) nominated for deletion doesn't mean that anyone is out to get Christians. /Blaxthos 15:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, allow the AfD to run its course. I would hold the same view I express above no matter what religion was substituted for "Christians". - Crockspot 19:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:08, 8 September 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. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial Music Machine[edit]

Artificial Music Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, not much assertion of notability, does not meet WP:CORP. Proposed deletion a while ago was part of a disruption and reverted.[36]. Delete. Han-Kwang (t) 11:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. It has no notable bands signed (based on the lack of articles for them) Computerjoe 's talk 21:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This entry meets the WikiProject Music criteria for importance, because one of the musicians on this label (Merzbow) meets the criteria for notability. 76.99.4.15 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give a pointer to the applicable policy? All I can find is Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Notability which points to Wikipedia:Notability (music) which does not mention notability of a label by association. Han-Kwang (t) 19:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Aren't all record labels on Wikipedia notable 'by association' of the notable artists involved? 76.99.4.15 (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, at least not exclusively. The record label, like any company, should be subject of independent publications as described in WP:CORP. Otherwise, we would have to add articles about the secretary, the lover, the sound engineer as well for every famous person or musician. Han-Kwang (t) 23:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chick Bowen 15:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They get passing mentions on Google, but not articles about the label itself. MarkBul 17:20, 8 September 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-2[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Bi-2

Articles for deletion/Bi-2 (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Bi-2 (3rd nomination)

Bi-2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An unknown band, without sources, nor notability. Jmlk 1 7 11:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the most famous Russian rock bands ever since the 90's. It was deleted and then returned by a Russian administrator who commented this return on the discussion page. Ask every Russian, from Russia if he knows them, and you will see he does. M.V.E.i. 11:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If they are famous (and they may be), it shouldn't be hard to turn up a reliable source that verifies their notability. Otherwise, what you're saying just reduces to 'Keep because WP:ILIKEIT'. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC) See Below --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due increased sourcing. More reliable sources would be great, but that would be a cleanup issue. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the page needs to be cleaned up- I'll find some time between classes and this weekend to start writing an improved version of the page- and I'll see about more English sources (there are many top Russian media companies and publications that write about them). User: Olegious September 4, 2007 15:39 Pacific

Just make the check the Russian administrator made and wrote about on the Discussion page, type band Bi-2 or Би-2 and you will find many links, mostly Russian. You can also write their name at YouTube and see many of their clips. The project they led, Nechetniy Voin had bands like Agata Kristi, Nochniye Snaiperi (read about them at the Russian Rock category) and the Latvian Brainstorm. They wouldn't gather to a work led by an unknown band. If you would know Russian i would give you a link from the Russian MTV about tham that includes many awards and top-chart singles they had. M.V.E.i. 18:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment They are notable enough for WP without question, but references need to be added. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 18:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone would help me it would be nice, their is to much information on them and to much awards they took it's hard to collect them as puzzle from the internet. Because for a long time the Russian rock theme was left untouched on the English Wikipedia many here lost the inthusiasm and returned to the Russian wikipedia. I want to open a Russian rock WikiProject, so i could gather people and list the articles needing more references and expension and that way it will be easier and better to work because there will be a team, but the problem is that i dont know how to start a WikiProject, i dont know how to create it. I really work hard on the theme, i created more then 10 articles on importent Russian rock bands, but it's hard to be alone. If i'd had a WikiProject i could bring a team. M.V.E.i. 18:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC easily. MaxSem 22:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the entry should be deleted simply because there are no English sources is ridiculous. The article for Kino (arguably the most iconic Russian/Soviet rock band of all time doesn't have any English language citations either- does that mean it should be deleted as well? I'll do some research tonight and see if I can find any English sources, I know they used to be signed to Sony's record label. User: Olegious 16:02 (Pacific) 2 September 2007

Keep/Comment I am sorry, I've been away from editing Wiki, and I am appalled someone would notify the band page for deletion. Here's a page on the band history in English: http://russmus.net/band.jsp?band=Bi-2. They tour in the US quite frequently, and here's a link to the organization that brought them here the last time I attended a concert: http://russianrock.net/newsite/englsih.shtml

There are very few of us (I wish there were more) who are concerned with visibility of Russian music for the English-speakers, and suggesting this page for deletion is ludicrous. It is hard enough for any of the Russian-speaking bands to gain popularity in the US due to the language barrier, and now we want to delete any possibility of them being known outside of Russia??? Ani td 02:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found some English language articles that mention Bi-2:

1. Alastair Gee, Party with a Pop Star, The Moscow Times, May 2, 2007. - This one discusses what their fee is for private concerts- 15,000-20,000 Euros which (according to the article) places them in the same league as Leningrad and Via Gra two groups that have Wikipedia articles.
2. Maria Antonova, What to Do: Be Part of the Benefit, The Moscow Times, May 29, 2007. - This one discusses a concert happening in Moscow benefiting children's cancer charities. It lists Bi-2 as one of the "big names in Russian...pop and rock..." who are participating in the concert. The article mentions Bi-2 as one of the "stars" along with Mumiy Troll.
3. Tiffany Bakker, FOR PETE'S SAKE - WHY MR MURRAY IS GOING GLOBAL - Our man in Moscow, Sunday Telegraph Magazine (Australia), September 24, 2006. - This Australian article discusses a concert in Moscow called "Maxidrom 2006" which in 2005 was headlined by Franz Ferdinand and is "no dud" (meaning you have to be a big name to play there), Bi-2 is mentioned as one of the artists.
4. Yevgeny Sobetsky, Chechen police to drill security ahead of Nov 7 festival, ITAR-TASS News Agency, November 2, 2005. - Discusses the preparations for a rock festival in Chechnya. Bi-2 is listed as one of the "well-known groups" to be playing the festival along with Agata Kristi, Nochniye Snaiperi and others.
As you can see Bi-2 is consistently referred to as a "star" group and plays shows with other Russian groups that all have Wikipedia pages. If this is not enough to keep the article, then I don't know what is. I found these articles by doing a periodicals search through LexisNexis. User:Olegious September 4, 2007 15:01 Pacific

Bi-2 also performed at the Live 8 concert, Moscow concert. M.V.E.i. 15:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:10, 8 September 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 redirected by nom. (non-admin tidying up the loose ends) John Vandenberg 13:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goldstein (Tintin's doppelganger)[edit]

Goldstein (Tintin's doppelganger) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This character only appears as a one-off in early editions of a single Tintin adventure Land of Black Gold. He only features in one panel and does not actually play a major part. He would only be of interest to those who are into how Tintin's adventures were developed over the years. A more detailed account about this character can be found at the Minor characters in The Adventures of Tintin article. He is certainly not a major character of the sort of Captain Haddock or Professor Calculus who have their own. Marktreut 19:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of real world coverage for this fictional character Corpx 15:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Minor characters in The Adventures of Tintin, and if there is nothing to merge just redirect.--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. JIP | Talk 10:20, 4 September 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 kept per WP:SNOWBALL. Computerjoe 's talk 21:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trout tickling[edit]

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

Is this really notable? There's only one reference, reads like trivial information. Perhaps merge, because it's an obvious permastub. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tickling trout is an ancient and famous British tradition, mentioned in a lot of fiction as well, even by some obscure old pre internet dude called Shakespeare. I wonder if the nominator bothered to do any research on this at all before nominating it. It's an obvious keep. It took me ten minutes to greatly expand this "obvious permastub" as there are any number of references on the net. Nick mallory 10:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although I suspect this and the Noodling article might be able to be combined into a general article on barehanded fishing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Noodling would be a term unknown in Britain. Noodling refers to catching catfish in this way, tickling trout obviously to trout. You could always redirect 'baseball' to 'rounders' I suppose or redirect them both to 'generically hitting a ball with a stick and running around four bases'. I mean it's the same thing really isn't it? Nobody, in either country, would say 'I once went barehanded fishing', "tickling trout" is a much more common search term. Nick mallory 11:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons above. Xxanthippe 11:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found many sources on Google. Apparently illegal in some jurisdictions! The things you find... Pursey 11:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not for I'VE HEARD OF IT (but I have) - plenty of Google resource et. al. on this one... plus it's mentioned in Danny Champion of the World by Roald Dahl, my favourite kids book, so it must be okay </sarcasm>Pedro | Chat 14:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, absolutely. Four good references cited, but could do with a bit of a cleanup. Also, I know it counts for nothing, but I'm a British villager and I can assure you this is well known and practiced. Hell, I've even tried it. J Milburn 14:22, 1 September 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 keep: nomination withdrawn, no delete 'votes'. Computerjoe 's talk 21:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewson[edit]

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

~~Not notable, reads like an advert.~~ I withdraw my deletion nomination in light of the sourcing.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's nothing promotional about this article. Jewson is the largest builders merchant in Britain. It has about 400 branches and there is a branch in pretty much every town in the country. The company's first branch opened in Cambridgeshire in 1836. [37] If this isn't notable then what businesses are? Such a stub should be sourced and cleaned up, rather than brought to AfD. Nick mallory 12:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It should meet WP:CORP, but it is hard to find sources on it from third-party publications. Therefore a balanced encyclopedia article doesn't look possible.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not possible? I gave it two minutes and added sources about the firm's sponsorship of Gloucester Rugby Union Club, the opening of a major new store in the North East and this [38] from "Worldwide Business Information and Market Reports" which states that "Having undergone a period of major consolidation, the builders’ merchants market is now dominated by Jewson Ltd (owned by Saint-Gobain Building Distribution Ltd), Wolseley PLC and Travis Perkins PLC...These top three companies each have total sales of over £1bn." This [39] is a report from the European Commission on a merger concerning Jewsons' role as a builder's merchants in Saint Gobain's takeover of Meyer. Nick mallory 12:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete the lot. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Digging: As Sampled By Kanye West[edit]

Gold Digging: As Sampled By Kanye West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is the subject of a non-notable and trivial mixtape by Kanye West. Mixtapes rarely, if ever, receive reviews or sales. It fails WP:N, there is no "Significant coverage" of the topic. All the article can ever be is a tracklisting and an infobox. ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above:

Class of '06: World's Best Dressed Label Under G.O.O.D Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kanye West Presents: Promise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DJ Dub: Style & Grace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can't Tell Me Nothing: The Official Mixtape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DJ LRM & Stackhouse: Alter Ego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete all - Underground mixtapes are general not notable; nothing special in these casesl. /Blaxthos 14:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:MUSIC. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No multiple, non-trivial coverage, just a track listing. Unlike an album, this can never expand to have info such as background, themes, sales, certifications, or a wide range of reviews from music critics. There are song articles much longer than these. Spellcast 18:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Douglasr007 22:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete this or other mix-tapes, it is relevant information and deserves have an article about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.224.4 (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance and deserving are not two of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Being the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable sources is, which none of these article provide proof of. Delete all. --Geniac 15:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The nomination for Lushlife Presents: West Sounds was withdrawn by nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ LRM & Kanye West: Ego[edit]

DJ LRM & Kanye West: Ego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is the subject of a non-notable and trivial mixtape by Kanye West. Mixtapes rarely, if ever, receive reviews or sales. It fails WP:N, there is no "Significant coverage" of the topic. All the article can ever be is a tracklisting and an infobox ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 09:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above:

DJ Kochece Presents Kanye West & Pharrell: Skateboards & Blazers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DJ LRM: Instrumental World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DJ Rukiz: Early Enrollment (Kanye Blends) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DJ A-Trak & Kanye West: Welcome 2 Kanye's Soul Mix Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete all - Underground mixtapes are general not notable; nothing special in these casesl. /Blaxthos 14:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:MUSIC. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No multiple, non-trivial coverage, just a track listing. Unlike an album, this can never expand to have info such as background, themes, sales, certifications, or a wide range of reviews from music critics. There are song articles much longer than these. Spellcast 18:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep West Sounds Was the subject of extensive media coverage due to it combining what is considered one of the best pop albums of all time with West's music. It is famous along the lines of The Grey Album. It could definitely use some expansion but it is a very notable album. --Djsasso 19:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So you want to keep Lushlife Presents: West Sounds (Kanye Meets The Beach Boys) but delete all of the others? --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 16:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yeah I can accept the others going. But this one was a landmark album. --Djsasso 20:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have retracted the AfD for that one now. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is indeed a landmark album, it'd be a good idea to provide multiple, reliable sources (other than a track listing). Otherwise, it will probably be taken to AfD again. Spellcast 21:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems correct and good article about a album ..to me at least.--Zingostar 20:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But it's not an album, it's a mixtape which has no information reviews etc. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:31, 2 September 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summer School (The Late Registration Prequel)[edit]

Summer School (The Late Registration Prequel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is the subject of a non-notable and trivial mixtape by Kanye West. Mixtapes rarely, if ever, receive reviews or sales. It fails WP:N, there is no "Significant coverage" of the topic. All the article can ever be is a tracklisting and an infobox ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 09:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related articles for the same reasons as above: —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-G-Unit-Boss (talk • contribs) 09:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kon the Don (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Clinton Sparks & Kanye West: Touch the Sky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The College Dropout: Mixtape Version (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The College Dropout: Mixtape Version 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The College Dropout: Mixtape Version 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete all - Underground mixtapes are general not notable; nothing special in these casesl. /Blaxthos 14:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:MUSIC. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No multiple, non-trivial coverage, just a track listing. Unlike an album, this can never expand to have info such as background, themes, sales, certifications, or a wide range of reviews from music critics. There are song articles much longer than these. Spellcast 18:28, 1 September 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freshmen Adjustment[edit]

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

This article is the subject of a non-notable and trivial mixtape by Kanye West. Mixtapes rarely, if ever, receive reviews or sales. It fails WP:N, there is no "Significant coverage" of the topic. All the article can ever be is a tracklisting and an infobox. ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 09:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above:

Freshmen Adjustment 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Best of Kanye West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tapemasters, Inc. & Kanye West: We Major in This (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mick Boogie & Kanye West - Second Semester: Kanye Essentials 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Late Mixtape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete all - Underground mixtapes are general not notable; nothing special in these casesl. /Blaxthos 14:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:MUSIC. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No multiple, non-trivial coverage, just a track listing. Unlike an album, this can never expand to have info such as background, themes, sales, certifications, or a wide range of reviews from music critics. There are song articles much longer than these. Spellcast 18:29, 1 September 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blitz (magazine)[edit]

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

Non-notable in-house what's on guide for a student union. Blitz is a weekly what's on guide whose primary role is to report to members of its publisher, a student union called Arc @ UNSW. The magazine has a short history and limits itself to light topics and brief articles. As such it has not made the sort of contribution to the city's cultural life as student newspapers such as Tharunka and Honi Soit. Though the article has recently acquired a couple of third-party footnotes (suspicious in that they are hard copy references but lack page numbers), there seems little that this article could verifiably say that could not be inserted as a paragraph in the Arc article. Indeed, the only contributors to the article so far appear to have been Arc volunteers. (Disclosure: I am neither an Arc volunteer nor a Blitz contributor.) Joestella 09:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. NN student newspaper. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 12:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't made up my mind as yet, but I'd like to clear up some misleading comments from the nominator. I added some of the references; they are news articles, and so it seems unusual to demand page numbers? Also, Joe knows that I have contributed to the article, and he also knows that I am not an Arc volunteer, which I have made clear on the article talk page. Conveniently though, he forgets to mention his own conflict of interest issues, considering he has been intimately involved with Tharunka in the past. People would want to consider this AFD should keep these points in mind. Recurring dreams 12:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how editing a separate student newspaper three years ago presents a conflict of interest. Blitz and Tharunka do not compete, there is little to no content overlap, and for the record, I neither read nor have any ongoing interest in the latter. Finally, if the references are genuine, just add the page numbers, for the sake of WP:V. Joestella 23:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable. Perhaps you could have extended the same good faith to the contributors of the article, and not been so ready to throw around accusations of conflict of interest? Also, I accessed the sources through Factiva. I'll have to check if there are page numbers. Recurring dreams 23:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So just to clarify, you're not a Yellow Shirt or other Arc volunteer? Joestella 00:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am usually not even on campus. Recurring dreams 00:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: While I do think it is important to include student newspapers (I completed this list last month), but if you look at the downloadable copies of the magazine, it's mostly ads and student union event news. Delete and redirect to Arc @ UNSW I think. alexis+kate=? 23:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cruftmagnet. Look at the list of nicknames in ex-editors section. 125.255.9.231 02:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on that comment? Recurring dreams 12:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are already a number of student publications and magazines on Wikipedia (eg, Tharunka, The Student Leader, Independent Student Magazine). Most of these articles have less in-line references than the Blitz article, and are merely a repository for useless facts about the magazine. If we slate this one for deletion, then I think some consensus should be established on what makes a student newspaper and magazine notable enough for inclusion into Wikipedia. CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 09:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Each article needs to be considered on its own merits. The consensus on any article having its own page is that it meets WP:N. There is nothing to stop this information being included in another page as long as it is verifiable. Assize 03:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (Merge has already largely happened) The magazine has been running long enough, and is notable. I've added secondary sources. Although it is a "what's on" guide, if you read the magazine on the website, every issue clearly has independant material on a variety of topics. The incident about the joints shows that. Recurring dreams 12:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the nominator's arguments apply to the majority of Australian student magazine articles - they should generally be summarised as a paragraph in the parent article about their respective universities. Euryalus 21:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient secondary sources to establish notability under WP:N. The article in the Australian is 4 sentences about an article published by the magazine being pulled because its subject was about "rolling a joint". The magazine is rather incidental to the topic of the story. It's not substantial nor non-trivial. Page should be deleted, and any useful information merged into another page. Assize 03:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Recurring's references establish what I said above, that it's a what's-on guide and that it doesn't include serious editorial content (an attempt to include such was rebuffed). Furthermore, the two references are the only ones in the whole of the Australian media in the past 10 years, at least in the Oz, the SMH and the ABC. Joestella 04:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Pending a decision to delete the article, I have merged most of it's content with the Arc @ UNSW article. I suggest that the same should be done for the sister publication of the organisation, Tharunka. CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 05:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 06:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable outside a single university. JIP | Talk 10:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Joe. Twenty Years 10:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete view - lacks the necessary secondary sources to meet WP:N. Bridgeplayer 23:28, 5 September 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. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GEMM theory[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up in physics class one day. Neither of the cited references mentions the theory. Made up by a guy on YouTube. Weregerbil 09:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. Leibniz 13:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. /Blaxthos 14:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:RS, WP:N. Possible hoax too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfigura (talk • contribs) 17:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of assertion of notability. Even though the theory of luminiferous aether held up so well to experimental verification, I doubt this new version will catch on. Someguy1221 05:51, 3 September 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, consider moving; strong case for notability has been made. -- Visviva 02:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Park Sung-Joon[edit]

Park Sung-Joon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Gamer who, while professional, appears to be non-notable, failing WP:BIO Oscarthecat 08:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete mind-numbingly non-notable. I can't believe this has survived since 2006!! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sure if it qctually qualifies for speedy. /Blaxthos 14:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- PC78 15:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (this article certainly doesn't qualify for speedy deletion). As a competitor in StarCraft professional competition he seems to meet the notability criteria for athletes, i.e. "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport". For what it's worth, he also gets a mention in this news article, which identifies him as a team leader in the Starcraft Pro League finals, suggesting notability within his field. PC78 15:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for the information. Having information like this in the article would make sense. As it stands the article doesn't help assert his notability. --Oscarthecat 17:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I agree - the article states that he is a professional gamer (which by definition makes him notable), and mentions several competitions that he has been involved in. I'll see if I can clean it up a bit though (when I get chance). PC78 17:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 63,000 Ghits to JulyZerg. He's actually quite a star in Korea and this article is good for combatting WP:BIAS. Debivort 22:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the problems seem to be in tranliterating the Korean. JulyZerg appears as Park Seong Jun in the StarCraft professional competition and as Park Sung Jun in the Starleague (Ongamenet) articles (I can be sure of this as the victories credited to JulyZerg on this page correspond to those on the Starleague (Ongamenet) article). If we're going by Ghits we can probably find more if we search for variations of Park Seong Joon, Park Seong-Jun etc. The only reasons I can think of for deleting this aricle is that the bio in the StarCraft professional competition article is actually better, and we might avoid confusion of all the possible transliterations by using JulyZerg as the article title. I'm going to try and link the three articles, anyone have a preference for which version of the name I should use. KTo288 00:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just found yet another version of the name. BahkSungJoon that is used as a redirect, so thats 2x2x2x2 versions of the name 2 versions of each of the names and with or without the dash.KTo288 00:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in my fuss over the names I seem to have forgotten to make my case for keeping. The case is that in the StarCraft professional competition it is stated that he is a major player in the championship being the pre-eminent Zerg player and in the Starleague (Ongamenet) he appears in the list of the winners and runners up of the league.KTo288 08:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's definitely notable, he's one of the most recognized names in Korean progaming. The transliteration is a little tricky because the official romanization is often skipped. Lx Rogue 17:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What would be an appropriate version of the name to use in all three articles and the Starcraft professional competition infobox?KTo288 19:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 'Park Sung Jun' or 'Park Sung Joon' I think would be the top two, but there really is no standard for this. The sounds 'eo' and 'u' represent the same vowel as do 'u' and 'oo,' and technically 'Park' is pronounced 'Pak.' I guess you can see why this gets confusing. Lx Rogue 07:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note This debate has been included in the list of Video games deletons KTo288 19:52, 3 September 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 per clear consensus. However, proponents of article are strongly encouraged to locate and cite reliable secondary sources; press releases from award-givers are less than ideal.-- Visviva 05:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS 4e Basic Set[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/GURPS 4e Basic Set

Articles for deletion/GURPS 4e Basic Set (2nd nomination)

GURPS 4e Basic Set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is for gaming instructions ~~in PDF format~~, but content fails to demonstrate notability under WP:BK or WP:FICTION. Links to publisher and similar products identifies this as WP:FANCRUFT.--Gavin Collins 08:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, the nomination as it is is flawed: this book, being the instruction manual for a game, does not fall within WP:BK (which explicitly excludes instruction manual) and even less within WP:FICTION (this manual is not about fictional concepts: it contains real-world rules for a real-world game). Second, I am not sure that tagging somebody's work as "fancruct" is the friendliest way to initiate a fruitful exchange of views (see my message to Gavin and his reply for more on this). Third, and more to the point, this is a major new version of one of the most notable role-playing game systems. In its context, this is comparable to Mac OS X or Windows Vista, and has already received awards in its own right. --Goochelaar 11:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have amended the nomination: To clarify, it is the addendum/update to the instructions that is in PDF format, not the game guide itself. Don't get me wrong; I think Fancruft is not a bad thing when it expands our understanding of a book, a film or game when it is supported by independent sources, but this article lacks fails to do this. To correctly understand this book's context, it is more like a "how to" play GURPS guide, equivalent to a Readme file in Windows, rather than a new release of Windows. --Gavin Collins 22:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the comment Not that this in itself are a bad thing, but you seem not to have much of a familiarity with this or other role-playing games. The object we are talking about is in itself the whole of the game. There are no board and pieces, or computer, or game field, other rules or anything external this could be a guide to: paper and pencil are often useful, some people also like miniature figures, and dice are necessary, but this is the game. --Goochelaar 22:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, we're talking about the two-book set. No-one is suggesting that GURPS be deleted. Percy Snoodle 14:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idle Comment Incidentally, Mr. Collins has attempted to do just that in the past. --Master Forcide 20:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. Article is not about a PDF instruction set; nominator is misinformed. -- JHunterJ 12:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! I missed this. The only mention of PDF is to a booklet to update from 3rd to 4th edition. --Goochelaar 12:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Redirect to GURPS. GURPS, the role-playing system, has been inducted into the Adventure Gaming Hall of Fame (see Origins Awards), so notability of the general system has been demonstrated in this fashion (amongst others), and this is an updated version of that system. As was noted in the article itself this version has received other awards (and been nominated for another Origins Award). As noted above by Goochelaar, and others in similar AfD nominations, WP:BK and WP:FICTION don't apply to these books, so the nominator shouldn't be using them as guidelines. (As a minor addendum, this has also been published in book form, not just PDF.) If it helps satisfy the nominator, I shall add the ISBN numbers to the article so that people can locate it in other sources than solely from the publisher. Links to similar products are only relevant as they point to other resources for use of these books. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete / merge - While GURPS may be notable, this individual book (or probably any individual work in this series) is not - Notability is not inherited. Unfortuantely, when it comes to certain topics (webcomics, RPG's, etc.) Wikipedia seems to have a large portion of the community that conveniently forgets our rules and guidelines in favor of stuff they like. /Blaxthos 14:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you not notice the award that this particular book won (not some other version)? --Craw-daddy | T | 14:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - The "award" is as non-notable as the content of this article. ;-) Non-notable awards from a fansite does not embue any additional notability. /Blaxthos 16:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry, but I dont see any notability from this award. It is essentially a fan site run by 1 person. Delete per lack of coverage from RS Corpx 15:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Nomination incorrectly describes the subject and appears not to understand the terms notability or fancruft. This is especially frustrating becuase people have addressed these issues with the nominator in his numerous other attempts to get Gurps articles deleted. The award is not from a fansite or made by an individual and claiming such shows those posters have not read the sources at all. Edward321 16:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep how many times do we have to go through this?KTo288 20:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that's not an argument - see WP:NOTAGAIN Percy Snoodle 15:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No reason at all to delete this per multiple knowledgeable user comments above. This is not fancruft or spam or a PDF, and the nominator clearly displays his unfamiliarity with the topic in his nomination. Rray 02:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. GURPS is a notable game. GURPS 4e Basic Set is not a notable set of books. If this article isn't deleted, it sets a precedent for a slew of crufty pages - if the notability of GURPS is enough for GURPS 4e Basic Set, then presumably we can have articles for the first three editions, and of every edition of every notable game on wikipedia! Percy Snoodle 10:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see also WP:NOTINHERITED Percy Snoodle 15:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nominator is fishing. --Agamemnon2 11:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question what does "fishing" mean in this context? How does it affect the notability of a pair of books? Percy Snoodle 14:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, GURPS is highly notable and this is the core rulebook. The nominator has shown a lack of discrimination in nominating GURPS-related articles for deletion previously, I'd like to see a bit more of a justification for deletion than just his say-so. Bryan Derksen 00:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, notability is not inherited. GRUPS may be notable, but this book in and of itself is not. The "award" referenced is from a website that itself fails notability criteria. /Blaxthos 00:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two awards are referenced, and the other one is an Origins Award nomination (for this book in and of itself). -- JHunterJ 01:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a nomination isn't a win, and the other two awards are of the ten-a-penny website kind. The book set fails WP:BK. Percy Snoodle 06:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to GURPS. This is the current main set for GURPS -- if GURPS is notable, this is notable, because this is GURPS, at the moment. I'd be fine with seeing it merged into the main article, since it is central to the topic, but clearly discussion of it is necessary for a complete description of GURPS. Gavin, your statement "To correctly understand this book's context, it is more like a "how to" play GURPS guide, equivalent to a Readme file in Windows, rather than a new release of Windows" seems to indicate, as Goochelaar mentioned, that you don't understand what these things are that you're nominating for deletion. While clearly one doesn't need to be an expert on a subject to discuss its notability for the Wikipedia, a basic knowledge of what the subject is seems important. Windows would exist without a readme; GURPS would not exist without its basic set, because the game is something created by the players based on the guidelines in the basic set. Do you understand what we're saying? I've tried to make this point in several of these discussions and haven't gotten a clear reply. Pinball22 14:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question You say "if GURPS is notable, this is notable, because this is GURPS" - so why should there be two articles? Percy Snoodle 14:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm fine with it being merged into the main GURPS article because of that. I could also see a reason for keeping it separate, though, in that the main article is more of an overview of the history of GURPS and how it generally works and this article could specify more of the details of the current edition's basic set. Pinball22 14:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article states that the book "contains the core rules...need to run a GURPS campaign". I apologise in advance, but my interpretation is that (a) GURPS is a game system, and (b) that the GURPS 4e Basic Set is a book of rules and instructions on how to operate or navigate this system. Therefore if a player reads this book, they will then know "how to" play. Whether you call this book a set of gaming rules, an instruction manual or a "how to" guide is a semanitc variation on this idea. Where there may be some misunderstanding is that, as the game involves role playing and is not computer based, Pinball22 is asserting that the book and the game are one and the same. However, ~~his~~ her assertion is incorrect; a role playing game is played in the imagination, but GURPS 4e Basic Set is seperate from the game, and as such is a non-notable instruction manual.--Gavin Collins 15:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... now it's clear to me that you do understand what a pen-and-paper RPG entails, thanks. I don't think you can call the core rulebooks non-notable and the game notable, though, as the game wouldn't exist without the books. (I'm a she, BTW. :) Pinball22 16:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but notability is not inherited... just because the game writ large is notable doesn't mean that notability is conferred upon one of its rulebooks. Each rulebook needs to meet with our notability guidelines as a standalone entity -- not because it deals with a subject that is notable. For example, the game of Tennis is obviously notable... is my USTA umpire rulebook also notable and worthy of USTA Umpire Rulebook? Of course not. /Blaxthos 16:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's an entirely logical comparison -- tennis exists without a rulebook in a way that an RPG doesn't. Now, as I said, I think it's fine to merge this information to the main article, since the game doesn't exist without this book, but just deleting it for being a rulebook in the same way a tennis umpire's guide is a rulebook is a misunderstanding of what it is. Pinball22 17:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy that we are finally getting to the point. But, Gavin, if "a role playing game is played in the imagination, but GURPS 4e Basic Set is seperate from the game, and as such is a non-notable instruction manual", as you say, which is the game for which GURPS 4e Basic Set is the instruction manual? --Goochelaar 16:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a trick question? Because GURPS seems like an easy answer, and GURPS has its own article which no-one is suggesting deleting. Percy Snoodle 08:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No trick question! It is just that following Gavin' reasoning, one could get to the conclusion that no rulebook can ever deserve an article, because only the game as an abstract thing deserves it. If you want, there is the subtler question whether playing GURPS's 4th edition is playing the same game as playing GURPS 3rd edition. But these only philosophical questions. Here, of course, the only point is to ascertain the notability of this particular set of manuals, and this in turn apparently boils down to whether the listed awards (and, possibly, some reviews) are enough to confer notability. --Goochelaar 10:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything more than a cursory glance shows that the two "awards" are themselves from non-notable entities. I wouldn't argue that all rulebooks are inherently non-notable. What I would say is that we should raise the bar regarding what constitutes notability for game rulebooks beyond reviews and awards from dime-a-dozen fansite/gameblogs. /Blaxthos 14:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need to take another more-than-cursory glance at the second award mentioned, the Origins Award, which is from a notable entity. As already mentioned, it's a nomination, not a win, but that doesn't make the entity non-notable. -- JHunterJ 16:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does failing to win a notable award make it notable. Percy Snoodle 22:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the closest thing to WP:N you can find is a nomination then I think it might be a bit of a reach... /Blaxthos 22:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 15:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Keep — Sufficiently notable. — RJH (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question How so? Which guideline does it meet, and how? see WP:NOREASON. Percy Snoodle 08:18, 6 September 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 due to lack of reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 12:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super mario land 4[edit]

Super mario land 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Alleged Game Boy game but a bit short on refs. Hoax or what? -- RHaworth 07:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax. No box-art, no references, nothing on google, unconvincing description.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nydas. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 10:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one of the comments under one of the YouTube videos states that this is a user hack of a Shin Chan game, and indeed the gameplay simply does not look like a Super Mario game. Also, no one has ever heard of it. MGlosenger 03:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davidzx's Response in defence for the Article:

Box art and references have been updated, Also google links to this game have been provided in the external links sections.

Box art provided by a reconfiguration of rom maping into a whole title page image.

Reviews to the Game have been added as well as a visionary source towards this game.

More images uploaded.

Descriptions should be update shortly to suite proffesional viewer needs.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidzx (talk • contribs) 14:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unverifiable, this looks like a WP:HOAX to me. /Blaxthos 14:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I found this link which also claims to be "Super Mario Land 4", which appears to be a homebrew (read: unofficial) release for the TI-83/TI-84 models of scientific calculators by Texas Instruments. If anything, this just adds to the confusion. Given the difficulty in verifying the content of this article, I'm not willing to change my delete !vote. /Blaxthos 15:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I'd usually mark this as a delete pretty easily, but the YouTube video makes me wonder if it could actually be a really game with a lousy article. If the game exists, perhaps the article only needs clean-up? TheInfinityZero 15:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davidzx's Response: Definitly a cleanup is in order. A complete spellcheck, vocabulary fix, And more info will be update to ensure the success of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidzx (talk • contribs) 15:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davidzx's Response: thx to Blaxthos, More info has been provided. The data on the story should change now and re edited. Also: All info, Data, images, necessary information, spell checks, Tests are in order. The last Deletes that stated uneccessary information and declare that this article is a hoax are invalid due to the fact that all possible information has been included with all the available references and information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidzx (talk • contribs) 16:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Verification seems to be spotty at best, and the article is a mess. Could be saved, but it would take major work. Realkyhick 17:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title screenshot looks like a alteration of the Mario 64 box, with an identical font and posture for Mario. It doesn't say 'Super Mario Land 4', just 'Super Mario 4'. The Tiscalc link is for a different Super Mario Land 4, a homebrew project. With the YouTube videos, my money's on another bit of homebrew. One of the comments says it's a hack of another game, with mario sprites ported in, and some of this game's videos explicitly call it a hack [40]. No major gaming website has *any* information on this supposed game. For example, Gamespot's list of Mario games [41] has obscure curios like All Night Nippon Super Mario Bros but not this game.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davidzx's Response: Regardless of all the Deletes. This game exists, Only so much information can be obtained. Regardless of all the objections this game exists proving that this article is not a hoax. Information Regarding to claiming this game is a hoax is invalid. No other article has been created for this game which makes an empty spot for writing this article. All information will be re edited and cleaned up to viewer preference soon but please be patient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidzx (talk • contribs) 18:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A search of video game titles on Gamefaqs yields nothing. shoy 20:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You said it best yourself, "No Major site whatsoever has the data available for this game", and therefore, this article fails WP:N requirements. WP:ITEXISTS isn't a reason to keep an article. shoy 23:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: No Major site whatsoever has the data available for this game. Youtube and DGemu have the only data necessary for this game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidzx (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: no major site has any info towards this article, But that doesnt meen no site whatsoever has any info. The info provided is under references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidzx (talk • contribs) 01:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An official listing of Game Boy games on Nintendo's Japanese site (http://www.nintendo.co.jp/n02/dmg/index.html) shows it does not exist. 75.153.231.20 17:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a sec, I didnt say anyone could edit the article itself. Also the gmae infact does exist. Regardless if it is a pirated version the original is still out there somewhere. But still, This article does have the need to explain this game. Also the references and information I included earlier are the proof. Also no one is to touch them without my concent.(undo) unless a proper reason is included. Comments and reviews towards this game form other sites are part of the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidzx (talk • contribs) 18:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem a tad confused about how Wikipedia works. First of all, it is not your article. Anyone can edit it without your permission. Second, the references and "explanations" are poorly put together and are not in an encyclopedic style (heres some hints: don't put "more info will be updated soon" and look up what counts as legitimate references and external links, and do you honestly not see whats wrong with putting Roms on the page?). Therefore, I'm removing them until you do it properly. Lastly, this game is not an official Nintendo game and fails notability. I wish some other people would help with this issue. You're letting this guy get away with this garbage. 75.153.231.20 09:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- try WP:OWN, WP:NOTE, and WP:RS. All are pertinent to the discussion, David. The Evil Spartan 18:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of guest appearances on Friday Night with Jonathan Ross[edit]

List of guest appearances on Friday Night with Jonathan Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The content of this list has been taken exclusively from a page on www.tv.com. While tv.com is generally reliable, Wikipedia is not a directory of people who have appeared on a talk show. People on the list are only loosely associated, since appearing for a couple of minutes on a talk show is generally not a notable facet of a person's life. Gracenotes^T § 07:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ugh, this kind of thing could proliferate if allowed. Speciate 07:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Marskell 08:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Especially since it does appear to be copy-paste work pretty much. Pursey 11:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Marksell & Pursey. /Blaxthos 14:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I sense a campaign to rid ourselves of these guest-appearance lists, to which I say, "Thank you!" Non-notable, indiscriminate list. Realkyhick 17:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To indiscriminate a collection of information per WP:NOT#DIR. Also a bit of WP:LISTCRUFT. Finally, I would like to see a source outside of tv.com that could source this list, so I say delete. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 20:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a directory of loosely associated people, because being a guest on a talk show once is not a notable enough characteristic to group people by. Crazysuit 00:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, needless list. JIP | Talk 10:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nashville Predators. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 303[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Section 303

Articles for deletion/Section 303 (2nd nomination)

Section 303 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

several articles on topics exactly like this have been deleted, in fact, some of the AFDs have been started by me. If one article of this type should go, all should go. Postcard Cathy 07:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso 19:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable third-party sources with substantial content can be found to satisfy WP:V and WP:ORG. Jakew 12:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources, probably because this sort of thing just isn't notable in a worldwide encyclopedia. /Blaxthos 14:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of coverage of this fan section from reliable sources. I also dont think anyone cares about it outside the local area Corpx 15:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per media coverage at the Tennessean, a little different media coverage at The Tennessean, at The City Paper,on WKRN, and on CNN. Also, deleters argument seems to be falling into WP:ALLORNOTHING. - Smashville 16:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge and redirect into Nashville Predators. The section has enough sources press coverage. I could see merging this into the team's main article; it might be the preferred action here. Realkyhick 17:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started the first AfD until I realized that the group had been covered in depth in several newspapers and other reliable sources. These fans meet the notability guidelines. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has received extensive coverage in reliable sources and often are featured on XM's national hockey talk radio. As wel WP:ALLORNOTHING is not a valid deletion reason.--Djsasso 18:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just a group of people. There is no notability of these fans. They are just fans, and every single team has them. There isn't anything different from these fans from Kings fans. Ksy92003(talk) 21:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree. And I want to reiterate that the arguments NeoChaos has made were similar or the same to arguments made in other articles like this that I have successfully Prod'd or submitted for AfD. Worldwide, there are many groups like this cheering on their favorite teams and many of those get press coverage. And of those, many are also mentioned on tv or radio by commentators who mention them for whatever reason. But they also mention the guy with the face paint or wig. And that guy doesn't belong on wiki either! Cathy
Can you explain why? I mean...can you give a reason within Wikipedia guidelines? This is a notable group with independent sources to verify notability. It seems like your complaint falls to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Smashville 04:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into Nashville Predators per Realkyhick. Seems like the main Preds article would be a better fit for this content. Especially since the size of the article is more like a stub anyway. -Pparazorback 04:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have appeared on Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!'s "Not My Job" segment[edit]

List of people who have appeared on Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!'s "Not My Job" segment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list is indiscriminate, as a large collection of loosely related details. While the people appearing on the list are notable, there is no evidence that the subject matter of the list itself has not been noted elsewhere. The "Not My Job" segment of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me does not even have its own article. This list is also poorly sourced. Gracenotes^T § 07:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to be no importance or significance of their appearance on the radio news-quiz show Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!. Did the ratings for that show sky rocket after an appearance by Madeleine Albright? Did Alan Alda go on that show after a nationally known embarrassing moment? A reliable source statement for each entry in that list as to why a particular appearance on Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! was important or significant in some way could comply with WP:LIST. However, the only requirement to be added to that Wikipedia list is merely an appearance on the quiz show. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOT a directory of people who have appeared on a show Corpx 15:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Repeated from a discussion above: I sense a campaign to rid ourselves of these guest-appearance lists, to which I say, "Thank you!" Non-notable, indiscriminate list. Realkyhick 17:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second that, although I don't know if there are any left, so the campaign may be over. Special:Allpages is useful for finding them though. Crazysuit 00:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a directory of loosely associated people, because being a guest on a radio show once is not a notable enough characteristic to group people by. Crazysuit 00:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, needless list. JIP | Talk 10:22, 4 September 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 – no independent sources to verify notability. KrakatoaKatie 19:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coase's Penguin[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Coase's Penguin

Coase's Penguin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article seems to be a summary of a published paper. There are no independent reliable sources characterizing any importance or significance of Coase's Penguin. Rather than being the topic of reliable sources, the essay seems to be reference material that would be cited among many other references by downstream authors. There does not seem to be enough reliable source material on Coase's Penguin that is independent of Coase's Penguin for this article to meet Wikipedia:Notability. Although the article does not belong on Wikipedia, Wikisource might be an appropriate location for this article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cited 73 times in Web of Science. I do not find that such an astounding figure as to warrant an article for an individual scientific paper. Merge into the article for the author. Most notable academics have several papers in this range. I would not like to start the practice of considering papers notable unless there were actual evidence that they were viewed as landmarks. I don't see it here. DGG (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chick Bowen 15:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of notablility I can find. MarkBul 17:22, 8 September 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Towle[edit]

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

WP:BIO, not a notable person Just_Mikala 07:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NN A social worker whose license was revoked who now calls himself a "coach." One famous client and one appearance in a documentary. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. OfficeGirl 07:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has a lengthy and important role in the film, and therefore in the history of the band Metallica. People who have just viewed the film might reasonably be expected to want to know who he is outside the film, and will turn to Wikipedia. Speciate 07:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article already has a couple of decent sources, Google News suggests that there are quite a few more. Iain99 07:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the two above comments. WP:BIO isn't set in concrete; and I feel this is a notable entry. Pursey 09:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For the same reason as posted in the above comments. TheInfinityZero 15:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficient sources, notability is well asserted. Realkyhick 17:46, 1 September 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Łomna (Bircza)[edit]

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

Village in Poland, without (m)any resources, nor any support from online research. Jmlk 1 7 06:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Places [42], even historical places are usually deemed notable and the Polish Wikipedia has this article on it [43]. Seems a classic case of an article which can be improved. This is the English language wikipedia but it still covers the world. Perhaps someone who speaks Polish can help here? Nick mallory 06:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, villages are notable. 96T 11:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is precisely the sort of thing I use Wikipedia to find info on. Could do with expanding, but I wouldn't like to see *Keep as notable. Expand and provide references.— JyriL ^talk 22:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It has been the practice to keep articles about villages which lack the multiple reliable and independent sources which would be needed to show enough notability to keep a church, an organization, a school, a professor, or a shopping mall; but the actual existence of the vilage must be verified. I have seen several articles about villages, roads, or historical persons which were absolute hoaxes. I am not at all claiming that this particular one is a hoax, but anyone could make up a village somewhere and write an article about it. Anything must be verifiable to avoid having its article deleted. A foreign language Wikipedia is no more reliable a site than an article in the English language Wikipedia, and the Polish article also has no references. The website [44] might satisfy verifiability, if it were shown to be a reliable site, but it appears to be the website of an anonymous author, so even the two sources mentioned here do not really prove it exists. So as it is, it fails verifiability. Even directory type information from government sites or maps (while not enough to show notability) would satisfy my thirst for verifiability for a village. Edison 01:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's going to be hard to verify the existence of a former village on the web--because, by former, is meant it currently does not exist--so your criterion is not helpful. See World War II to learn why. There appear to be quite a few google hits, so I'm not sure why you're limiting it to the two websites you chose, maybe you could elaborate?[45]KP Botany 03:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The website that I discussed was not one I "chose." It was the only one anyone had mentioned above in this AFD, above, by Nick Mallory. The Polish Wikipedia, as I said, is no more considered a reliable source than the English language Wikipedia. There were and are no references with the article. Many Google hits may be a different village of the same name. (There are many cities named "Paris" or "London" or "Dover" in the U.S., for instance, and 3 named "State Line" in Pennsylvania alone). Some of the Google hits are clearly for a different village which has a different Wikipedia article, in Poland's Masovian Voivodeship, rather than in Bircza, and it can be difficult for editors who read only English to sort out these Google hits to determine which are reliable sources with substantial coverage about the subject. We could use assistance by bilingual editors to evaluate the Google hits or other sources. Given the lower bar for notability in articles about villages, we still have a requirement of verifiability, which is not satisfied by saying "Look at all the Google hits for things which sound like the might be about the subject of the article." We need at least one or more sites which are reliable and clearly about the article's subject, which show at least that the village existed at least at some time in the past. There are certainly many reliable online sources for villages which once existed long before the internet. Some locations are cited in the 1911 Britannica. Others might be cited to an older geography book at Google Books. There are also old geographic gazeteers in libraries which list every village and hamlet. (edited)Edison 07:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All such settlements are notable per longstanding precedent. Davewild 08:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To have an article, we need to at least specify which of several village we are talking about. At a very inclusive English language site for genealogical research, ShtetlSeeker (but still not a "reliable source" )which lists even tiny villages, entering "Lomna" and "Poland" at [46], produces these listings. Someone should indicate which is the one which, if any, was in Bircza. It can then perhaps be verified on historic maps:
Village coordinates Country Location

Łomna 52°34' 22°12' Poland 55.1 miles ENE of Warszawa

Łomna 52°23' 20°48' Poland 12.5 miles NW of Warszawa

Łomna 49°54' 20°30' Poland 163.7 miles S of Warszawa

Łomna 49°52' 20°31' Poland 165.9 miles S of Warszawa

Łomna 49°38' 22°31' Poland 192.3 miles SSE of Warszawa (This one seems to be in Subcarpathian Voivodeship--it is about 16 miles SW of Przemyśl) I would still like some info about the town so there is more than a directory listing asserting that such a place existed. Like: when did it exist, why did it cease to exist, and what was the population at its peak?

Edison 14:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's the one in województwo podkarpackie, powiat przemyski, making it rather likely to be the one 16 miles SW of Przemyśl--I can't believe Wikipedia uses voivodeship, what an incredibly awkward English word. All of these questions and issues belong on the talk page of the article. I searched in Polish for Łomna, Bircza, also, to avoid the one in województwo mazowieckie, also checked out w Łomnej. Feel free to research these questions, or post them on the article's talk page. This is probably not information directly available on the web, except for the "why did it cease to exist" which is already found on Wikipedia, for the entire region, as I said. This article needs expanded and researched, not deleted, which will serve no purpose. KP Botany 17:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It does need expanding, but that's a content issue, not a notability one. --Oakshade 22:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 12:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Smash[edit]

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

Unknown band with few resources or sources. Jmlk 1 7 06:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND. Moreover, a quick google search shows up few reliable hits for this group. It is also difficult to verify the contents of this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability guideline. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 11:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Siva1979. Not notable or verifiable. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. (I thought this was a flavor of Icee.) Realkyhick 17:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Lingo[edit]

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

Contested prod. It's a list of jargon used by the students of a school in California. Violates WP:NOT#INFO, WP:MADEUP, WP:V but not, unfortunately, WP:CSD which is why I've brought it here. CIreland 06:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete: Valuable information for new students trying to get assimilated to Mira Costa high.
And why the heck would students at this high school look to Wikipedia for information on being assimilated? Realkyhick 17:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, list of non-notable neologisms. although it is kinda sweet that they think they invented "harshing one's mellow". --Dhartung | Talk 06:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable terms. Myspace and the internet are more than enough to find out about traditions, slangs, etc. in schools. --Hdt83 ^Chat 10:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable, OR, not notable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious, per nom and jargon. Jmlk 1 7 11:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, totally. (I'm guessing that's not in the lingo anymore.) Non-notable neologisms. Realkyhick 17:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's amazing this has been in place for 5 days. DevOhm ^Talk 08:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious original research. Melsaran (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of guests on The Majority Report[edit]

List of guests on The Majority Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An indiscriminate list of those who appeared on an Air America Radio show. (Are they still on?) It lists every episode for various months, but has many gaps. Assuming this show keeps going for a while, the list would be unwieldy and impossible to maintain. Realkyhick 04:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The network is still on, but this show is long gone and cancelled (Janeane is on 24 and Sam Seder has been reduced to Sundays on the network). Delete due to lack of notability and references. Nate 05:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm. What is not notable? The network or the show? No, they have articles here. The guests? Well, most of them seem to have articles here, too. As for "references", see the link to the show blog under "External links"; that's where most of the info came from. - dcljr (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not contesting the show or the network at all, I'm contesting this list as not needed per WP:No indiscriminate lists. Since the show hasn't existed for a year, I don't see many people wondering who was a guest on the show on July 26, 2005. As for the 'reference' as the show's blog, fine. People can go there to look up who was on the show at any certain time, but from the show's article, not this one. Also, the lede in this list talks about the show as if it still exists, when it was cancelled a year ago, so even if this does survive the review, it needs major updating. Nate 19:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOT a directory of people who have appeared on a TV show Corpx 15:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please link to the policy being cited here. - dcljr (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. IP198 17:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a directory of loosely associated people, because being a guest on a radio talk show once is not a notable enough characteristic to group people. Crazysuit 00:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, needless list. JIP | Talk 10:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainers appearing on Laugh USA[edit]

List of entertainers appearing on Laugh USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

And indiscriminate list of entertainers whose work has been heard on the Laugh USA channel on XM Radio. God help us if "List of musicians heard on (insert channel/station here)" ever gets on Wikipedia. Despite the assertion of the lead paragraph of being "concise," the list is anything but. It can never be accurately maintained. Realkyhick 04:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list is indiscriminate in that "entertainer" is a bit vague. If the show has DJs, could they be considered entertainers? Is a TV show an entertainer? Maintenance is also a problem. Gracenotes^T § 05:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A list of every performer whose recordings have aired on a particular radio channel is clearly indiscriminate information. --Metropolitan90 05:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOT a directory of people who have appeared on a TV show Corpx 15:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a directory of loosely associated people, because being played on a radio channel is not a notable enough characteristic to group people by. WP:NOT#IINFO too. Crazysuit 00:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, needless list. JIP | Talk 10:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bird of Ill Omen Demo[edit]

Bird of Ill Omen Demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Even according to the unsourced text provided by the article creator, this isn't an album -- it's just something the band decided to make a few copies of. This clearly is not what WP:MUSIC contemplates as a notable album. Erechtheus 03:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Since the article contains so little content, you might as well merge it into the band's history or something, and note that they have made these copies. That's it per WP:MUSIC on albums.--Alasdair 03:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, group is notable, demo isn't. Realkyhick 05:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge per Real Mbisanz 06:37, 1 September 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Guns[edit]

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

Delete "Secret society"? Absolute nonsense. All this is, is a bunch of tech guys who get together socially. Is this what Wikipedia is about now, repeating exaggerated nonsense from glossy magazine articles? AlistairMcMillan 03:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an interesting magazine article angle does not necessarily equate to significance. --Dhartung | Talk 03:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Since it's reported by Rolling Stone Magazine, a reliable source, this gives them some notability. Another thing to consider are the significance of some of its members, and I think it's marginally notable per WP:ORG regarding non-comercial organizations.--Alasdair 03:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the article? This isn't an actual organisation, it's a bunch of guys who get to together socially outside of work. AlistairMcMillan 04:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The group seems to be reported not only by Rolling Stone, but also corroborated by other sources. A simple google search for 'baby billionaires' turns up a number of hits. Notoriety of group's members adds to significance. Agree with Alasdair, notable per WP:ORG 71.108.61.8 04:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC) -- 04:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the phrase "baby billionaires" returns a number of hits, but they either refer to something completely different, or refer simply to the Rolling Stone article. If there are other sources, which I doubt, please provide them. AlistairMcMillan 15:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, group is likely notable but the article needs work. Realkyhick 05:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Rolling Stone article. AlistairMcMillan 15:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Nothing asserts notability - all of the article seems based on a single article by a Rolling Stone reporter. Has not been picked up as a concept by any other news organisation I can find. Wikipedia is not a mirror of a single article that noone else in the world cares enough about to write on - Peripitus (Talk) 07:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - One magazine article in Rolling Stone about a social group certainly does not equal enduring or significant notability. As someone else said, this isn't what wikipedia is about. /Blaxthos 14:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A small mention in Rolling Stone is not enough Corpx 15:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with all of the articles above. Wikipedia is just progressing this fairy tale of an article from one magazine. Giving the false impression of a "secret society" and someone is going to great lengths to keep it for whatever reason. Keeping this article give merit to fictional world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.79.70 (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect to Young Guns Unnotable PR pablum; might as well use this as a RD as a probable search string for the film. Nate 01:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Group is reported on by a reliable and respected source. Article was not a "small mention" as described by Corpx -- it was the centerfold of the November 2006 issue and spans 7 pages. 68.4.221.17 04:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC) 03:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE The group does NOT EXIST. Honestly, I work in silicon valley too. This is just a fictional back story to Rolling Stone's article to make it more interesting. The fact remains, a few of these guys are older than 30, and none of them (as you can easily find out by looking at their businesses or any interviews) are not billionaires. The richest being chad hurley who got 600M in the youtube buyout. This is continueing fiction as fact and this has no place at Wikipedia. This is not what wikipedia stands for, to perpetuate urban myths as complete fact. Believe it or not, Rolling Stones isnt always truthful, it is an entertainment magazine at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.79.70 (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get the idea the group is "fictional" or a "back story" -- is this your personal theory? None of the sources cited -- even by detractors -- dispute that the group exists, only whether the members are billionaires. Plaxo even links the article on their own blog [47]. 68.14.79.70, if you have a source proving this group is made up and Rolling Stone fabricated the whole thing, share it. Saying, "I work in the same general geographic area as them" does not make you a reliable source. 71.108.61.8 12:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no secret society, there is no "baby billionaires". This is what happens when you let a bunch of 12 year olds run Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.79.70 (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic, non-notable group. Keb25 11:05, 8 September 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

César Sirvent[edit]

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

unreferenced, notability not asserted - his website [48]--ZayZayEM 03:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject. Moreover, it is impossible to verify the contents of this subject as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sources can be found - sounds like a non-notable person pushing fringe theories. I've just deleted half the article as a POV and BLP violation (see the history), which makes it look even leaner. Iain99 10:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt. — TKD::Talk 12:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gazeebow Unit[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Gazeebow Unit

Articles for deletion/Gazeebow Unit (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Gazeebow Unit (second nomination)

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

procedural nomination This article has been deleted and recreated so many times it's close to amazing. Back in Jan 2006 it was deleted via AFD as non-notable and a Deletion Review in Aug 2006 upheld this. Since then very little has changed, except that there is now some media mention that might or might not raise the group above the notability threshold. This AFD comes from conversion of a PROD; shall we put the article to rest and salt the earth over it? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless some serious claims of notability can be established. -R. fiend 05:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. We've trod this ground before and nothing has changed. Realkyhick 05:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt borderline speedy, fails WP:MUSIC by miles. No label, no records (not even self-released ones!), the first two links don't work, only working link is to MySpace, where they have 34 friends(!). Spectacularly non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. Not notable. I can't see any reason to retain this article. Pursey 12:06, 1 September 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 04:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scrub Monkey[edit]

Unsourced "urban legend", probably a hoax, definitely WP:OR. Prod by User:RHaworth was contested by page creator User:Karrathalocal. FiggyBee 02:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no citations, and smells like something someone came up with in class one day. The only relevant google hit I found on a quick look was this one: [49], in which someone tries to solicit !votes in this debate. Tellingly, Snopes.com (and its message board) has no other mention of anything called a "scrub monkey." Unless someone pops up with something to suggest that this is more than an unfunny hoax (and it's really not very funny), I say Delete. --TheOther Bob 03:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it were a real species at least one biological website would have mentioned it. Instead, what I found on the search engine are loads of forum posts. So it's either something so "newly discovered" that info's not widely released to the public, or it's a hoax.--Alasdair 04:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Scrub it, it's a hoax. Realkyhick 05:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Classic case of "Articles that do not cite reliable public sources are likely to be deleted". Frickeg 06:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable hoax Mbisanz 06:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Get the monkey off your back ;) I used to taunt backpackers here in Australia with the old Drop bear story, but I've never heard of this. Can't find info on it either. Pursey 12:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Recurring dreams 13:34, 1 September 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 ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Risk communication[edit]

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

Initially speedied this as a copyvio, but have had second thoughts so am bringing it here. The article as a whole seems to make no sense, and I honestly don't believe it would make sense even to a specialist in the field. The first half (the section in quotes) is a word-for-word copyvio from the first reference, while (as best I can tell) the rest of the article takes 200 words to say "it's a good idea to warn people before they do something dangerous". The article's been tagged for cleanup since July, and while the author has made some minor edits to it since then, it doesn't seem either to be being cleaned up or to be cleanuppable. — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

since you opened this discussion, in that case, can you actually do something constructive and restructure it instead of merely(and simplistically)nominate it for deletion?? thank youGrandia01 03:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WE MUST RISK DELETION The risk of not deleting this risky article risks violating the encyclopedic principles of this risky encyclopedia, though having an open-source encyclopedia has risks, we riskingly risk a risky danger of misunder-risk-estimating- what a combobulatingly risky mess of (I'l risk a guess and estimate)200 risked words which risked the possibility of risking deletion due to the fact that this article is patent nonsense and cannot be salvaged. OfficeGirl 05:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1)i repeat my request,can someone indulge us with the favor of working on it a bit to improve it,including you officegirl?? 2)this article is patent nonsense and cannot be salvaged wow hold on there,this article is-as i said before-merely nothing but 2 quotations from 2 governmental/public entities;if that's nonsense then what else isn't?? also,what do you mean patent nonsense and cannot be salvaged??thats it??this article is redeemed irredeemable just because the honorable master business strategist officegirl said so??sad 3)good use there of the word risk,if you would have used that talent in working on this article then things would be much different now,good life achievement i must sayGrandia01 05:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RESPONSE Grandia01, even though you have now deleted a portion of the horribly poor and repetitive bad writing in the article the best thing that you have offered in defense of this article is an obscure, small paragraph (which, as is typical of committee-composed documents, is badly written and chock full of the word "risk" over and over again) hidden within a little-known 197-page document from a sub-organization of the United Nations. Basically you have shown us that you are trying to write an article about a phrase of techno-jargon that is not recognized or used in any notable way. The burden of proof was upon you, the article's proponent, and no amount of personal attacks leveled at the rest of us will lift that burden off your shoulders. Your documentation is proof that this is not an appropriate article for Wikipedia.OfficeGirl 06:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though it may be risky, I think it is riskier to leave this nonsense around. Maybe an expert could salvage it, but it definitely doesn't fit how it is right now.Ravenmasterq 05:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok so right now even a simple definition from the united nation is not worthy enough to exist in wikipedia because its 1)"not notable" and 2)techno-jargon as master smart a** officegirl said. amazing. hey officegirl,ur still single??Grandia01 06:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to stop with the personal attacks. This makes the third warning. Smashville 06:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If originator is unable to make sense of it per above, then it is unsalvageable. Smashville 06:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whateverGrandia01 07:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's now been "cleaned up" so that it's just a single long quote about what risk communication is. Here's a better definition - it's the communication of risk, especially in the context of risk management. --Haemo 07:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your constructive(unlike most others') suggestion, but don't bother about giving your opinion here, even if you simply provided the most reliable definition/entry for this stub from the most reputable sources, world business masters here will still nominate it for deletion for various amazing reasons(see above).don't botherGrandia01 07:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not a buzzword, it is two words stung together in exactly the way one might expect, meaning exactly what one might expect. Therefore, Grandia01, it does not merit an entry on Wikipedia. Speciate 07:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh gee Speciate you might want to forward this precious "correction" to harvard school as well hopefully your unmatchable prowess in business can correct their teachingsGrandia01 08:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Business majors take obvious and straightforward things and make them part of their mysterious buzzword religion. Speciate 08:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
impressive Speciate, even harvard school needs your corrections i see. i'll nominate you to completely re-haul our education system one day. best of luck professorGrandia01 08:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trollicious. Speciate 08:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grandia, this is your last warning about personal attacks. Smashville 16:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Though the use of the term on Wikipedia seems to be rare (though not without opportunity!), bullshit is an apt moniker for this article. /Blaxthos 14:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and bullshit is an apt description of this so-called contribution of yoursGrandia01 18:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete patent nonsense. No context that I can make sense of. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this really is a terrible article. Not only does it currently consist entirely of a copyvio from [50], but all it essentially says is "risk communication is communicating information about risks". It never was much more than a dictionary definition, violating WP:NOT#DICT. The creator seems unable to defend the article without resorting to personal attacks. Hut 8.5 12:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Risk management, of which it is part. There is nothing that could be constructed here which couldn't be better placed there, especially since risk management is common management terminology and a far more likely search term, and is also used by PMBOK, the ANSI-accredited project management standard. Incidentally, PMP Study Guide (Heldman, 2005) calls it "information gathering" and never once uses the awkward construction "risk communication" - however I've heard it used in literature occasionally. Orderinchaos 18:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Since you seem to have more detailed knowledge of the field of risk management than the average user, I am really glad you joined this discussion. I notice you are telling us that this term "risk communication" is rarely used in the field, and I think many in this discussion would heartily agree that as a term it is an awkward construction. I don't think there's sufficient justification for a redirect in this case. It's just not likely to be a search term that people will be interested in. I think you hit the nail on the head when you identified "risk management" as the useful search term and topic. OfficeGirl 17:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a stubby article, but it is about a legitimate subject, and the stub article can be expanded in the future. I think a person can even get a graduate degree in Risk Communication, which is not really a subfield of risk management (communicators are not managers). Subtopics in the field that have little to do with risk management include perception of risk (why do people fear air crashes more than auto accidents?) and public participation (how to discuss risk in a public meeting about nuclear reactor?). See http://www.riskworld.com/organizations/centers.htm#RiskCommunication&Perception and http://www.sra.org/about_specialty_groups_overview.php#comm (the latter is a risk communication professional group established in 1990) for indications of the topic's notability.--orlady 18:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY The article as nominated is not stubby, but rather insanely substandard with no indications that anything good could ever be made of it. Not even good enough for the sandbox. HOWEVER, if you have access to real and intelligible reliable sources that you can use to make this topic into a decent article worthy of Wikipedia's standards AND if you get the article whipped into shape before the time expires on this AfD discussion, then I will be glad to change my vote. (and I mean really glad-- I would really give you your props if you did it) But evidence that someone POTENTIALLY COULD work on this article SOMEDAY is not justification for keeping the load of nonsense which we have been dealing with thus far in this AfD. Go to it, orlady! I am hoping to see good results.OfficeGirl 20:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OfficeGirl, have you looked at the article recently? By the time I visited this AFD, the spammy advertisement for the conference next year had been removed from the article, and the only remaining content was a definition of "risk communication," sourced to the FAO. That's a stub, pure and simple. What harm is there in keeping a short stub? --orlady 20:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now that the spammy advertisement for the conference next year has been removed from the article, the only remaining content is a copyvio from FAO, to be more accurate — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For pity's sake, why is it that so many people can complain so eloquently about the shortcomings of someone else's work without lifting a finger to help them fix it? I reworded definition slightly and added some more similar content from another source that happens to be public domain. It's no masterpiece, but it will serve to fill a hole until someone with expertise shows up to write a good article. --orlady 22:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Davis (musician)[edit]

Glenn Davis (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Although there are some vague claims to notability, the article lacks any reliable sources WP:BLP#Sources, and thus fails to meet the notability standards set at WP:MUSIC dissolve ^talk 01:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:MUSIC. Whole article is a list of trivial/ indiscriminate list of information, so I also recommend deletion per WP:NOT#INFO.Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 01:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ooooh, facts and tidbits! But no sources and no verification. Realkyhick 05:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:MUSIC. --Metropolitan90 05:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:NOT. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:07, 2 September 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.

Result of the discussion was Redirect Ardent ^†alk _∈ 01:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger[edit]

Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Stub about a Wendy's product with no apparent notability beyond being on the Menu. Prod. date 8/30/07, Article was self-created, I support the deletion. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 01:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but question. I'm confused. :) Why are you nominating this for deletion? According to deletion policy, AfDs are for contested deletions. Unless the PROD is deleted, it should be sufficient. If others had not substantially edited the page, you could request speedy deletion, but others have. --Moonriddengirl 01:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Moonridden, with whom I edit conflicted, is quite right about the procedural question (of course, my explanation was going to be three times longer and eight times less clear), but, since we're already here, and notwithstanding that redirection is generally an editorial decision, I wonder whether we might consider redirecting this to Wendy's#Products; Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger is, I guess, a plausible search for one seeking information about the corporation/restaurant, and redirects are cheap. Joe 01:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Good point, Joe. And may I note that I'm a tad bit surprised to discover the Category:Wendy's foods relatively well populated. :) --Moonriddengirl 01:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected as per WP:BOLD. Ardent ^†alk _∈ 01:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily Deleted by Anthony Appleyard. Non-Admin close. --Onorem♠Dil 11:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gazillabyte[edit]

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

Non notable neologism. Google search returns 7 unique results. Contested Prod. --Onorem♠Dil 00:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nominator, but also a contested speedy. I don't think it qualifies as a speedy, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable web content. At best it belongs in wikitionary. Burzmali 01:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Moonriddengirl 01:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom., and WP:NOT#DICT. Could be transwikied however to the Wiktionary. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 01:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Smashville 01:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oysterguitarist 02:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, WP:N, and CSD A1 (Little or no context) could apply here as well. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 03:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could be speedy on no-context, but definitely fails WP:NEO. Realkyhick 05:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mbisanz 06:38, 1 September 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. Barely any content to merge but everyone is free to add a useful mention to Bi-directional text. I'll redirect in case people do actually look for this term. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circle of commas[edit]

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

No evidence (as far as I can tell) exists that this bizarre curio is notable. The circle of commas ( ҉ is its HTML escape) serves to reverse the direction of text that occurs after it (see Bi-directional text). You can see it in work here (it took me a while to figure out what a gnaborretni was, although I've heard of an interrobang), and also here.
While a neat (and very annoying) trick, I doubt that it is a notable topic, and the article itself borders on violating the notion that Wikipedia is not a directory of the internet. Gracenotes^T § 00:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Bi-directional text, it's the character that makes it possible after all. Burzmali 01:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see what beyond the name is worth merging to bi-directional text, and the name is unreferenced — according to the links provided, the proper name is COMBINING CYRILLIC MILLIONS SIGN. My incorrect guess from the title was that it had something to do with comma (music) and circle of fifths... —David Eppstein 02:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of background on the article's title: I had moved the page from its old title (which was the character itself) to Circle of commas, because that was the name bolded in the article's lead, and it is more in line with the naming conventions regarding punctuation. "Circle of commas" could be the common name for the combining Cyrillic millions sign (just as "left guillemet" is the common name for the left-pointing double angle quotation mark), but this fact is unreferenced, and it only returns 5 google hits. Gracenotes^T § 03:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:N. There is probably an article in the Combining Cyrillic Millions sign (although Cyrillic numbers is as yet not very helpful), but this isn't it. For starters, it's incorrect, as the character itself is not responsible for reversing text (it's the control codes that are often cut-and-pasted alongside it that do that). Secondarily, it shouldn't be about this trivial aspect, but about the sign itself, why it was once used, and why it is today obscure. --Dhartung | Talk 03:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My first response was, "Uh, what?"" I'm amazed it has an HTML escape code, but it just doesn't make much sense. I think WP:SNOW applies here. Realkyhick 05:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

‫‬‭‮‪‫‬‭‮҉~~Keep~~ and expand. This is really weird and I think people might want to know more about it. --Metropolitan90 05:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)‬‬‬‬‬[reply]

Actually, I admit that WP:ILIKEIT is not a good reason to keep. Merge and redirect to Bi-directional text instead. --Metropolitan90 05:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 04:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate - I have taken the liberty of writing my proposed version, at the page. I have also fixed the edit view of this AFD. --Random832 04:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this article may be a joke. Delete it. • Lawrence Cohen 13:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:30, 8 September 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. On a case by case basis the arguments to delete are stronger, but there are a number of reasoned keep arguments that cannot be discounted here. When you look past the WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL or similar it is hard to get a consensus in either direction. I would suggest the article's contributors work toward addressing the concerns brought up here, specifically those regarding reliable sources if they do not want to see this article come up for discussion again in the future. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horcrux[edit]

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

The article fails to meet the primary notability criteria - there are no independent secondary sources. The sources listed are from the books, the author, a fansite "chat" with the author and another Wiki which does not appear to even mention Harry Potter or Horcruxes. None of these meet the criteria for reliable secondary sources. There is also no real world content as described in WP:FICT. Notability tagging and merge discussions have had no effect on the quality of the article and have not brought to light any reliable secondary sources (as required by WP:NN). Harry Potter and the the Harry Potter Universe are notable - this fictional concept does not appear to be - notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate colection of information or a guide to the Harry Potter Universe and should not contain this potential fancruft Guest9999 00:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. If Ingsoc from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four (being central to the plot of the book) deserves its own article, I can't for the life of me understand why the Horcrux, which is central to the plot of the final two books of the Harry Potter series, should be deleted. This article contains detailed information that simply cannot (and should not) be found elsewhere. IFLËRNK 07:14, May 10, 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Remember, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. -Phi*n!x 00:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY I'm not citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a reason for keeping the article, I am pointing out that detailed information on specific plot devices (including fictional ones) are relevant and necessary to understand the complete story. The Horcrux is as important to the Harry Potter narrative as the One Ring is to the Lord of the Rings. The deletion arguments below seem to completely ignore the importance of the Horcrux itself and instead focus on a narrow view of the article's specific content. IFLËRNK 07:14, May 10, 2024 (UTC)

Keep -- Same reasoning as above --Cybercobra 06:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT-- your reasons for keeping are actually reasons that the article should be deleted. "This article contains detailed information that cannot (and should not) be found elsewhere." That's the same as saying that the article is chock full of ORIGINAL RESEARCH. This is not information that is coming from referenced, reliable sources. This is the original work of the Wikipedia member. The articles cited do not contain any of the information that the Wikipedia member has originally researched, rather they only contain reports of the popularity of the books. There is no detailed study of the significance and use of the horcrux as symbol in the Harry Potter works among the referenced sources. The only detailed study is the ORIGINAL RESEARCH. That means that Wikipedia was the wrong place to publish the article. It's interesting, but it's original research, and it belongs elsewhere. OfficeGirl 20:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You keep saying over and over again that the article is primarily OR, and even though you have been asked to, you have yet to back that statement up. The information in the article is directly from the books and from the author. Where is this OR you keep bringing up, because I don't see it. V-train 21:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY Perhaps you just don't understand what original research IS, then. Maybe I should let "Jimbo Wales explain Original Research to you". The editor who crafted this original research article on horcruxes has relied on primary sources and has drawn his own conclusions therefrom. There is a time and a place for very nice examples of original research. Wikipedia is not the place for original research at any time. OfficeGirl 22:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply No, I understand what OR is just fine, thanks. You still have not given any examples from the article. I have read the article, and read the books, and the conclusions in the article (with minor exceptions that need pruning) are from the books themselves, not OR. V-train 22:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY Another very concisely written definition of Original Research would be: "The information in the article is directly from the books and from the author." Or another one would be: "the conclusions in the article (with minor exceptions that need pruning) are from the books themselves" The books themselves are PRIMARY SOURCES, and there hasn't been time for reliable THIRD PARTY SOURCES to be developed and published. So that means this article belongs someplace else, like a Harry Potter wiki or something.OfficeGirl 22:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REPLY Your other "definitions" of Original Research simply do not meet the literal guidelines established here: ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Besides, The Horcrux article cites only the books and the author as sources, so your entire argument here is invalid. IFLËRNK 07:14, May 10, 2024 (UTC)
REPLYFlernk, you may have missed my point. the other "definitions" I quoted were directly quoted from V-train's flawed arguments for keeping this article on Wikipedia. The vast majority of the horcrux article relies only on primary sources and draws conclusions therefrom. V-train is trying to argue that the biggest problem presented by Original Researchers posting on Wikipedia is actually the definition of Original Research-- unpopular theories presented as accepted fact in an encyclopedic forum. It is not. In the horcrux article we have an example of a POPULAR TOPIC and theories and conclusions of the Wikipedia editor drawn from the primary sources, but there are no reliable secondary sources that reflect the same conclusions out there in the published world....YET. This is Original Research that is very, very likeable. I in fact agree that it's quite neato and a whole lot of work. It just needs to be published elsewhere. It needs to be published in a magazine that Wikipedians can rely on as a reliable secondary source. We shouldn't abandon a principle of Wikipedia just because a number of people think it's fun to break the rules this time.OfficeGirl 17:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply As I keep saying and you seem to keep ignoring, the theories and conclusions in the article are directly from the book. They are NOT theories and conclusions thought up by the editor, they are extracted directly from the book. That means they are NOT OR. V-train 17:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I think maybe you need to read the link about OR that you supplied above. Info and conclusions taken directly from the books that has not had someone else's conclusions and/or ideas added to it is not OR. OR is when someone injects their own ideas and beliefs into an article. V-train 23:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY Ah, but if we removed the personal conclusions and original analysis in the horcrux article there would be little left. And this Original Research is actually quite good,and fun, and genuinely neato. It just needs to be published elsewhere. Like a perfectly good Harry Potter Wiki. Or even a mainstream paper magazine. OfficeGirl 17:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply There are very few personal conclusions and little original analysis in the article. I assume you are not familiar with the source material, because you keep saying the information is OR when it is not: the vast majority of the information in the article is extracted directly from the book, which means it is not OR. V-train 17:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment V-train is correct. This article simply does not contain OR. In fact, a few of the contributors have been painstakingly and consistently removing personal speculation and OR, especially since the final book was released. Please see all History references to Lily Potter for an example. IFLËRNK 07:14, May 10, 2024 (UTC)

REPLYFlernk, I think your reasoning is flawed. It's sooooo tempting to re-invent the meaning of words like "original research" when the originally researched article is as undeniably neato as this horcrux article is. And that's what you are doing. But this needs to be published elsewhere.OfficeGirl 17:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not accuse other editors of doing that again.
I'm with Flernk and V-train here - the article is careful to avoid any original conclusions, analysis or any other sort of OR. Forbidding simple uncontroversial statements about what happens in a work is not in the spirit or the letter, not least because if it were, we would have to make haste to destroy our entire coverage of the plots of literature, plays, opera and all that, and rebuild them taking care that we use only third party-descriptions without actually opening the books or watching the things. And at that point, it's tempting to just drop an EMP to the servers and start over with Nupedia again. Oh, and KEEP. --Kizor 08:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REQUEST OfficeGirl, please cite specific examples within the Horcrux article that you think qualify as Original Research.IFLËRNK 3 September 2007

Weak Keep - The article is well written and the subject matter was all anyone could talk about for around a month, that alone lets it slide on WP:NN. WP:RS would be my larger concern. Burzmali 01:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary - "Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage" - however there isn't even evidence that there was news coverage in the article. [[Guest9999 01:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

I was just thinking that, since I have never read the books, if someone mentioned the concept in conversation (and they have), I would try to find it in wiki. I suppose a merge and redirect to Deathly Hallows would be enough, but the article's quality seems good enough to keep it. Unfortunately, Hocrux seem to fall somewhere between KITT and the Ectomobile in terms of notability. Burzmali 01:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the seven(?) Horcruxes and the three Deathly Hallows have nothing to do with each other in principle, although by fate one of the Hallows (the black Resurrection Stone) happened to be mounted on the Ring Horcrux. Therefore merging Horcrux into Deathly Hallows (objects) would not be well advised. However, merging Horcrux into something like Magical objects in Harry Potter#Horcruxes might be something to consider. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 02:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article contains much information, which can be useful for (Harry Potter) readers. I think that as the horcruxes are very complex and hard to understand, people should be able to look them up. The horcruxes are crucial to the plot of the story, and I really think that they should have their own article.Shmooshkums 01:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please see WP:USEFUL and WP:NOT#PLOT. Wikipedia is an encylopaedia [[Guest9999 05:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Reply. WP:USEFUL is not policy, but merely a guideline. Indeed it is helpful, however editors are not bound by it. Useight 06:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT It may be useful and informative, but there's probably a much more appropriate place to put this article, since it doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Isn't there a perfectly good Harry Potter Wiki out there somewhere that we could move this to? OfficeGirl 07:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Good article about notable topic. Why are we wasting time discussing this?. Capitalistroadster 01:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please see WP:ITSNOTABLE - you do not give any evidence for your arguement. [[Guest9999 05:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

We may prefer larger arguments, but it's not without merit to show support for a side. This is about determining consensus, after all, and there's not always more to add to others' arguments. --Kizor 08:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a notable topic, and is a well-organized source of information that combines content from more than one book and the author. As noted above by others, it is a complicated concept, and central to the plot in the last 2 novels. The nominator seems to have a penchant for mass Afd noms. A few weeks ago it was LOTR articles, and now HP. V-train 02:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please see WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:ITSNOTABLE they may be useful in considering your arguement. [[Guest9999 05:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep Nominator fails to point out any actual detriment caused by having such an article. It is certainly a notable topic of a very well-known book. older ≠ wiser 02:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please see WP:HARMLESS and WP:NOT#INFO. Wikipedia is an encylopaedia. [[Guest9999 05:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Well, yes of course Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It seems a little condescending of you to trot that out as an argument, as if your opinion of what an encyclopedia is or is not trumps everyone else's. What you seems to be saying is merely that YOU don't think that THIS particular topic is encyclopedic -- or in other words, WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. When the subject clearly has some level of notability, then I suggest that the fact that you have not described any detriment caused by having the article is a fair consideration for discounting the nomination as invalid. Simply because you don't like something is not a reason to delete. You invoke "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", but that does not mean that anything that you don't like necessarily qualifies as an indiscriminate collection of information. older ≠ wiser 12:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if you felt I was being condesending - I feel the detriment caused is that the content of the article is not notable per WP:NN as it does not have secondary sources - without these sources it isn't really an encylopaedia article - more of an essay on a topic - having bad articles like this is to the detriment of Wikipedia as it stops it being taken seriously as an information resources. You say the subject clearly has some level of notability - the notability guidelie says "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability." - I do not feel that anyone has provided this evidence - a lot of people saying that it's notable without giving any justification or evidence should not really be relevant to the debate. [[Guest9999 23:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

It is unfortunate that some people are taking such a narrow interpretation of notability and extending that to restrict the definition of what an encyclopedia article is or is not. While WP:NN is occasionally helpful, it is not policy and it is not all-encompassing. Persistently invoking it as if it were policy is not helpful. There continue to be differing interpretations of what is and is not encyclopedic and WP:NN is by no means the final word on the matter. You want some objective evidence of notability -- how about half a million Google hits[51]? Or looking a a more refined sampling, the term comes up in a dozen news articles in the last month [52] alone and over 80 from the news archives&um=1&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8. Notably, the term is starting to get used in contexts outside of the Harry Potter universe. In short, IMO, there is nothing at all UNencyclopedic about a well-written article concerning a major plot device in one of the most popular series of books ever written (and for the record, I'm not even a that much of Potter fan--I've read through book five and will probably read the others someday, but I do recognize the immense popularity of the books and consider it an asset for Wikipedia to be able to present clear descriptions of significant features in the books). older ≠ wiser 23:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well-written article about a major plot device in the one of the most popular series of fiction ever. Unlikelyheroine 03:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please see WP:NOTINHERITED. [[Guest9999 05:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

DELETE Though it is an interesting and timely subject. It's really just fancruft. And its biggest problem is that it seems to consist primarily of ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Fun article. Just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. But there are other nice places to publish original research like this. Take it to one of those places. This AfD must not be a popularity vote on the Harry Potter books. Goodness knows they're well established as popular. That doesn't make this article appropriate for an encyclopedia which relies primarily on secondary sources.OfficeGirl 05:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying that this is a popularity vote, and could you please point out which part of the article is original research, so that it can be fixed? Regards, PeaceNT 05:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As one of the sole voices for deletion I would like to note the following.

1) I do not wish to question how well written the article is as I feel it is irrelevant.

2) I agree the subject is an important part of a popular and notable series of books.

3) I agree that people seeking information of the subject may find the article useful.

4) I agree the information should be freely available on the internet for those who wish to use it.

However none of those things really relate in any way to WP:NN which is (in my opinion) a pretty important guideline. Despite all the keep votes not one reliable secondary source has been suggested in this debate so far. To quote the guideline page: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability.". To sum up Wikipedia is an encylopaedia; not everything useful, interesting or popular is meant to be in it.[[Guest9999 05:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep. The fact that Harry potter is notable is exactly what makes this topic notable, because, I also say, this is major plot of the series, especially of Book 7. It's a mistaken view to claim there's no third party coverage. See this entry (from the The Seattle Times) or this (from The Washington Post) Please also feel free to do some Google search to check out the results. Horcrux is what Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is all about, thus it's unjustified to say that it is non notable. PeaceNT 06:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Notability is not the only issue that we must deal with. Just because something is notable doesn't mean that there are enough secondary sources about the topic that we can use to write a Wikipedia article. This is a really nice piece of ORIGINAL RESEARCH. But not a good article for Wikipedia.OfficeGirl 06:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you please elaborate on why you see the article as primarily OR? Most of the information is sourced. It could certainly do with some editing, but I don't see why you call it a piece of OR. V-train 07:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PeaceNT. Frickeg 06:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED - the sources mentioned are not about the horcruxes - they are about the hype surrounding the seventh Harry Potter book and mention the horcruxes - the content could be used as a reliable source for information within the article but I do not think they establish the notability of the topic.[[Guest9999 06:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
The aforementioned references make it clear that horcrux is at the core of the final book, thus they assert notability of the subject. Regards, PeaceNT 07:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Show me where in WP:NN it says that being an important aspect of the plot of the book asserts notability. [[Guest9999 14:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Strong delete: per nom. Article has no reliable independent sourcing. Notability within a work of fiction does not equal notability in the real life world. IvoShandor 09:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ust because something is notable doesn't mean that there are enough secondary sources about the topic that we can use to write a Wikipedia article

Yes it does, that is what notability is. IvoShandor 09:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Crucial to the plot. Blue Mirage 09:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please see WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:NN articles have to meet the notability criteria in their own right. [[Guest9999 14:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep central focus of the most-notable book series of the past decade. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please see WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NN - articles have to meet the ntoability criteria in their own right [[Guest9999 14:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Strong Delete

WP:N - Notability is not inherited. Harry Potter? Sure. Some fictional construct within Harry Potter? No way. This is only notable within the H.P. universe. This is an actual encyclopedia, about actual stuff in the real world.

WP:RS - There are no reliable secondary sources. If the topic actually had an impact on the REAL world, there would be reliable sources about that impact (and thus the topic would be notable for inclusion).

WP:ILIKEIT and/or WP:IGREWUPREADINGIT is not a reason for inclusion.

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for inclusion.

WP:ITSREALLYWELLWRITTEN is not a reason for inclusion.

Summary: Notability is not inherited. There is no real-world significance or impact. There are no reliable secondary sources. Utility, personal affinity, and nostalgia are not valid reasons to argue keep. I find it disappointing that the Wiki community abandons our guidelines and rules when a favorite topic comes around. /Blaxthos 15:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I understand the views of both sides, but there doesn't seem to be a perfect answer to this. However, if this is deleted, perhaps other Harry Potter-related articles should no longer exist. TheInfinityZero 15:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - In universe information with no real notability in the real world. Transwiki to a potter wiki if found appropriate, but we're not a directory of each and everything mentioned in Harry Potter. Everything in there is sourced from a primary source, and that allows for no analysis. It may be notable IN the book, but it needs "significant coverage from reliable, independent sources" to be notable on WP Corpx 15:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination fails based on a crucial misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "indiscriminate", which has no application here. RandomCritic 16:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Could you elaborate on my misunderstanding to make it clearer what you mean (and so that I do not make the same mistake again).WP:NOT#INFO was only one of several issues I raised. [[Guest9999 17:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

STRONG Keep, sources can be found if someone took the time to find them. And as well this information that this article is about is very notable. Enough so to deserve its own article! **Ko2007** 20:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I disagree that the appropriate third-party non-primary reliable sources would even be published just yet. A year from now some scholarly journal may undertake just such an analysis of horcruxes in Harry Potter. Perhaps some enthusiastic professor at a progressive University has already begun to prepare a third-party analysis for the world to read. But, **Ko2007**, I really believe that it will take longer than you think for it to become available, as the lag time for publishing the type of works we need for references is annoyingly long. This is a really nice piece of original research and I would like to see it on the internet somewhere, but Wikipedia just isn't the place for this article. Isn't there a nice Harry Potter wiki somewhere where this article can be transported to? OfficeGirl 22:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article is comprehensive and the subject is notable enough. Merging into a list of Harry Potter objects is therefore not justified.— JyriL ^talk 22:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT The problem is: if we remove all of the original research and the Wikipedia member's personal conclusions drawn from a synthesis of primary sources (the books themselves and the author), then we are left with very little. The article would no longer be comprehensive if it were forced to meet Wikipedia's standards. There would only be enough for an inclusion on a list of Harry Potter objects. The solution would be to move it to some other medium, off Wikipedia, where original research is appropriate. Like a Harry Potter wiki or something. OfficeGirl 23:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to me, that as the horcruxes are entirely fictional, most, if not all, of the information about them would come from primary sources (the books and the author). I know not of anywhere else we could get information on them, (that would not be considered original research) as any information found would be the third-party's conlusions derived from the primary sources.Shmooshkums 02:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Because I can't think of an appropriate place to merge it to. It is introduced in book 6, but is the main plot of the seventh. I don't think it belongs in either one, and it does not belong in both. I see why this should be deleted, because the Horcrux by itself is not a notable thing. So, by default, keep it unless there is a good place to merge this to. As an aside, there is a much larger issue here: what things in movies, books etc. should be their own subarticle. It should not be resolved at AfD. There needs to be community consensus for this problem as a whole, because at AfD it will be the same arguments over and over again, and community wide consensus needs to determine which way policy leans. i ^said 02:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a community wide consensus for this issue already exists through policies and guidelines formed from the community consensus - in this case I would say WP:NN, WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:NOT and WP:RS apply. [[Guest9999 02:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

I disagree. If that were the case, then every single cruft article would have been deleted, which I can assure you has not happened. People interpret policy in different ways. The community as a whole needs to determine what policy says about these. Individual AfDs cannot do that, because only people who comment on AfD's or have the article watchlisted will see them. The resulting AfD will have the same old "No independant sources" argument, and the "It is notable" arguments. Because both are valid by how you interpret policy, nothing can be decided. i ^said 02:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is really the place for this discussion... but anyway. These articles clearly do not meet with several policies and guidelines - you yourself say "Horcrux itself is not a notable thing". WP:NN, WP:RS, WP:NOT have been created by community consensus - the particular guideline relating to fiction (and this type of article) - WP:FICT - was recently changed to reflect this (following discussion and consensus by the community). The fact that a lot of articles violate the guidelines and policies despite the consensus does not mean they should exist or should be immune from an AfD debate. If people really think these articles belong on Wikipedia then they should try and change the guidelines and policies that exclude them. However when people do this and community consensus disagrees (hence the policies still exist) they still defend the articles in AfD with arguemnts based on WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL or WP:INTERESTING. [[Guest9999 03:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Believe me, I agree with you. However, that is our interpretation of policy. It is very bitterly divided as to how the notability guidelines apply to things about fiction. The policies were created by consensus, yes. But the interpretation that articles like these violate them currently is not based in consensus, if the myraid AfDs are anything to go by. This AfD shows that. There needs to be a community consensus that these violate policy that we can call on; otherwise it is just the same old argument. i ^said 04:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point but I still think that the consensus has been established by major guideline such as WP:NN. A lot of people want Wikipedia to be something other than an encyclopaedia; that is to provide a comprehensive guide to something they are interested in - in this case the Harry Potter Universe. If the article is kept it will be cleaned up and most of the information will likely be removed - this can be a better more useful resource on a Harry Potter wiki or fansite which does not have requirements such as notability, no original research and verifiyability. [[Guest9999 05:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

I know I know I know. I'm saying that WP:N is not clear cut. There is not consensus that it applies here, as evidenced by this and many other AfDs. The only way to fix that is not here, but at a discussion elsewhere where there is a larger audience, and they can decide whether or not it applies here, and how it does. Until then, there will be a large amount of redundant AfDs that rehash the same dead end arguments over and over and over again. But we're getting off topic. This is about this AfD, which is almost certainly going to be kept. i ^said 05:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the coverage pointed to by User:older above is sufficient to justify keeping this quite well-written article. Davewild 08:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm at the beginning of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I didn't remember quite well what a Horcrux was and solved my doubt in about two minutes by searching in the Wikipedia. I could have also skimmed trough the six hundred pages of Harry Potter and the Halfblood Prince but I consider the Wikipedia, much more than an encyclopaedia, as a place where one can find any needed information: from the real world, fictional, or even weird. How could you think of a secondary source when we're talking about something comming from a writer's imagination? Of course there's no work on the topic apart from J.K.Rowling's but "the original motivation for No original research policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas", nothing to do with this issue. "It's not notable" has been another argument; maybe the article could be moved under a major section about Harry Potter's Universe (sure this is notable) specifying that it's fiction. And if people pro deletion don't change their mind by any means, maybe they should start to consider removing every article that has to do with science fiction, shouldn't they?--[[User:|Bukran]] 11:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:ALLORNOTHING does not apply. Your argument sounds more like an argument for deletion than it does for keeping the article. IvoShandor 11:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: [[User:|Bukran]], you say:"How could you think of a secondary source when we're talking about something comming (sic) from a writer's imagination? Of course there's no work on the topic apart from J.K.Rowling's" In fact I fully expect that there will be plenty of secondary sources in the FUTURE, giving analysis on different symbols and characters in the Harry Potter series, and even how the works have impacted the writing of authors who are now writing novels and will write them in the future. But those won't exist for a while, yet. And there's nothing we can do about that but wait. The Wikipedia editor who did all of the ORIGINAL RESEARCH in this article wants to publish it somewhere. I've said all along that it's actually a QUITE GOOD example of original research. He should have published it on some other website, like a perfectly good Harry Potter wiki. I would be completely in keeping with Wikipedia policies to provide and external link to the new place where this original research gets moved to and just have a small encyclopedic reference on Wikipedia, perhaps a small paragraph in the Wikipedia article about the Deathly Hallows book.OfficeGirl 15:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: First of all, I want to apologize for having misspellt "coming". I rereaded my previous comment twice before publishing it as English is not my mother language but I didn't notice the mistake, I'm sorry. Now, if I haven't misunderstood, everyone does agree that we're before a good and wide article but due to several policies it isn't suitable for the Wikipedia. I know rules are necessary to keep a minimal control but I also believe that rules are to be changed. Don't you think it is a bit absurd to admit that maybe in the future there will be place for it (because of the secondary sources) but at the momment it's better to have a small reference? What's wrong with having more information in the Wikipedia? Yes, the best here is the ignore all rules that faithless mentions below (I also like the word "deletionist"). Bukran 17:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep This is, unfortunately, a weak part of Wikipedia. This really is an "all or nothing" issue. We are dealing with an integral construct within the most popular book series of all time. Despite it's popularity, how many HP related articles truly pass WP notability guidelines? Three, maybe four characters? I don't think anyone would argue that Hermione and Ron don't deserve their own articles; they are immensely important characters in (not to sound like a broken record) the most popular book series ever written. But technically speaking, do they pass notability more than the other HP articles which are constantly being nominated for deletion by deletionist editors who simply don't like it? The two policies that I cite as relevant to my "keep" !vote are Wikipedia is not paper and ignore all rules. There is simply no good reason to delete this article, the encyclopedia would not benefit from its removal. The importance of the topic is fairly obvious, even if it might not pass WP:N. Given this, I believe this to be a prime example of when we should ignore the rules. faithless (^speak) 12:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nicely put - I completely agree. Also imho it is worth to keep in mind when discussing technical aspect of OR,notability or other criteria, that wikipedia has developed in many regards into a special subject encycopledia as well, i.e. aside from it's primary goal of a general purpose encyclopedia it is also increasingly being used as a special subject encyclopedia (wiki portals) such as math,science, literature and similar. And in the context of a special subject encyclopedia notability of a particular object/subject can be justified, while it might not be for the general purpose encyclopedia. --Kmhkmh 17:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Faithlessthewonderboy, though I do think that the article might be cut down a bit to avoid cruftiness. Ironically, the Harry Potter wiki equivalent is actually shorter than this one (though this is partially because each Horcrux gets its own article). -Phi*n!x 00:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and need improve Horcruxes is the reason why Voldemort could change the wizarding world. So it could not be delete because it is the most main role. But I agree the information is not enough, it need improvement. Raymond Giggs 08:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is notable enough--not that many fictional groups of objects will be, but this is adequately mentioned in the reviews, and will be indefinitely.DGG (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nominator agrees, that the Harry Potter series is notable. I agree, that that does not automatically make any small, detail, object or whatever from the series noteworthy. However, a Horcrux is not simply one of many magical objects in the series. It is crucial to the plot of the series. The climax of book 7 (and therefore the whole series) roots in the fact, that Harry Potter himself is a Horcrux and that another one is hidden at Hogwarts. Without the Horcruxes, the climax of the entire series wouldn't work. Therefore if the Harry Potter series is notable, an object, which is that crucial to the plot, is just as noteable as any of the major characters and deserves it's own thread. Just as a comparison, the Horcruxes are as important for the Harry Potter series, as The One Ring is for Lord of the rings. I'm therefore going with ignore all rules as well, and propose, that the Horcruxes are noteworthy not because they appear in the most popular book series of all time, but because of the major importance, they have in said book series. Neville Longbottom 14:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator Guest999 appears to be mostly using counter-arguments from WP:AADD, e.g. WP:USEFUL, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:HARMLESS, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:INTERESTING etc without elaboration, simply pointing to it, however, it should be noted that this is, as it says at the top of the page, "an essay. It is not a policy or guideline and editors are not bound by its advice". --Jac16888 14:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm sure that a plethora of wikipedia policies could be used by the deletionists to justify deletion but sometimes wikipedians need to use their common sense. Keep! Francium12 18:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis the very thing I Googled and the exact information I was after. Horcrux, what are the seven, and all about them. Thanks whoever did the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanglass (talk • contribs) 05:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an arguement that the information should be available on the internet - I agree with that. However it is not an arguement for the information being on Wikipedia. A better place would be a Harry Potter Wiki or fansite. [[Guest9999 06:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep - I came to wikipedia after a mention of horcrux in a fantasy football article (http://sports.yahoo.com/fantasy/nfl/news?slug=ab-rotoarcade_083107) so maybe it's starting to be notable outside of the books.--24.251.201.223 21:18, 5 September 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. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arden Wohl[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Renominated: speedy deleted twice, then deleted by Afd on 6/13/2007. See here for discussion. Article re-added with no additional justification. Fails to meet WP:BIO. Subject made a minimally notable film, at best. Lots of the sources are junk. Ward3001 00:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC) link to original discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arden Wohl fixing re-nom, abstain Ardent ^†alk _∈ 01:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, three trivial mentions in Google News Archive, one of them this fashion faux-pas, the other something fannish about the Strokes, one of whom she later dated. I suppose the film work prevents her from being a Paris Hilton, exactly, because she can't be famous for (being famous for nothing in particular), but there's no apparent WP:BIO tripwire here. --Dhartung | Talk 03:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd like this girl to be notable. She certainly deserves attention. But there's no proof that she is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia yet. Best of luck to her, but she belongs on MySpace.com, not Wikipedia (for now). OfficeGirl 05:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also dont feel like her claim to notability is strong enough, considering the coverage she has received Corpx 15:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep Wohl was featured in the July edition of Vogue. It should be noted that "someone" deleted this item (about Vogue) from the article..nice try. establishing notability as per the review a few weeks ago which gave a concensus to relist..must we go through this every few weeks. and by the way comparing her to Paris Hilton is sort of slanderous and libelous. Arden Wohl was featured in July 2007 edition of Vogue, fulfilling notability requirments,(see http://parkavenuepeerage.wordpress.com/2007/06/28/the-hills/) she is also mentioned in movie short stub Coven (short film) She is currently working on the Playground Project with George Clooney, I think the article should at least be "unsalted", it was originally "salted", as I am new to all of this and did not know the proper protacol, regarding recreating of an article..I thought if you edited it properly you could remove the deletion tags..sorry this was originally removed because of notability requirments, but Vogue is a highly regarded publication. Tweety21 16:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Item about Vogue (magazine) inserted by Tweety21 on 6/12/2007 has been in the article continously since then. "Someone" never deleted it. As of this moment there are two references in the article to the magazine feature. Nice try. Ward3001 21:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May one day be notable, with all the money her family apparently has and all of her famous friends, but not yet. Precious Roy 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the notability here either, maybe later. Arienh4^(Talk) 09:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even though she's a socialite. Bearian 02:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I thought I'd do a minimum amount of looking to see if I could find the fabled Vogue article—lo and behold, I found it here (password thru bugmenot.com or check the edit history for Wohl's talk page). The Vogue is relatively substantial, and combined with The Observer and Paper articles, has convinced me that she meets the bare minimum for WP:BIO. I edited out a lot of fluff and puffery yesterday so the article's a bit more presentable. Anyhow, as I've found with another article recently, I don't necessarily think she deserves an article yet, but I do think she meets notability, which is what this discussion is about. Precious Roy 21:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Speaking as the closer of the DRV, I have been repeatedly asked by Tweety21 (and her IPs) to help keep the article. That is certainly not why I am here. Having closed the DRV, I am loath to !vote either way on the inclusion/deletion of the article. I would simply like to say that the article does have multiple reliable sources. The open questions are simply: Do these references confer notability? And are they trivial mentions? I urge the closing admin to consider the article and arguments closely, and the vote-stacking only insomuch as this is not a vote, and not to unduly discount the arguments for keeping because of the misbehavior in this DRV. IronGargoyle 01:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the articles are primarily about Wohl, so she clears the notability bar (barely). -- Whpq 20:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She comes from a rich family, went to college, and made a 13 minute film. That's about as non-notable as you can get. 76.3.84.10 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the deletion review text that Tweety21 pasted here that followed the last AfD for this article. Precious Roy 20:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~strong keep~~ clear bias against Wohl, because of socio-economic status (see Roys comment at the bottom where he mentions her money why is this relevant?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.247.117 (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC) (this is Tweety21; one !vote per editor)[reply]
The mention of the money is merely because it's easier for people with money to become "notable." Besides, the article itself makes a mention of the "hefty sum" they got from selling an art collection. Not really any more relevant there than here. Precious Roy 22:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ "The person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.2 " has been covered in an article by Vogue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.247.117 (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC) (This is third time Tweety21 has tried to vote. One vote per editor.)[reply]

Comment update-have changed category to director-stub, I read the qualifications for this category, seems to be less stringent than for a full blown article- hope this helps, as can be expanded on later on, especially when George Clooney movie comes out. See www.clooneystudios.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Except she's not directing the movie, she's co-producing it. Her two director credits are both student films, so calling her a director is kind of pushing it. Precious Roy 20:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Thats fair enough Roy, but I still think co-producing a movie, with the likes of George Clooney and Soderburge is fairly notable for anybody...I mean I'm not co-producing a movie with Clooney..that sort of impresses me...socialite status aside. and check out her movie coven..it is quite interesting even for a school thesis. The narratiion is by Leelee Sobieski and listed on her wikipedia as well..:O) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wasn't saying that producing a movie with Clooney + Soderbergh isn't impressive, I was saying she doesn't really have enough directing credits to consider her a director. Precious Roy 00:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although Dhartung's delete vote states 3 mentions in google, this is not the case, notable mention in Paper Magazine, a notable publication, and Vogue, as well as many notable New York publications, see for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commment at the very least with the substantial charity work involved in and contributions to the New York charity/art scene, at least worth as (I hate to use the word but...) socialite, (hey we have to remember alot of socialites were responsible for women getting the vote, alot of charities...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_11 Tweety21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I just want to say that I have never asked anybody to vote for this article, only to check it out and vote with their feeling! I mean I have nothing to gain weather it stays or goes...(seriously folkes !! I dont know the girl!) I have also asked for help to keep the article, meaning help to edit it properly to bring it to standard..I think everybody really needs to take a pill!!! seriously!! none of us are making money at this!!! I mean maybe I am on a mini crusade to promote some up and coming people ( I am kind of sick of just seeing Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie on the covers of all the mags...I mean are they the only notable people in America?? how annoying is this) I just thought I would get this off my chest because I dont think I deserve the mental abuse heaped upon my pretty little Canadian head....:O) seriously folkes ! lighten up!!! this isnt the war or anything!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment if you skim out the votes that mention her being "rich" you don't have many left...as someone who is of humble means, I would like to think that if I accomplished something nobody would hold it against me that I am just "middle-class", lets keep status out of this..and by the way I know many people who come from Rich backgrounds but who are made to make their own way and are not given any money by their parents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Once again, Tweety21 sets up a false premise for an argument. Exactly one vote mentions her being rich. Also see Tweety21's previous comments: "someone" never deleted the item about the Vogue article. And comparing Wohl to Paris Hilton is not "sort of slanderous and libelous". Ward3001 14:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment may I quote this delete vote.. - "She comes from a rich family, went to college, "..yada yada and you dont think comparing someone to a person who spent time in jail, and been in porno is an insult and slanderou..." I am not partaking in this nonsense anymore.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response - That's the one vote. Where are the others that, if skimmed out, mean "you don't have many left"? And no one has said that Wohl was in jail or has been in porn. Ward3001 14:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I SAID I am not parking in this mud-throwing, general immaturity anymore...cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh my god..this debate is actually on some internet page..how embarassing is this...I'm outta here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 19:20, 8 September 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.

~~Ward3001 00:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)~~ [reply]