< September 10	September 12 >

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 yes, I noticed that The Bully Boy is perma-blocked.) —Wknight94 (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R. l. royle[edit]

NN self-published author, with a short article in the Yorkshire Evening Post is insufficient to satisfy WP:BIO Carlossuarez46 00:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Her book is on Amazon in the UK, but has a sales rank over 500,000 and few Google hits for a recently-published book ("Lucy's Monster" + Royle = 27 displayed hits). I'd also like to cite Geogre's law... --Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The capitalisation (or lack of) was because I initially searched for her name all in lower case. Unbeknownst to me, when I created the new page it came up that way. I would, of course, change it now if I knew how :P But if you look, there are now further references. Also, the book's stocked in Waterstones and the second is described as a 'breakthrough' book on its page at W H Smith's: http://www.whsmith.co.uk/whs/go.asp?isbn=0955063116&DB=220&Menu=Books. It may only be low on Amazon's ratings, but I believe she does most sales directly through her own website or collectors' shops, due to the high discount she has to give to Amazon. Also, I believe there were only a limited number of copies printed, which would also account for the low rating. Christopherpaul 02:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bad article. The Bully Boy 13:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, there are now multiple sources that back up the content of the article and assert notability. Action TV and Best magazine have also tipped her as 'one to watch', so there is a case for notability. The article may need polishing, but I firmly believe that it should remain. Christopherpaul 14:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not tangential, as they either refer directly to R. L. Royle or her work. Also, she has a substantial audience and work published in novel and magazine form. 81.102.221.48 01:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as violating WP:BIO, and rules cited therein. This is a NN author. The sources are tangentially about the writer. Bearian 00:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not tangential, as they either refer directly to R. L. Royle or her work. Also, she has a substantial audience and work published in novel and magazine form. 81.102.221.48 01:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.221.48 (talk)
delete this is a nn self-published author whose article was written by somebody who says above: "I believe there were only a limited number of copies printed, which would also account for the low rating" which, if anything simply proves the nn status. B1atv 07:06, 19 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dog horn publishing[edit]

Delete contested prod for nn company apparently written by WP:COI editor Carlossuarez46 23:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating:
Polluto (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the up-coming magazine from the aforementioned publisher.

Carlossuarez46 23:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I was unable to find any evidence of notability for either the publisher or the magazine, the sources provided by the creator were mostly from the publisher itself, and in my opinion did not adequately demonstrate notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 00:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are listed on www.creativematch.co.uk/viewlisting.cfm/47892, Amazon and www.ufindus.com/publishing_and_journalism. Christopherpaul 01:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be preferrable to merge the articles together? There may be more justification for one on R. L. Royle and Dog Horn in general, than three on her, her publishing company and her magazine? The main R. L. Royle article has now been significantly updated. I've sat here for the past couple of hours getting more sources etc for the piece and I do genuinely believe it should remain. There are shorter, smaller articles with people who have less of a following and are less interesting. Christopherpaul 02:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE BOTH The publishing company is a "vanity press" outfit, created by the author to publish her book, as the Yorkshire Evening Press source on this article makes clear. THe editor of this article has written three articles about the company (which is not listed at Companies House and the only sources given are trade directories); the magazine (which is not yet published and therefore can't possibly be notable) and the author (who according to the Yorkshire Post article is a 23-year-old ex model who has written a book and published it herself). All three subjects have become intertwined in each article and if there were a case for notability then these articles could be merged. Yet there is no such evidence. As a self-published novel by a previously unknown author the book would have failed to have got into bookshops and couldn't have sold; as a magazine they will be unable to get distribution into newsagents - and one of the articles at one point last night suggested the magazine would actually be published online making it a not-yet-published website rather than magazine. I wish them well, but they are yet notable for an encyclopaedic article. B1atv 06:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as lacking independent sources. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom, as violating WP:N, WP:RS and WP:SPAM, all by a SPA. Sorry. Bearian 00:08, 13 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 delete per WP:CSD#A7 (web). Obvious WP:COI violation, most of the article was written (much of it as a development log in the first person) by User:FA-Lazarus, who has even gone so far as to redirect his user page to the article. No assertion of notability, no reliable sources cited. — Caknuck 00:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen Angel Series[edit]

Advertisement, lengthy plot summary, and first-person narrative by author of incomplete and unreleased Flash animation; by definition cannot be notable. Russ (talk) 23:41, 11 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 858[edit]

Although tragic for the stowaway who died, ultimately the flight and the whole incident is non-notable in the encyclopedic sense. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 23:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur. Also, no sources are given. The information of the hisotory of stoaways on airliners is interesting, and perhaps worthy of an article or section somewhere, but with sources added first. - BillCJ 23:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki move to WikiNews this reads like investigative journalism, WP:NOT a news site, WikiNews otoh... ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there are two problems with this. Firstly, liscence incompatabilities wmake transwiki impossible, and second, this is old news anyway, by several months. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after clean-up There is already a Category:Stowaways and a reference from the San Fran Chronicle. The article itself was a mess, but I've cleaned it up a bit. Anynobody 03:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to stowaway. There is very little to write about this incident, and 90% of the article is of no real consequence (e.g. the flight number). There are several stowaways each year[1] just to the U.S., and notability might be gained by surviving. Being found as a dead stowaway, however, is banal. --Dhartung | Talk 04:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of far too many such accidents to possibly be notable. They occur at about one a month that I hear of, probably more, around the world. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge Merge to stowaway per Dhartung Mbisanz 06:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment this incident is already described at stowaway. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - non-notable news. I think it's interesting that the stats which were in this article showing how often this occurs - and thus supports the non-notability, have been removed. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable about a Stowaway. Notable incidents should include hijackings or anything catastrophic. KyuuA4 20:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable article, dead stowaways are not that rare. MilborneOne 21:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A dead stowaway doesn't make the flight notable Cogswobble talk 21:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:14, 13 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. After a careful review of this article and its history, I find that it contains substantial material in violation of WP:BLP and WP:BIO and that there is no acceptable version that can be reverted to. The conclusion that the article should be deleted rather than stubbed is fortified by the fact that the subject's notability appears to be marginal in any event. Of particular concern to me was potential impact of the article content on the subject's minor children, who are victimized here by disputed and unsupported allegations and who clearly are not notable in their own right. Newyorkbrad 18:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Fiorelli[edit]

Process listing per this removal of this incorrect listing. I abstain. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not one citation concerning his "accomplishments." If I want to read fiction, I will go to Borders Bookstore.

Delete Reads like an attack on the poor guy, because some news stories alleged that he had looked at dirty pictures. Not notable for anything else. • Lawrence Cohen 23:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe only section that has facts is the "scandal" section. All else could be manufactured and is not verified. This is not what the five pillars of WIKIPEDIA envisioned or expressed. I would keep the "scandal" section. Otherwise, "just this year." "Graduated X of X" in a class. Making sure to list where he attended undergraduate education but embarrassed by law school he attended (REGENTS LAW). Nothing here is of note, beyond being a porn addict and a jerk to school teachers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.113.57 (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not remotely notable. I deleted the entire "scandal" section. It still read very attacky. I mean, his kid looked at porn on a school computer? Does that really need to be in the article? Smashville 23:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non-notability and possible COI. This is the only contribution of the article's author ThreeChopt, who, looking at it, was possibly a disgruntled ex-employee or angry constituent, given the undue weight of the "scandals". A hatchet job, nonetheless.--Sethacus 00:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'DELETENot a hatchet job. Rather, a huge scandal that every educator in Richmond is aware of and the only fact in the entire entry. I reversed the deletion. There is even the report cited to outline the computer activity (on his government owned and issued laptop). What will this forum be with no name politicians citing unverifiable facts . . ... .. What else, oh yes, I forgot that I graduated number 1 from MIT and today, I brushed my teeth and spoke to a kid on the street about how I landed on the moon with Buzz!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.113.57 (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused...why reinsert the BLP vio of an article that's pretty clearly going to be deleted? Smashville 03:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me be more clear. The disparaging remarks are not sourced...the "references" both link to 404 pages. The linked PDF/picture file is so vague that it could be used as evidence to support a ton of assertions. A google search turns up nothing related to this. The fact that the info is disparaging and not sourced is a WP:BLP violation. Smashville 03:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Replies first to Smashville. Why reinsert? Simple. Check this diff. "Fiorelli has a snowball's chance in hell to get re-elected"? To the IP, I fail to see how, in its original state, it wasn't a hatchet job. 2/3's of the article were on the "scandals". I also find it interesting the IP's first edit was to this AfD.Not usually a newb editor thing to do.--Sethacus 16:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Replies'Regardless of who puts what where. The only verified fact is the scandal section. See updated links. I do not see where you fail to see the point. His background (class ranks, job experience, etc.) is not verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.113.57 (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as clear a WP:BLP violation as possible. Individual falls far below WP:BIO minimums and the article exists only to house the questionably sourced attack. Personally, I feel without the scandalous (and outlanding "national significance" claims), this is WP:CSD#A7-eligible. --Dhartung | Talk 04:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what's left doesn't show notability. NawlinWiki 15:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, What is left is a) not notable 2) unverified 3) possibly not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.113.57 (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - - What is left does not show anything other than unverified facts about a historically unimportant goof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.113.57 (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC) This entry should be left for the scandal part reads as historical fact.[reply]
KEEP

the historical aspect of this article leads us to one conclusion the scandal portion is verified and accurate

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 unanimous delete, as sources were not provided. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium 3[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable topic, about a pre-packaged TV news package. • Lawrence Cohen 23:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have added Palmer News Package to this afd. • Lawrence Cohen 13:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Delete - Notability not demonstrated, per Lawrence. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not a news package, merely a collection of canned, generic music designed for newscasts. No reliable sources, inadequate assertion of notability. Also delete the related Palmer News Package. Caknuck 00:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PROVIDED reliable sources can be found. Otherwise, delete. WAVY 10 01:24, 15 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 05:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Starr[edit]

Currently a copyvio of [2]. It could be rewritten, but I'm brining it here to see if people want to start fresh, or work on it now. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article in some form of course, but maybe if the article was reverted to this edit (or thereabouts) and work from there? As it stands, the added material is not quite a direct copy of the outside article, but it does seem rather close. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable, I've stubbed the article to remove the copyvio; other editors may wish to expand it. ELIMINATORJR 00:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, can live as a stub for a while. Acroterion _(talk) 03:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very notable group. Copyvio issues seem to have been alleviated already, so no issues with it at this point. ◄Zahakiel ► 15:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:24, 12 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 05:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anjana Mishra rape case[edit]

WP:NOT#NEWS, not notable either (WP:BIO) Tazmaniacs 23:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." This is not encyclopedic. Things like this belong at wikinews.--SJP 23:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep having 23 instances of news coverage spread over 7 years would seem to fall outside of the definition of "brief period of time" [3]; the case also appears to have had an effect on state-level politics due to the position of the criminal. [4]. cab 23:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. cab 23:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If immediately revised to satisfy WP:BLP, else stub for now. This is not a typical rape case. In fact the article should be renamed to show that it is "rape cases" rather than one case. It starts with an alleged rape attempt by a government official, then there is a gang rape for which multiple persons were convicted and sentenced. Several of the external sources appear to be mainstream press sources, but those more familiar with India would have to judge that. This matter has been in the news, and apparently even looked at by the British parliament, over several years. That said, it is clearly a WP:BLP minefield, and every incriminating statement should have an inline cite to a reliable source, with any unsourced statements removed. Just making a series of allegations and having several external sources at the end violates WP:BLP. Edison 00:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is not just yet another rape case. Article is certainly encyclopediac and is notable in all sense, given its publicity and the high profile people involved in the case. Some inline citations are needed, though. - KNM ^Talk 14:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Since there seems to be nothing solid against J. B. Patnaik (currently only a stub), former Chief Minister of the state of Orissa, the only notable thing in this crime seems to be the condemnation of Advocate-General of Orissa Indrajit Ray for attempted rape. The rape case in itself does not satisfy WP:NOTABILITY, in particular when concerns about WP:BIO arise. WP:NOT#NEWS: We can't register every single case of rape, alleged rape or even gang rape here. Henceforth, unless Patnaik's role here is better defined and his involvement proven, I think that, since Advocate-General (India) seems to be the equivalent of Attorney General of India in each state, that only Indrajit Ray would, perhaps, fits notability guidelines. Therefore, why not create an article for the latter and keep the controversy there, instead of creating a nominal article for this most unlucky woman? Tazmaniacs 18:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.There are over 700 google hits.[5]. This is not just yet another rape case. It has significant effect on state politics. The case led to replacement of then chief minister by party president Sonia Gandhi. The rape case contibuted to defeat of then ruling Congress party on Orissa assembley election .- Shyamsunder 01:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a difficult choice to make, ultimately I wish that we had better protection mechanisms in place beyond just user watchlists for these type of sensitive articles, but the case does appear to be notable and worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Yamaguchi先生 23:49, 15 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 Redirect to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. There's a clear consensus that this organisation doesn't have enough out-universe notability for its own article; however, as I'm redirecting rather than deleting, any important information can be merged into the main article on the book. Walton^One 20:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbledore's Army[edit]

The article is just a re-writing of the Plot of various Harry Potter plotlines, and contains no real world sourcing or information. As we already have articles on the books and characters and films, this just duplicates that, and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 22:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Oh wow...who cares. Even if they existed they'd fail WP:CORP. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's a secret society! Of course there's no sources! They just haven't gotten into the papers yet! But trust me, it's real. Just check their website for proof --UsaSatsui 21:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I guess some people do. It is rated "High-Importance" according to WikiProject Harry Potter. -Rocket000 00:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet its fate is being debated over at Harry potter notability, and this is my proposed solution, due to its notability problems. Judgesurreal777 01:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Way, way too in-universe. Smashville 23:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. This should be changed so it does not sound in-universe. Why delete if it can be improved?131.215.108.218 23:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you propose that a fictional organization that only exists in universe is made to sound not in-universe? Smashville 23:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This kind of stuff should be covered in the books they are found in.--SJP 23:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you mean the book's articles? Because this topic applies to the whole series, and would be hard to merge, plus it's better to have it all in one place. -Rocket000 00:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's already mentioned in those articles. Judgesurreal777 01:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plot regurgitation does not a Wikipedia article make. Where are the outside references? Are there books written on Dumbledore's Army? The topic is not notable, and no amount of rewriting will help. MarkBul 23:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think it's notable, being a major part of Harry Potter, but since there is concensus to delete, I'd say merge so it can be deleted, and the information contained theren would be kept. Yamakiri on Firefox 00:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now. I don't know to much about the Harry Potter Universe, but there seems to be a lot of information here that just needs to be re-worked. Anyway, there's a bigger discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter/Notability. - Rocket000 00:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this is one of the articles that they hadn't decided what to do with it, so I propose this solution. Judgesurreal777 01:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I wasn't aware of that, I didn't read though it all. I just thought I'd point it out for those that cared. - Rocket000 02:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to any of the books/or other articles related to the Dumbledore army.--JForget 00:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a new article called List of Harry Potter organizations, which will include all the organizations in the books. S.P.E.W. should also be merged to this page.71.92.70.77 01:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very doubtful that that article, like this one, would have even a sliver of notability. It will probably get a sentence mention in the Universe of Harry Potter article. Judgesurreal777 01:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The HP WikiProject hasn't done anything about this article because we haven't gotten around to discussing it yet. I'm sure we'll do something about it soon, but it would be nice if you would defer to us temporarily and stop AfD'ing articles so we can have a chance to sort it out ourselves. We have just started a new process for restructuring the articles under our care to satisfy notability guidelines. – Basar (talk · contribs) 04:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to articles that there is a consensus about merging or not, I have deferred to consensus. With regard to article whose fate is undecided, I have taken the initiative. Judgesurreal777 04:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not "take the initiative" by starting a discussion on this page at the WikiProject? – Basar (talk · contribs) 04:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. AfD is a bit extreme. Wl219 04:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So after this, should I cease AFD for now and just work on the notability page? Judgesurreal777 05:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonable to me. If our group fails, we can always return to AfD, but I feel letting the WikiProject deal with these things is preferable if possible. – Basar (talk · contribs) 06:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, with this nomination, we have already gotten ride of a lot of junk already. Judgesurreal777 06:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to be able to close an an AfD debate that is looking like a consensus delete and merge. Smashville 13:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe it should be userfied to the page of one of the HP project's members,then? ◄Zahakiel ► 15:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Order of the Phoenix (organisation). Wl219 04:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that that is also up for deletion. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 10:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:FICT for lack of out-of-universe sources and reception. Article is also very in-universe, violating WP:WAF. Merge necessary information into the relevant Harry Potter article and then delete. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for not knowing the answer to this because I rarely comment on AfD's, but why in the world would you delete an article after merging some of its content when you can just redirect it? – Basar (talk · contribs) 07:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is free to be recreated as a redirect if it is appropriate. As for now, where it will be redirected to is not clear, especially considering that the logical redirect, Order of the Phoenix (organisation), is also up for deletion. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get it. Why merge, delete, redirect when it can be redirected in the first place. The only difference is that the article history is lost which might be useful for future merging or traswiki'ing. I think book 5 would be the logical redirect as it was most important in that book and introduced there. – Basar (talk · contribs) 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep or~~ merge/redirect or userfy until the Notability WP has figured out what to do with the article. With the masses of HP AfDs recently, I don't want to be in their position of having to fix everything immediately and fight AfD comments at the same time. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge' to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. The first and most significant appearance. --UsaSatsui 21:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dumbledore's Army is clearly notable to Warner Brothers, and their marketing department seems to want you to join. http://joindumbledoresarmy.warnerbros.com/ Libertycookies 10:41, 16 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live on Tape[edit]

A local comedy show that aired on only one station. By definition, not notable. Blueboy 96 22:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like it aired for 3 or 4 years and claims to have produced 56 hours of material.[6] Notable enough for me. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as "was the only locally produced entertainment show at that time in the Quad City area"[7] - Fosnez 02:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletions. -- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:27, 12 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 but clean up article, with cleanup needed by any contributors with medical/cardiological knowledge (as QRS suggested). Alabamaboy 00:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Gray[edit]

Article evidently written by subjects son. Violates WP:NPOV, WP:Autobiography. 2) WP not a family history site WP:NOT. 3)Multiple assertions not supported by verifiable references. 4) Author never signs posts. 5) Postnominals GIRE. There is no G ranking of membership of the Institute of Radio Engineers. 6) Contains nonsense in section "World War 11"; eg: relative to "suck up marks" and "Radar" "that he used during Coral Sea Battle". A non-commissioned rank would not have authority to perform action claimed. An exaggeration at least. See also http://www.st.net.au/~dunn/ausarmy/3ac2ard.htm and acknowledgement at bottom. 7) In "vindication" reference to US patent 6,144,879. A search of this patent shows it to be a nonsense patent as evident to anyone trained in cardiology. 8) On the talk page it had been suggested the author should rewrite the article. No attempt made. 9) Talk page concludes with an unsigned illiterate & offensive statement. QRS 00:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete, I concur with most of the noms statements, but this gentleman seemed to have lived a pretty interesting life. There is probably a good reason to have an article about him, too bad this one isn't it. Burzmali 01:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founding the company that invented the pacemaker sounds notable to me (assuming it's correct, of course). The article just needs a rewrite. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 01:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Delete and re-create Per deductions by OfficeGirl and Faithlesswonderboy. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 06:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Noel Gray may indeed warrant an article due to his involvement with Telectronics. Whether it will be cleaned up to meet standards is doubtful under current circumstances but that might be tried before deletion. Capitalistroadster 02:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A poor aritcle that will stay poor. Oh well... MarkBul 03:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clean up, and handle the incivility through proper channels. This article has major problems, but although sources that actually mention Noel Gray are slim, he appears to have played a notable role in the development of the pacemaker. Beyond that he is merely a normally accomplished businessman with a minor military career, and the article does its subject a disservice by pretending otherwise. --Dhartung | Talk 03:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE ASAP On the surface this appears to be a deliriously ranting POV memorial tribute article to Noel Gray, but in fact what I see is WP:COATRACK. This is actually a thinly disguised attack article against Paul Trainor in violation of WP:ATTACK. Trainor's alleged underhanded business machinations deprived the article's main contributor (Noel Gray's son, ostensibly) of what should have been a vast inheritance of riches. Note the "Vindication" section. WP:ATTACK trumps any notability that Noel Gray might have. Let's delete this article now, without prejudice to recreation at a later date if another Wikipedia editor becomes ready to sanely and appropriately report on the facts and notability from a neutral point of view with reliable sources.OfficeGirl 04:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Paul Trainor" see Nucleus Limited and 'discussion'.QRS 06:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep and format properly Any other issues can be settled though editing, and proper citation. Your son can't write your autobiography, no matter how sharp his pencil is, at that point it is a biography, and just needs to be sourced properly. The tone is too enthusiastic, and it relies on too many primary documents, but that can be handled by the normal editing process. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though the article does need quite a bit of work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.202.83 (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-create per this policy. Gray appears to have borderline notability for his involvement with the pacemaker. As OfficeGirl pointed out, this article has POV problems, and aside from that is pretty poorly written. The best approach would be to delete the current page and create a stub in its place. faithless (^speak) 06:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Twenty Years 08:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate. I agree with Faithless and Officegirl. Seraphim ^Whipp 08:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above per the coatracking here. Eusebeus 19:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate - Per Faithlesswonderboy. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 20:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least one of the above delete comments seems to show animus against the subject of this article, and personally I disregard such comments, not decide on the basis of them. Apparent a neutral editor is needed. DGG (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a content-related issue which should be solved through neutral editing, but the subject does appear notable. Yamaguchi先生 23:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My personal view is that the article should be kept after a conscientious clean-up. As I initiated the Afd I probably should not be nudging in again, but noting that other Wikipedians have done some clean-up of the article for which they should be commended, may I suggest that a contributor or administrator with medical/cardiological knowledge view the link which refers to the "Patent". The patent is a nonsense patent; citing it is damaging to the article's subject and to Wikipedia, hence the ref. should be deleted.QRS 04:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by QRS (talk • contribs)

I still have concerns about the "attack page" issue WP:ATP. Seems like it would be a good thing to re-create the article immediately after deletion, to wipe the attack page history off the record.OfficeGirl 11:24, 17 September 2007

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. . Maxim_(talk) 22:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC) I feel that the consensus here is that it fails WP:NOT#DIR.[reply]

List of media using the Wilhelm scream[edit]

The movies on the list (some of which exceed two hours in length) are associated by having a brief sound effect, the Wilhelm scream (clip). The scream is not a notable feature of any of these movies, and certainly not a notable feature to group the movies by. Since Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics, I think the list should probably be deleted. Gracenotes^T § 21:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOT -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 22:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. --Core desat 22:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seriously indiscriminate. Funny, but really very indiscriminate. And likely largely OR, too. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wp:not a host for indiscriminate lists of crap. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Jonathan Remember 9/11/01. 22:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Wilhelm scream as the obvious solution. The parent article isn't that large, nor can this well-written piece be understood without it. Though they love TV shows, most Wikipedians are functionally illiterate when it comes to films or books; don't count on this article surviving the deletion process. Mandsford 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOT. WP:NOT states that wikipedia is not "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics"--SJP 23:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mandsford and also because this list is not loosely associated in that they are all linked by this common thread (the famous scream). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others Yamakiri on Firefox 00:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious list of loosely associated topics. No merge. Crazysuit 00:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mandsford. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The Wilhelm scream is a sound effect used in well over 150 movies, songs and other media. that alone means it is not a "indiscriminate list of crap". Also this is not a directory, its a list and lists are clearly allowed on Wiki IE Category:List-Class articles|Film, nor does it qualify for any of the things under indiscriminate collection of information (IE it is not A List of Frequently Asked Questions, or a Plot summary or a Lyrics database or a Statistic or a News report or a Trivia section). SJP's info isn't even true WP:NOT goes on to say, as per the same exact paragraph and I quote "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for clarification" Another keep point is that this list contributes to the state of human knowledge, a qualifying trait for lists to stay as per previous link. Finally it is not a list of Loosely associated topics, they are all associated by the Wilhelm scream which is a part of the movie culture. Viperix 02:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wilhelm scream is not notable enough to define a film. You quoted, "There is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic." None of these films make someone go, "Hey, that's the film that's known for the Wilhelm scream!" Yes, these films are loosely associated because of a single sound effect used among them -- that is the only connection that binds them, which is definitely loose. Lastly, what is the benefit to human knowledge to know the specific films which have used the Wilhelm scream, when you can use a reliable source that says the sound effect is played in many films across genres? There's no need for an indiscriminate listing of titles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"There is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic." Is the point I was making. In the example given no one goes "oh its Ed Guthman, he is know for being Nixons enemy!" but he goes into the list because he contributes to the list topic. I believe it does benifit mankind to know which movies its in, especially for the reasons given by 23skidoo. Viperix 04:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/redirect While I do love the article, I can see why some wouldn't feel it is compatible with Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest creating a "Media featuring the Wilhelm Scream" category instead, and categorizing the articles for the media in question. If nothing else I have backed up this article and the edit history, and am now looking into finding or creating a GFDL-compatible home for the data elsewhere. Rob T Firefly 02:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please take a look at Special:Contributions/Viperix and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Canvassing on RfX's and similar pages. It is apparent that this user has been posting notifications about this AFD to pretty much random users and is considered excessive cross-posting. Just wanted to give a heads up. —O (说 • 喝) 02:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-comment I don't see the canvassing at all. Perhaps these users have contributed greatly to this article (as I have) in that respect I applaud his letting me know about it - regardless of when he did it.

The above was my comment master son^{T - C} 19:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is canvassing in that the presentation of the topic at hand was not neutral. Nonetheless, I'd be glad to see the informed users (or anyone) contribute constructive comments and arguments to this discussion. Gracenotes^T § 04:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counter comment Indeed the people I informed were the people who contribute to the article regularly. IE step four of the deletion process in the deletion tag. Viperix 07:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone back and made my notification on these talk pages nuetral after reading more on the deletion process. Viperix 15:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I appreciate that. Gracenotes^T § 04:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: its a nice article no doubt. The Wilhelm scream is signature mark of movies and has been quite a staple and a part of the film industry for more than half a century. What's different about this list than any other pages in Category:Lists of films by technical issue? master son^{T - C} 03:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is that the association here is loose. To make this concrete, asking a culturally literate individual about association between the films Ice Age, The Incredibles, Ratatouille, and Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within will almost unequivocally produce the answer "they're computer-animated". But doing the same with Spaceballs, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Sailor Moon S: The Movie, and Star Wars Episode III will produce less certain results. These movies, and most movies on the list, are not notable for having the Wilhelm scream (although The Charge at Feather River and Distant Drums are). The movies themselves are only loosely binded by a feature that has been seldom noted (as opposed to a widely noted feature, such as computer animation). Gracenotes^T § 04:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with Gracenotes on this, a culturally educated person, especially a film cognoscenti would certainly know about the Wilhelm scream. Also I'm unsure how its a seldom noted feature, a search on Google produces 957,000 results, and there has been a band. Viperix 11:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, the Wilhelm scream is a notable item. All that I contend is that it's not a notable enough characteristic to group movies by in a list designated for that purpose (a stand-alone list, rather than one integrated into the article). I believe that the logic of WP:DIRECTORY does apply here. Gracenotes^T § 04:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - First another point on notability www.cafepress.com/wilhelmscream. So besides that and all the other things already mentioned, how notable does something have to be? I also believe that the logic of WP:DIRECTORY applies only that it supports my argument in that this list is much like the example given for a stand alone list ie Nixon's Enemies List. Also in that this list complies with everything in Lists (stand alone lists). Viperix 03:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Items from the CafePress tend to be "self-published" by any individual who has sufficient graphics skills, and might not be considered a reliable source. (Although a more reliable source could lead to the creation, and subsequent AFD, of List of apparel using the Wilhelm scream!) Nixon's list has historical importance, of course: it's not the list itself, but its historical context. This list has no context outside of the Wilhelm scream, and it probably would be more useful merged into Wilhelm scream (which is a relatively short article). Gracenotes^T § 17:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Wilhelm scream. —Scott5114 ↗ 03:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shorten severely and merge into Wilhelm scream. - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The Wilhelm scream is considered a signature sound effect in movies and film. Having a list of media in which this is used is totally appropriate. The point isn't whether a particular film is notable just because of the scream (be serious, there aren't any except for the western that started it) in which case I guess some people don't want anything but that first film listed. But Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference, and this article is of use to film historians such as myself in identifying the many and varied films in which the scream has been used. And before anyone goes into the usual spiel regarding sources, the films themselves qualify as said sources because the existence of the sound effect can be verified by viewing said films. That said, the article could be improved greatly by adding timecodes to indicate when in the film the scream is heard. I also notice a number of entries that don't include details on the context of its use; this information should be added so the list flows better. 23skidoo 11:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Merge into Wilhelm scream. The list by itself is not notable, I wonder if it was split off from Wilhelm scream as a WP:NOT list-busting move. But based on other opinions, I concur that the article is not notable by itself. This not sufficient grounds to delete, IMHO, as there are many articles that are sub-articles to main articles. The Wilhelm Scream is a well-known in-joke among filmmakers and fans, so some sort of cogent list of appearances is warranted. A reader may wish to know just how widely-used the sound is, so a list of actual uses is appropriate. Thank you, Viperix, for notifying me of the AfD. I didn't feel canvassed at all. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EXTREMELY STRONG KEEP, per others who voted to keep. --Ryanasaurus0077 20:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, otherwise merge into Wilhelm scream. --Soetermans 08:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Keb25 15:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EXTREMELY STRONG KEEP. The Wilhelm Scream is the epitome of a good sound effect-- versatility, clarity, and recognisability. TheOrgg 16:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you, which is good, because I'm all for keeping the Wilhelm scream article! Gracenotes^T § 14:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 23skidoo, but vigorously remove any claims which cannot be independently verified (this means NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH). Burntsauce 22:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"EXTREMELY STRONG DELETE" on the account that such a list is completely trivial and indiscriminate. Not all entries are known for the scream -- such notable insertions of the Wilhelm scream should be backed by significant coverage of secondary sources, not by editors who violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by saying, "Hey, this sounds like the Wilmhelm scream, this could be a pretty big deal to add on Wikipedia despite no evidence to support my belief, I shall add it to a list!" All notable examples should be mentioned at Wilhelm scream, which is hardly long in the tooth to warrant a separate, indiscriminate list. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Read 23skidoo's account on references, The movies themselves are the references. Not only that but there are two references listed already on the bottom of the page. Entries are checked and rechecked by the contributors of the article. Matter of fact I'll go add more refrences right now. Viperix 03:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - comment Don't be absurd, Vipe. Unless the film credits explicitly say that the film uses the scream, you are doing Original Research. Unsourced allegations should be purged immediately; and "I know it when I hear it" is not sourcing your claim. --Orange Mike 03:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Absurd? Absurd is expecting a sound effect to be listed in the credits. Thats like saying "you can't verify that this movie has blue in it unless the credits say so." Lets say this, If I want to say that "chapter nine of Enders Game is titled Locke and Demosthenes" Then I open the book and look at it and verify, then that book becomes my reference for saying that. It is not OR because its in something that is verifiable and published. A movie is no different, you "open" it and verify that indeed batman's suit is black in the movie, you do not look up NY times to see if there is an article telling you what color it is. The scream is no different, it is distinct and right away you can tell whether or not it is there. I did however add more sources, so that should be fixed and even if it was not I see that as an editing problem not a delete the whole article thing, since sources do exist. Viperix 16:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment - "right away you can tell"? ((cn)) That's a bold assertion, again reeking of OR; see Yamaguchi先生's remark below. --Orange Mike 21:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Aye, right away you can tell. Just like my example above, if you open Enders Game and check chapter nine "right away you can tell", also if you watch the movie you can hear the scream. Its like TheOrgg said "The Wilhelm Scream is the epitome of a good sound effect-- versatility, clarity, and recognizability" I submit however that there are sources listed and if six different sources is not enough there could be more listed given time. I would also say that this debate (mine and yours) belongs in another forum (IE what constitutes a reference, if there is a place for that) Viperix 23:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as list, not category, because a list like the present one can give the context of the scream in the movie and thus provide information that a category cannot. Usefulness is a appropriate reason for supporting a list format. The individual items need expansion, but this is an editing matter only. Most have probably been mentioned in reviews or books about the film, and thus can be sourced. Again, an editing question.DGG (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and source I'm not as sure as Erik that it's all Original Research, but I agree with him and Burntsauce that assertions based on OR must go. (And no, "I know it when I hear it" is not sourcing, it's OR.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 16:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Junk trivial list, maybe put a few notable instances in the main article (a barely notable topic itself). Dannycali 19:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do believe that I notice a trend, the people who think the topic isn't "notable" seem to think this because they have never heard of it therefore its trivial. Fortunately just because you haven't heard of a thing doesn't make it small or trivial. I think I have proven that this is notable since it has been used in movies, songs and other media, Has a store selling shirts, hats mugs and other things, and there is a band. Indiscriminate and trivial would be a list on what types of birds landed in the tree in front of my house. Viperix 16:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A huge collection of OR and a directory. In the main article, it should say, "The Wilhelm scream has appeared in over X movies, including AA, BB, CC, and DD." If you say it appeared in 1000 movies, it doesn't help anyone's understanding to list every single movie it's been in. A few examples, perhaps spread across eras and genres, would suffice. Calliopejen1 22:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke per WP:SPIDER – 81.153.158.137 20:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Wilhelm scream is notable, indeed, but this is an unverified list (original research) and there is no way to say for certain if the bulk of these films are using the actual Wilhelm scream or a knockoff. Yamaguchi先生 23:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm very surprised this is up for deletion. It's probably the most famous sound effect in film history and it has been used in over 150 films including Bond films, all the Indiana Joneses, Star Wars and umpteen more. At the very most it should be merged into the parent article. Tilefish 08:53, 17 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 05:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federated records management[edit]

Article is written about a records management system for large corporations, but is written mostly like a how-to guide or veiled advertising for a particular method or product - the article doesn't even make it completely clear which. Recommend deletion as an unencyclopedic guide and spam. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; fails WP:NOT#HOWTO. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and GlassCobra. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I totally agree that this article is written like a How-To guide, and because of that it violates WP:NOT. Wikipedia not says "Wikipedia articles should not include instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s."--SJP 23:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or send to Wikihow Since it's how to, it doesn't belong here per WP:NOT. It'd be better for Wikihow. Yamakiri on Firefox 00:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the author. It is my first article and I did not intend it to read like "How To" or SPAM. I believe that the topic is of interest to a lot of people in my field, (records management and compliance). I'd be happy to re-write in a more agnostic fashion if you all agree that it would be of interest to the community. Please advise. Thanks Chapmaa 18:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have made changes to the content to make it more agnostic and less process-focused and would appreciate feedback regarding its suitability in this format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chapmaa (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, and that, while it's much better, it still violates WP:RS and WP:NOT. Send it to wikihow as suggested. Bearian 00:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not giving up ;-) I have added significant records management and federated records management references to the article. If anyone has any specific advice that might make the article more acceptable then please post. This is a topic of interest to a lot of people in the compliance industry. Chapmaa 11:47, 13 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing Authoritarianism[edit]

original research and inherent violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Basically, a dressed-up way of saying "Ann Coulter correctly thinks that all liberals are authoritarians." NawlinWiki 21:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 21:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cliff Notes version of an Ann Coulter book. Mandsford 22:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, unsalvageably POV essay. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant soapboxing, and the author seems to be an SPA. Blueboy 96 22:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per authorative commands from left wing. Artw 22:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Supermassive POV hole. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above.--SJP 23:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hillary made me say it. :) MarkBul 23:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment But seriously folks, serious WP:SOAP MarkBul 23:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete worthless bilge - no sources provided whatsoever. I understand that this is a cribbed summary of a book by Ann Coulter. Hope the original is better. Bigdaddy1981 00:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per tons of OR unverified thus per nom.--JForget 00:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems that a serious article could be created with this title - Hans Eysenck, no less, wrote Left-Wing Authoritarianism: Myth or Reality? in Political Psychology in 1982. It was a response, it seems, to The Myth of Left-Wing Authoritarianism by William F. Stone in the same journal. Nevertheless, the current article is a clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR as it stands. Ann Coulter and Godless are probably not reliable sources for political psychology topics. --TreeKittens 02:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. —TreeKittens 02:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Treat it exactly the same way right wing authoritarianism is treated and for the same reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.53.122 (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, right wing authoritarianism seems similar soapboxery - im nominating it for deletion, also. Bigdaddy1981 16:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We already have left-wing fascism, a well-documented phenomenon. This is just Ann Coulter trolling. --Dhartung | Talk 04:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be nothing but soapboxing and original research. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Right-wing authoritarianism is a well-known social psychological concept with roots in Adorno, but this article purportedly describing left-wing authoritarianism reads as if it were simply copied from that article and slightly altered, resulting in an outright fabrication. Valerius 03:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is literally a copy/paste of the article Right-wing Authoritarianism with "left" substituted for "right". CronoDAS 03:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, can it be speedied as a derivative of a GFDL violation? Blueboy 96 01:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references improve, seems ORish.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 12:58, 13 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaash[edit]

Questionable notability. Page has been speedily deleted previously. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 21:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google search reveals no sources that could help establish notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, content appears very similar to previous versions based on logs. Non-notable. Would endorse salting but for the fact that this is reported to be a new TV show that may become somewhat notable once it has finished its first run. If it continues to get created, though, then let it pour. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as suspected hoax. Was trying to see if this could be saved, but I cannot even verify the existence of the alleged production company "Durga Maa Telefilms". [8] I do not see any mention of it on Sony TV India's website using either one or two "A"s [9][10], nor does it appear in their programme schedule[11]. cab 00:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has been listed with WikiProject Soap Operas --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:35, 12 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 delete g1 patent nonsense, Wikipedia is not for things you made up while smoking pot. NawlinWiki 21:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sjøbu[edit]

Delete nn neologism and just not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 21:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, Should have been speedied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M2Ys4U (talk • contribs) 21:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Non-notable neologism. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 21:44, 11 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. Maxim_(talk) 14:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kieren Hargreaves[edit]

There is insufficient evidence of notability; prod removed by creator, who argues that since dodgeball is notable, this person is also notable. FisherQueen (Talk) 21:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable & likely COI. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a sport hosting international fixtures is notable and if your in with a chance of selection for the England squad you are notable, but by all means delete the article if this is not the case. Argthechief (Talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argthechief (talk • contribs) 21:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources proving notability emerge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M2Ys4U (talk • contribs) 21:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per M2Ys4U, can't find a single thing on Google. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:11, 11 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 delete (copyvio). W.marsh 21:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xplorer[edit]

Unsourced, and besides that, there really isn't anything notable about it. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually, it is :-) I remember when many of my friends bought this thing and how enthusiastic they were with this. M.V.E.i. 20:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, The page is copyvio http://www.murraymoffatt.com/playstation-xplorer.html (tagged for speedy as appropriate)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nyla Thai[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 20:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Meets none of the criteria in WP:PORNBIO. Hal peridol 21:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PORNBIO, per nom and above. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 21:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability in the article as it stands. Tabercil 21:53, 14 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cailey Taylor[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 20:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Meets none of the criteria in WP:PORNBIO. Hal peridol 21:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PORNBIO, per nom and above. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 21:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability in the article as it stands. Tabercil 21:54, 14 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Taylor[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 20:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Meets none of the criteria in WP:PORNBIO. Hal peridol 21:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PORNBIO, per nom and above. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 21:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability in the article as it stands. Tabercil 21:54, 14 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. Eluchil404 04:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanford Brown[edit]

A person of local notability for a couple of reasons, as would most school board members or priests or chamber of commerce types, but no demonstration that his notability extends beyond his locality Carlossuarez46 19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extends beyond his locality (Seattle) isn't necessary. "Most school board members or priests or chamber" types don't take cases to the state supreme court, author columns on serious topics in major daily newspapers and are criticized by media for their stand on social issues. All 3 together seem to add up to recurring local (major city) press covergage and notabiilty for me. PS never heard of the guy before. Canuckle 20:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has no concept of local notability, It is either notable or not. This one seems to be. Fosnez 20:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of unsolicited, reliable sources to back up the notability. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is Wikipedia going to become myspace where every self involved person posts his own resume when they are only "notable" in their own mind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.121.23 (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject of this article is clearly not notable. Dlabtot 18:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expand on that assertion? Clearly you see something different than what I am seeing. Perhaps some more information will help me see things your way. Canuckle 18:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This person created their own article promoting themselves. If you asked 100 people in the Seattle region if they have ever heard of him you would be hard pressed to find 1 that had. You have to draw the line somewhere or Wikipedia will become Myspace and a good place to draw that line is at people that actually have been heard of. A good example is he refers to being criticized by a very notable local news commentator. This is a person that 99 out of 100 people in the seattle area have heard of and he does not have a wikipedia article. This is self promotion, nothing more, nothing less. --67.160.121.23 19:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granted the creator seems to have only edited this one article, but if there are conflict of interest concerns, slap a WP:COI warning on it. The Seattle Times profiled him both when he took a civic leadership position years and when he departed. I guess we could value your anonymous reassurance that nobody is aware of him over reliable sources like the Times... Canuckle 20:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is clearly a resume type promotion for a minister who will be changing jobs and stepping down from a church organization. While I've heard of the Church Council of Seattle, the Rev. Sanford, doesn't represent much to 1 in 1000 Seattle residents nor does his name ring synonomous with Church Council of Seattle. Do we want wiki pages for every employee of every organization listed in wiki? Do we want to have church directories on Wiki? I agree with the deletion for this topic and suggest the author to create the myspace or blogspot personal account to create notoriety in the neighborhood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.16 (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe it wasn't you, but the history of vandalism warning on User talk:130.76.32.16 does give me pause in accepting the above at face value. Canuckle 21:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It is clear looking at the details that this is a shared IP address from a large company. Edits made by it are so diverse in nature that it is clear that there are many posting from it. It is the message, not the delivery method, that matters. --67.160.121.23 21:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said it gave "pause" and noted that it may not have been the contributer behind the vandalism. But aside from the issue of anonymous messengers posting similar arguments, let's look at the messages that are to be avoided in deletion discussion WP:ONLYCREATEDFOR promotional purposes. WP:IDONTKNOWIT or WP:UNKNOWNHERE - The 100 Seattlites and the 1000 Seattlites mentioned above don't seem to be readers or writers of the Seattle Times which made the person a subject of more than one article (Religion section articles count) and his positions were considered newsworthy too. WP:Notability (people) says "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". If you want to argue that the coverage hasn't been sufficiently significant, than provide something to back up the assertion for us to rely upon -- so that we can say something other than "well anonymous people said he was a nobody so he must be a nobody." Canuckle 22:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there should really be a WP:SLIPPERYSLOPETHATSENDSWIKIPEDIATOHELLINAHANDBASKET listed in the points to avoid too....Canuckle 23:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am going to go with delete as well. I did a Google search for "Sanford Brown" and drilled down more than 10 pages without finding a single reference to this person. The idea that a newspaper doing a profile, or someone contributing to an editorial page, in itself does not make that a notable person. If we are looking for the lowest possible standard then this one fits the bill but it smacks of someone using wikipedia to give their self promotion more credibility. --Coz 04:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a "single reference"? Not one at all? Perhaps you should try Google rather than Gawgle. Here's a few (some passing) from the NY Times, Seattle PI, Seattle Times, King, etc: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16],[17], [18], [19], [20]...By the way, when you apologized for editing while logging out on Tent City, one of Brown's hot topics, was it because your edits were editing as 67.160.121.23 as per this diff and so have double-voted in this AfD? Canuckle 22:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the problem when you assume. Our office has a lot of wikipedia users, some that participate in the same topics (and many that don't). In that case I had edited without logging in by accident. In this case one of our employees chose to edit without logging in on purpose. But thanks for trying, it always amazes me when people cant focus on the real issue at hand. --Coz 19:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked, I didn't assume. Please do comment on the issue at hand... Canuckle 20:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the subject meets WP:BIO given the repeated reliable coverage. In terms of Wikipedia, there is no such thing as "local" notability. Yamaguchi先生 00:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely meets WP:BIO, enough reliable secondary sources, even the nominator himself accepts the notability; he wrote local notability but since there is no such thing as "local" notability, this automatically defaults to notability. --Kudret abi 10:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would vote to delete Sanford Brown and promote a Church Council page. Most links refer to Sanford as an employee of Church Council. When he steps down the headings will be for a new employee of Church Council; therefore, it appears that the Sanford page is an attempt to self promote prior to leaving his post on the Church Council. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.92.7 (talk) 19:13, 16 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical swivel connector[edit]

This is a new product (by a company called OSHA) that was awarded a patent (US #6,190,180). After Waikikisurf (talk · contribs) created this page (and created links for it on other pages), Witty lama (talk · contribs) tagged it as a speedy for spam. Mikkalai (talk · contribs) removed the CSD notice, explaining on the talkpage that the product was notable because it has been patented. However, the principle is not novel and is indeed the basis for many electric motors. I don't think every product with a patent should have a page, and certainly if it is only just being introduced (and the manufacturer makes the connector on order). Delete. JFW | T@lk 19:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Patents are a dime a dozen, and hardly confer notability. Where are the references telling us how important this product is? If it's not verifiable, it's not a Wikipedia page. MarkBul 20:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of independent 3rd party sources - patents are not hard to come by, and in any event are primary sources so don't confer notability. The tone of the article is on the spammy side as well. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. —Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All it needs is NPOV cleanup and some upgraiding by editors. M.V.E.i. 20:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How does one upgrade it with no sources? And yes, I did look Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless either 6,190,179 other articles on patented devices establish a precedent, or WP:N changes significantly, or independent verification of notability comes to light. For example, is any notable company licensing this technology? That should be the benchmark for any notability claim based on a patent. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 21:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've searched quite hard for sources on the web. All I can find is directories of some kind, patent sites and the like. There are lots of sources for swivel connectors in general, but usually for water, gas or telecoms equipment it would seem - nothing for this particular product - though it looks very useful. Obviously I will change my recommendation if a third-party reliable source can be found. TreeKittens 22:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per earlier commentators, the existence of a patent does not confer notability; being all that is required is that the device be "non-obvious" and "useful". The article makes no assertion of significance for this device, including even the patent. — BillC ^talk 23:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It doesn't even have to be particularly useful - you can get a patent for a self-congratulatory pat on the back apparatus. Or better still, this one Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 16:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ordering mine today! --TreeKittens 22:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being neat is not being notable. If this is an effective product expect it to be touted in all the DIY magazines in the next year. --Dhartung | Talk 04:31, 12 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. Eluchil404 04:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kamla Millwood[edit]

BLP with no real 3rd party sources, was tagged speedy but being on the cover of all those magazines is an assertion of some notability. Carlossuarez46 19:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination fails WP:BLP with little more than a bunch of "blogspot" refs. Burntsauce 21:56, 11 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. John254 02:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PDFedit[edit]

Free software with no evidence of external notability. Not really much else to say except delete. Isotope23 ^talk 19:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I dont know notability but i do know i ave seen it in the top lists of practicaly every freewere site. M.V.E.i. 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I said in my edit summary: It's a remarkable program. I suggest you research your AfDs more.--Oneiros 21:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be remarkable, but when I did research this prior to my original PROD, I found no evidence it met our notability criteria. It may be the most wonderful, useful, piece of software in the world, but unless it can be established that it is notable per the criteria, there isn't much basis for a Wikipedia article on the topic.--Isotope23 ^talk 03:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 22:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that notability, not popularity, is the basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. In addition, WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a reason to keep. shoy 22:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a detailed article on Linux.com entitled PDFedit fills hole in the desktop by technology journalist Bruce Byfield. I think this suffices for notability, and renders the article content verifiable. Other sources are surely out there too - I don't know much about computer programs. [Edit] I have added this as a ref. in the article. --TreeKittens 22:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per press coverage & inclusion in many F/OSS distros. --Karnesky 22:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is notable enough. • Lawrence Cohen 20:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is included in debian - http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=pdfedit&searchon=names&suite=all&section=all (possibly in other distros too, but I use only debian, so I am not aware of situation in other distros). Google returns 288000 results for "pdfedit", although probably not all of them mean this software, in first 20 results I found 3 links leading to different software with similar or same name --Mpx 15:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep.This article helps me a lot while looking for pdfeditor for Linux. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.21.245.235 (talk) 23:03, 15 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. John254 02:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PdfTeX[edit]

Free software with no evidence of external notability. Not really much else to say except delete. Isotope23 ^talk 19:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Usable notable program. M.V.E.i. 21:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I suggest you drop all your AfDs, as you obviously don't know how to measure external notability. This is the standard TeX engine in use today. What makes you think it's not notable?--Oneiros 21:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence that this is notable? Where is the evidence this "is the standard TeX engine in use today"? Where is any evidence this meets any of the notability criteria? I will happily WP:SNOW this as a keeper if someone would kindly provide some evidence to back these claims up.--Isotope23 ^talk 03:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I emphasized this point. I think that the references could be improved, but I don't know if we need more links to the books in the LaTeX Companions series. You seem to ask that the article meet WP:V here. This is different from WP:N & no less important, but I think there are better ways to ask for citations to be added to articles. --Karnesky 03:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I'm asking for is verifiable, reliable sources that demonstrate notability. I don't question the verifiability of the existence of PdfTex, but as of right now there is insufficient evidence of notability.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is being the backend of all current major TeX distributions not significant enough to make it notable? This is now indicated in the article & two webpages (CTAN & the UK TeX FAQ) are given as sources. It'd be nice to have even better sources, but I think that the claim is clearly verifiable & clearly asserts notability! --Karnesky 13:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made that comment before I saw your additions. Let me review for a bit; I might be open to withdrawing the nomination.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence: Fire up a recent (2005++) TeX installation and check which engine it uses. Surprise: pdfTeX. E.g. MikTeX & TeXlive use it as default.--Oneiros 05:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That constitutes WP:OR. However, documentation certainly exists that contains this information. --Karnesky 13:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references are there now. Please do WP:SNOW.--Oneiros 14:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable TeX engine. 132.205.44.5 21:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 22:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that notability, not popularity, is the basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. In addition, WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a reason to keep. shoy 22:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep pdftex is notable, as it is described in MANY articles & books & is included in many software distros. --Karnesky 22:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes notability requirements. • Lawrence Cohen 20:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TeX is very widespread, especially fo publishing in academic environment and PdfTex is notable TeX engine. Many LaTeX classes depend on it, like Beamer (LaTeX). --Mpx 15:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The evidence of notability has been resolved in this discussion. Yamaguchi先生 00:09, 16 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multivalent (browser)[edit]

Free software with no evidence of external notability. Not really much else to say except delete. Isotope23 ^talk 19:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very popular, and with many functions. M.V.E.i. 21:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of very few free pdf libs.--Oneiros 21:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not very popular, according to this. Difficult to find independent verification of notability. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 21:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 22:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slight Keep, as it is described in O'Reilly PDF hacks, Knoppix hacks, and a few others (but it is admittedly somewhat incidental). What is with the massive AfD and PRODs by Isotope23 on PDF software? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karnesky (talk • contribs) 22:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD/PRODs were basically because I became aware yesterday of a large number of PDF related articles that contain no evidence of notability and I wasn't able to independently verify them as notable. If the notability criteria can be demonstrably met here, I'd be happy to close this (and any other AFDs where sources meeting WP:N are provided) as a keep.--Isotope23 ^talk 03:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the coverage in books, the author of the program has published articles about it in peer-reviewed journals [21]. These articles have been cited by researchers other than the author. --Karnesky 04:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the work is notable, the papers cited, and the product widely used. DGG (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable java software [22], 22835 downloads in last year [23] mean it is relatively widespread --Mpx 17:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability appears to be evident based on the discussion above. Yamaguchi先生 00:08, 16 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 — arguments for keeping article do not address valid concerns regarding a failure to satisfy notability guidelines. --Haemo 18:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PDFlib[edit]

Free software with no evidence of external notability. Not really much else to say except delete. Isotope23 ^talk 19:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google only has 1.230.000 hits for "pdflib"; it's the software used for producing pdf from webservers. Do you even know what you are talking about?--Oneiros 21:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. Ghits != notability.--Isotope23 ^talk 03:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The name "pdflib" was used for at least one other proprietary PDF library. Many projects can employ such a name for unrelated software. Pavel Vozenilek 16:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep common library for PDF creation. 132.205.44.5 21:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 22:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that notability, not popularity, is the basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. shoy 22:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slight Delete I strongly disagree with MANY of Istopes23's recent AfDs and PRODs of PDF software, but this seems like a nonnotable spamvertisement. --Karnesky 22:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It does have 70 hits each on google books and google news. Someone might want to scour these for WP:RS. --Karnesky 03:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite fine for notability. • Lawrence Cohen 20:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PDFlib library was considered as the best PDF generating library (five years ago in a SW company that worked on a document management system). However, the current article has almost no encyclopedical value and talks about a non-notable company. The library may be mentioned in some overview article, there's no need to list every company on WP (that's what planetpdf and similar sites are for). Pavel Vozenilek 16:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful today when seeking PDF technology overview. Yes content is thin but link to company alone adds value to Wikipeida. Conrad T. Pino 19:05, 19 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.

Electronic telepathy[edit]

The result was deleted as nonsense and per WP:SNOW outcome as show below. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An essay (as far as I can tell), fails WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:SOURCES Rackabello 19:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you made a google search? It can also be an article by a starting Wikipedian who doesnt know how to brake in to sections, catigorisation, and the meaning and importence of references. M.V.E.i. 21:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep spam with tags, watch, and if necessary, renominate in a month or so. The term seems to be in current usage. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 21:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . This definitely fails WP:NOR, it does not seem to be talking about the same thing as any "electronic telepathy" links brought up in google (determined mainly by looking for "trained telepathy agents"). Again, most of those links are either different conspiracy theories or about the neurophone.Hal peridol 21:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although it's a neat idea-- something that measures different reactions to detect emotions-- there are zero sources, and even the author writes "Most of the data specs are de facto -Top Secret- even though they are likely de jure -Does Not Exist-" I guess they could tell me, but then they'd have to kill me. Mandsford 21:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No possible sources; fails WP:OR. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GlassCobra, nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accounting4Taste (talk • contribs) 22:12, 11 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. John254 02:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pstoedit[edit]

Free software with no evidence of external notability. Not really much else to say except delete. Isotope23 ^talk 18:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many use it it's one of the most popular. Really efective. M.V.E.i. 21:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful program.--Oneiros 21:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that notability, not popularity, is the basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. In addition, WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a reason to keep. shoy 22:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —Karnesky 22:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slight Keep This, like multivalent (that Isotope23 also listed), is described in a few of the O'Reilly hacks books & is included in many F/OSS distros. --Karnesky 22:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable because of wide distribution and use. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is notable enough. • Lawrence Cohen 20:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Included in debian for quite a long time - http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=pstoedit&searchon=names&exact=1&suite=all&section=all . Also 1280 downloads per week [24] and 130,995 downloads from Jun 2005 [25] on sourceforge alone - I think the software is widely used. Last version is from 2007-09-09, so the development is still active. --Mpx 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there appears to be a wide usage of this product which suggests notability; can someone please point me to a guideline for software-related articles? Yamaguchi先生 00:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no special guideline, as the former WP:SOFTWARE failed to pass. The suggestions in it aren't horrible, though, and they are still brought up in deletion discussions. --Karnesky 00:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More discussion needed. I am leaning towards Keep. --Do not click me! 00:43, 16 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. Wizardman 02:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skipwith Elementary School[edit]

Elementary school with no assertion of notability. LaMenta3 18:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 21:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. MarkBul 23:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —David Eppstein 03:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft. Twenty Years 07:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Henrico County Public Schools. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:N. VanTucky ^Talk 22:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Henrico County Public Schools per locality guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 00:07, 16 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 deletion per CSD:G7 (Author request, no other substantative contributor) -Chunky Rice 18:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Farr[edit]

NN musician, fails WP:MUSIC Rackabello 18:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note from author: Wow, 3 minutes flat from creation to Afd. Out of more than 30 musician articles I've created, I've never had one come across Afd. So okay, have I not provided enough references to at least establish notability? Ghits are about 9900 for specific search of "Gary Farr" pianist. [26]. He is also listed at AMG and Imdb. ♫ Cricket02 19:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your track record, but that means bupkis here, since it's not the subject of this discussion. --Calton | Talk 07:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. The AMG listing is a discography. I think we can agree that there are not 9900 web sites discussing this guy, no? Come up with some real references and I'll reconsider. :) MarkBul 20:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notabe film-composer, and he sells. M.V.E.i. 21:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable? There's barely any evidence that he's even a film composer at all, let alone notable. --Calton | Talk 07:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A notable film composer would compose the score for notable films, several preferably. Farr's sole IMDB credit is a non-notable James Bond parody. He has a discography at AMG, but having an AMG biography is a generally recognized tipping point toward the notability side. At this point I don't see him passing WP:MUSIC. --Dhartung | Talk 04:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm seeing no sign of real-world impact impact, notability, or even reliable sources. --Calton | Talk 07:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per most others. His one soundtrack is for a short film, even. Precious Roy 09:23, 12 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 with reason "WP:NOT a dictionary, wiktionary is that way" by Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close. Closer's comment: WP:CSD#Non-criteria. cab 00:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snarry[edit]

Unverifiable original research, it even says "It's not a common or real word, it is a word that would only be common to the Harry Potter Slash Community." Was tagged for A7 but as it is a word, it doesn't fall under any of the CSDs, so the tag was removed. Melsaran (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see an anon removed the prod tag without a comment[27]. Melsaran (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Delete There's nothing to it - non-notable, original research, etc. MarkBul 20:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Looks like a user is complaining about his account being banned for life =[. Touching, but nevertheless all OR and non notable. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 21:20, 11 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 --Haemo 18:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Parish Church of St Mary, Potton[edit]

Individual Catholic church that is not notable in the scope of this encyclopedia Rackabello 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rackabello is completely correct, as i can find no reason that this particular church should be noted in wiki.!paradigm! 18:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)!paradigm![reply]
This article should stay. The article is about a Church of England church, not a Catholic Church. Potton is a town and as such the principal town of a town is entitled to a wikipedia article. It is very in depth and worht reading. It is too big for the Potton Article so it deserves a page of its own.Franny-K 19:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article should stay. I found it to be very informative. It is no less notable than other articles. Indeed I can think of several articles that are less notable, for instance articles about obscure academics. This is a strong vot in favour of the article. 84.65.163.253 20:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep. Smashville 19:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a Potton article that appears to be largely identical. I would think that any church with that history would be notable. Outside references would help. MarkBul 20:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- However...I agree with this...Keep or Merge per above...sometimes something is notable just by how long it has been in existence. The fact that this church has been around for 700 years is notable in and of itself. Smashville 21:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Potton as above Fosnez 20:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tidy up, and remove duplicated material from Potton. Ancient church (also listed building) is notable in itself. -- MightyWarrior 22:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article giving the current form. Yes there is lots of historical significance but no sources really accompanies the info, so difficult to give it a pass per WP:V unless sources are added. Right, parts of it can be merged for now or someone can store it in a sub-userpage until the sources are provided to assert its notability. I see it can be notable though--JForget 00:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mbisanz 07:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The church has a very long and notable history, this makes it notable. It is also a very thorough and well researched article and is too big to be part of the Potton Page. 62.172.110.194 09:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- Fayenatic (talk) 06:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Keep but totally rewrite copvio. I have added an assertion of notability - it is a Grade I listed building which places it in the top 1.4% of the most important historic buildings in England. However the whole article was copyvio from [28] and subsequent pages. In fact, I'll be bold and delete the copyvio now. DWaterson 12:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - now done. The article has been converted to a one-line stub, which I suppose can now be speedily kept. DWaterson 12:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - also, the page should be moved to Church of St Mary, Potton when this AFD is closed (assuming it is kept). DWaterson 12:41, 14 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 -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People Against Censorship[edit]

AfDs for this article:

After a brief flash of interest in May, interest has evaporated. There are currently zero Google News hits for this, under 250 unique Google hits http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22People+Against+Censorship%22&start=280 and under 200 unique hits from the blogosphere http://www.google.co.uk/blogsearch?hl=en&q=%22People+Against+Censorship%22&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&start=180

Looks to me as if once the furore about Inmus died down, there was not much left to say or do. Merge to Don Inmus would be OK, but I can't see any evidence that this group has any lasting cultural or historic impact. Just another vapid cry of "censorship!" at the firing of a loudmouth, basically. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable organization Rackabello 18:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per rackabello !paradigm! 18:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)!paradigm! !paradigm! 18:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's new and it should be given some time. It has references. M.V.E.i. 21:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article wa sstarted by one of the group almost immediately it was founded. Thing is, though, that continuing coverage appears to be non-existent. It's a news event, not an encyclopaedia subject. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was new back in April or May, and if it didn't fade after it got its 30 seconds of fame, I don't think it's going to be doing anything now. In fact, we're already forgetting the Rutgers basketball team and Don Imus, and nobody remembers the other guy, what's his name... Mandsford 21:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This group passed like a fart under the sheets. Non-notable. MarkBul 23:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it isn't appropriate as an encyclopedia article ... there simple is too little info, it reads like a news report. That said, it is unfortunate no one interested in current events wrote a Wikinews article ... it could then stay there (but can't now due to licensing issues). --Iamunknown 01:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing at all in Google News Archive and only one trivial current Google News result. No prejudice against recreation when and if they actually have an impact, but that doesn't seem to have happened yet. --Dhartung | Talk 04:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I have seen members of the PAC on CNN and other news programs recently. They're continuing to be active, and have plenty of hits on Google. MauriceReeves 18:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move then delete, Why not just move some of this info into the Imus article, which is the majority of it anyway? If they ever really take off, they can go back to their own page. -- Rick Warner - 4:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.68.226 (talk)

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 as copyvio http://www.rbjrealestate.com/about.htm. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)))[reply]

Richards Barry Joyce & Partners[edit]

Nonnotable company, seems like self-promotion. NawlinWiki 18:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio of http://www.rbjrealestate.com/about.htm. --Finngall ^talk 20:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For good measure, speedy delete as recreation of previously-deleted content. — BillC ^talk 23:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per G4/CSD7/G11/G12.--JForget 00:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as fails WP:SPAM. --Gavin Collins 08:46, 12 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 (Non-admin closing). Tikiwont 20:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Sage[edit]

~~Suggest to delete because this is a non-notable training exercise failing WP:NOTE with only a passing trivial mention in a local newspaper.~~ Burntsauce 18:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn due to recent improvements made to the article. Burntsauce 20:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't have time to edit it now, so I have flagged it for rescue. The article needs expanding to include more about the training, notability can be asserted quite easily with the abundant sources([29][30][31][32][33]) available - Fosnez 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears notable yet requires rewrite. Bigdaddy1981 00:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Pineland comes up every year in the news. It's such a large and complex exercise in public, with the cooperation of many civilian agencies and personnel, that it's notable. The article simply lacks references. --Dhartung | Talk 04:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per above; notable, prominent training exercise Buckshot06 15:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into parent article until sufficiently large to break out independently. ALR 15:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - agree with ALR... the topic is notable and interesting, but at the moment it can be fully covered in United States Army Special Forces#Training and selection (which I take to be the parent article/section). In fact that section says more about this phase of of Green Berret training than the article does. Flesh the section out to the point where it can be summarized and more fully explained in an article, and the article can be re-created.Blueboar 18:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merging with United States Army Special Forces#Training and selection sounds like a workable solution, provided reliable sources are given for whatever is carried over. Burntsauce 23:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I change my mind; can be incorporated until big enough to be split out, but when it is, should become Exercise Robin Sage in line with other military exercises. Buckshot06 11:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have rewritten/expanded the article. Please review it and if you feel it meets your requirements, please change your comment above as necessary. Fosnez 13:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The following two articles by themselves are sufficient reliable source material for the article:
- U.S. News & World Report June 18, 2007
- Special Warfare. January 1, 2006. Transforming Robin Sage.
Obviously, the military will have manuals on Robin Sage, which are also reliable source material for the article. Didn't anyone see the 1997 movie G.I. Jane? It was losely based on Captain Katy Wilder, but Wilder failed the Robin Sage in 1980. There was a shooting related to the 2002 the Robin Sage. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 08:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep] - notability is established to the point where it desrves its own article. --Ybbor ^Talk 20:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments above, particularly Jreferee who cites several reliable sources about this subject. Yamaguchi先生 23:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it was shorter, I'd agree with the merges above, but now has sufficient notability, references, and length to merit its own article. --barneca (talk) 20:55, 16 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. Once again. Eluchil404 04:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Preckwinkle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Suggest delete because the article fails WP:BLP through a complete lack of reliable sources about the subject. Wikipedia is not a personal webhost. This may qualify as a DB-REPOST as it has been deleted once before for similar reasons. Burntsauce 17:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As it happens, a Chicago alderwoman is the example in Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Local politicians (a discussion which reached no consensus). --Dhartung | Talk 05:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator due to a lack of non-trivial third party sources about the person. I'm not familiar with the general notability of alderpersons, but the examples cited by Dhartung appears to be several years old, predating WP:BLP and other relatively more modern guidelines created to address these issues. Yamaguchi先生 23:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whats next the town dog-catcher will get an article? Very minor politician, no third party references worth a damn. Just nuke it already. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:50, 16 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. Eluchil404 04:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-F Records[edit]

Has 0 references, plus there is no assertion of notability of the label. Are any of the bands this label supposedly supports (no references so I can't tell) important or noteworthy? —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep desparately needs to be sourced, but this is a notable record label within the punk world. Passes WP:MUSIC due to (if nothing else) their involement with Anti-Flag. Rackabello 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats fine, but please tell me where in the article it asserts its notability. Thanks, right now the article just looks like cruft to me, as I can't see how its asserting that the label is indeed notable, anyone can "sign" a few garage bands. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The previous guy said it all. M.V.E.i. 21:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Punkmorten 07:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Eagle, would you be satisfied with the article if it was sourced? The local Pittsburgh newspapers and Billboard have published some information about the label.P4k 01:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Article needs to be cleaned up. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 07:28, 18 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

Flash Flash Revolution[edit]

Suggest delete because simply put this game is not notable. It is an unauthorized clone of Dance Dance Revolution made in Flash, and has received nothing in the way of independent reliable coverage by outside sources. This article has been deleted previously per a December 2006 deletion review. Burntsauce 17:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a repost, tagged Rackabello 18:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ACK! EXPUNGE! it seems to be yet another pointless repost !paradigm! 18:53, 11 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 by User:Carlossuarez46, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bend Over Boyfriend[edit]

Suggest delete because this book fails WP:NOTE with a complete lack of non-trivial sources about the subject. Burntsauce 17:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Reads like an ad, (violates CSD G11) and also fails WP:BK Rackabello 18:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No opinion on notability but this is definitely not blatant spam. Pascal.Tesson 18:43, 11 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. Eluchil404 04:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undiluted Platinum[edit]

Suggesting delete because all sources cited fail WP:RS consisting of blogs, forums, and the like. No evidence of non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. Burntsauce 17:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Nick Y. 17:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability, RS. • Lawrence Cohen 16:05, 14 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 Carlossuarez46. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forumoxford[edit]

Fails WP:WEB The Evil Spartan 17:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7, tagged as such. shoy 22:37, 11 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 clear consensus but a default keep. --Haemo 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NESOHR[edit]

Non notable human rights organisation, hence fails WP:ORG. Once tagged with ((notability)), but it was removed without obtaining the desired outcome.[34] --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

This is not a majority vote. If someone brought this page to your attention, or you brought this page to others' attention, please make a note of this fact here. While widespread participation is encouraged, the primary purpose of this page is to gauge consensus of a representative sample of Wikipedians; therefore, it's important to know whether someone is actively soliciting others from a non-neutral location to discuss. Such contributors are not prohibited from commenting, but it's important for the closing administrator or bureaucrat to know how representative the participants are of Wikipedians generally. See Wikipedia:Canvassing.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletions. -- --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NESOHR entry should not be deleted. NESOHR is the only local, independent human rights monitoring body in the NorthEast of Sri Lanka. It has been active since 2004, and has published numerous reports that appear to be backed by thorough and legitimate investigative work. True, NESOHR is not a large organization and its lack of resources hinders its work, but it does provide a notable contribution to the world's general awareness of the human rights situation in the NorthEast of Sri Lanka. See its website, www.nesohr.org, for published reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangam Editor (talk • contribs) 05:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I got only, 138 google hits as "NESOHR", 61 as "NorthEast Secretariat On Human Rights" and 68 for "North East Secretariat On Human Rights". That count seems to be enough if these are Ghits regarding someone's biography. But here we're talking about a Human Rights organisation which says to be making reports and has serious interest in the human rights situation of a war affected country. So in that case I would like to argue on the notability which failed to be established in this article. User:Sangam Editor, I would like to mention that this organisation's official website has not working for a few weeks now. Thanks --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 10:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure, I got over 2000 hitsTaprobanus 20:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? To see the exact number of Ghits we have to goto the last page of the google results. Seems you have to learn to search on Google even ha ;-) btw this's what I got when I searched excluding the wikipedia pages.[35]--♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 05:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are the computer expert here not me but 138 hits for an organization from a Third world country such as Sri Lanka in a region tht has no regular internet acesss that too founded only in 2004is not bad. Further we have to go by WP:ORG. A cursory look says that WP:RS sources such as Amnesty International, BBC and many notable Sri Lankan papers have written about this organization. If you think that such coverage from a third world country such as Sri Lanka is somehow below Wikipedia standrads. Then I have no mor arguments.ThanksTaprobanus 05:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although worthy, this fails WP:ORG notability unproven. --Gavin Collins 08:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Keb25 10:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable. HROs are dime a dozen these days, more so in troubled regions of the world... doesnt make all of them worthy of encyclopedia entries. Sarvagnya 23:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep NESHOR is the only Human rights group in the War Torn North Sri Lanka which operates from within that territory and similar is the case with other war zones not many organisations opreate within them rather from outside them and further even Amnesty International [36] regards it as a human rights organisation.Now not all non Western organisations particularly fom War torm have access to the Internet they have problems even for Food,water and medicine [37][38][39] is sufficient for a non Westeren local organisation particurly coming from a War torn region.Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have proof that this is the only HR organization that operates from within the territory? And been "regarded by Amnesty international as a HR organization" does not make it notable. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable organization. There are hundreds of Human Rights groups operating in Sri Lanka nowadays. The article fails to establish how this one is special amongst them.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 03:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per WP:ORG A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable. The article as edited now has coverage of the organization by BBC, Amnesty International and Daily Mirror a notable Sri Lankan newspaper. If you look harder, you will even find more. It is a Stub so someone can improve it laterTaprobanus 20:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That pretty much says it all "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is trivial for you ?[40], [41], [42] Taprobanus 12:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence, two sentences and one sentence about this organization in the refs provided. TRIVIAL --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a trivial WP:ORG for Sri Lankans where it is functioning from [43][44][45][46][47][48] Taprobanus 12:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Certainly non-notable. Also there was no reason to remove ((notability)) tag. - KNM ^Talk 05:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Speedy delete - This article actually qualifies for speedy delete violating half of speedy delete criteria. Per nom. Gnanapiti 06:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as explained by Taprobanus. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 13:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep- People please go ahead and read WP:ORG carefully. This is very notable and passes WP:ORG for sure. Also per Taprobanus. Please stop quoting WP:ORG without fully reading it. Watchdogb 14:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per an editor's statement, it seems NESHOR is the only Human rights group in the War Torn North Sri Lanka which operates from within that territory and............. So it is important to have a page on NESOHR.Lustead 15:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As per the editor's statement"? Since when are other editor's statements reliable? Do you have any proof to back that claim up? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above.Anwar 15:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable organization, as explaind by the User:Snowolfd4. --Lanka07 16:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keepas per User:Lustead, agree could be interesting article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathanar (talk • contribs) 18:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, speedy keep. This is absurd and surely must be occasioned by ulterior motives. While not previously familiar with this organization, I took a moment and googled it. There is ample and overwhelming evidence that the organization not only exists, but that it is recognized as "notable" by credible sources and news organizations. This AfD is utter hogwash. Furthermore, should this user persist in bringing additional articles treating Tamil or other ethnic Southeast Asian peoples up for AfD on such flimsy bases, perhaps the Wiki community should consider taking appropriate disciplinary action. This appears to be POV harassment -- a deliberate effort to censor the content of the website. It militates against the effort to make Wikipedia comprehensive, informative and global in the scope of its coverage of the world's cultures and ethnicities. And it wastes our valuable time. This kind of nonsense should not be tolerated. deeceevoice 19:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.Dineshkannambadi 21:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable? BBC and Amnesty International has quoated them. Can you explain that please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiality123 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that just getting quoted in some media (no matter how reputable the media is) doesn't necessarily establish notability. If the is the case, even I'm quoted in article in TOI. Do I deserve an article on me? Can you give me any link where the whole article is dedicated to NESOHR describing the organization, functionalities et al?? Gnanapiti 18:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An organisation which is just about three years old and already recongnised as a noteworthy organisation on BBC and Amnesty International. You will need to think about it again. Just curious why I see always the same list of editors when it comes to deleting Tamil related articles!! ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 19:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recognized as noteworthy organization by BBC? You got to be kidding me. Are we reading different versions of BBC here? If you have anything to say about this deletion, please say it here. If you have to make such groundless accusations, please do that in an appropriate venue and perhaps I might consider answering there. Gnanapiti 21:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the article am talking about and I believe it is indeed BBC (correct me if am wrong). As far as the editors I see in all Tamil related articles, I didnt spell out any names, so no one need to answer that yet. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 22:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than 400 NGOs and INGOs that making false reports and activities to have to the sympathy of international community for the greed to the Dollars. So you are asking for have Wiki articles for all these Dollar cormorants? nah! you gotta be kidding. Please bear in mind that this NGO is operating from the Tamil Tigers administrative capitol (Kilinochchi) and it can't survive like this much of time without licking the Tigers's balls. Thanks --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 19:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All you said is your POV. Isnt it? So you want to delete this article for POV?ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 19:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I don't worry even this article saves from this AfD because I have found some nice facts about this so called Human Rights Organisation and now I'm counting time to add those facts to the article. Regarding your comment on my POV.... what I have to say is, I know lots of things than any wikipedian regarding the NGOs and INGOs which operates in the war effected areas of the Island. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 20:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why dont you revert your vote to Keep if you have changed your mind ?. Thanks Taprobanus 13:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that will a very serious matter since I didn't vote yet :D --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 14:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But your nomination is a Delete vote so you can still say under the nomination that you no longer endorse that view:)))Taprobanus 18:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But sir to get things right on fine print for the concluding admin to see that on bright light, your reasons are based on accusations that this organisation may be biased which is indeed POV. And even if it is biased, it needs to be part of the article rather than being deleted. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 22:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 15:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what part of WP:NOTABLE does this fail ? Notable says Significant coverage with Reliable sources so for an organization with three year history what part of that does this stub does not satisfy ? For example see this coverage. It is a significant coverage in negative light of this organization is a significant newspaper in Sri Lanka. This apart from Amnesty International coverage. I know Sri Lanka is not the United States and this paper is not the CNN but in wikipedia we don’t discriminate based on size do we ? I have already established that this stub satisfies WP:ORG. Thanks Taprobanus 12:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It fails notability for exactly same reasons you states here. Even a careful look at the google hits, we could see most of the hits in fact come from, either blogs, or pro-LTTE mouth pieces like tamil net and etc. The the Reliability you talk here is NOT proven at all. Instead of giving blank arguments and putting your self in trouble, why dont you provide us , the news sources other than those tamil something sites, quote this as a reliable source ? News papers give the negative side of , frauds,robbers,rapers, pedophiles, even thought they are not notable.So your argument is flawed and does not prove the notability of this site. Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 05:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the BBC, Amnesty, and the US State Department have made reference to this organisation's reports to my mind make it quite clearly, and obviously, notable. Notability isn't the same as being a Reliable Source(TM), and there's plenty of space in the article to address the (legitimate) issues that've been raised regarding its independence from the Tamil Tigers, or lack thereof. -- Arvind 16:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give us reference where, BBC or Amnesty or any other organization, which has highlighted the activities of this organization ? Here people are proponents of the article failing miserably to give any evidence to show the notability. Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 05:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taprobanus has linked to the Amnesty report. Here's the BBC reporting on two NESOHR releases[49][50] and here's a reference to the organisation in a State Government report[51]. -- Arvind 14:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Those reports only have peripheral references to the organisation. BBC Sinhala which is practically dedicated to covering the war produces all of 3 measly hits. There are no references to this organisation at all in The Hindu which has covered this war from day one. ditto with Indian Express. There's practically no RS source that is dedicated this organisation. News sources give peripheral and surrogate coverage to several things, but that doesnt mean they all automatically become worthy of encyclopedia entries. Newspapers are newspapers and encyclopedias are encyclopedias. Sarvagnya 18:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Sri Lankan organization that too found only in 2004, no need to find RS sources in India or Malawi. You will find RS sources within Sri Lanka1, 2 that have written extensively about it. Thanks Taprobanus 19:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)If you know of any sources from Malawi which cover it in just as much detail as The Hindu, feel free to use it. We should not do the discrimination against the based on the country no? I had heard that the media in Papua new guinea and Ivory Coast also cover this war extensively. Could you please take a look? huh.

And as for the dailynews source that you're waving, I thought you were screaming that the dailynews is unreliable just few weeks ago. Or if it is reliable, can you please go ahead and add all its contents to the article? I'm sorry .. you cant have the cake and eat it too. Sarvagnya 20:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daily news and screaming, in your haste to reply you must have confused me with some one elese:)))but anyway if you dont know by now already we have more than the Daily News as RS sources in Sri Lanka

[52][53][54][55][56][57]. So have at it edit as you wish this after a free for all environment. Thanks Taprobanus 21:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're clearly reading the policy very differently. I see nothing there that says that coverage in reliable sources should be "dedicated" to the organisation. My view, in essence, is that any organisation whose statements form the basis of more than one BBC report, and which is referred to in reports by the US State Department and Amnesty, meets WP's notability requirements. Note that there are scores of indigenous NGOs working in Sri Lanka which are not so cited, and whose notability I would not assert. --Arvind 20:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) From the first paragraph of the "Primary criterion" (emphasis mine)

“

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.

”

Sarvagnya 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the word "dedicated" anywhere there. And, in point of fact, multiple independent sources have been cited. I also fail to see how the reportes I cited are trivial or incidental. Mentions of the organisation in the context of the assassination of Pararajasingam are what I'd see as a trivial or an incidental reference. A paragraph in a state government report which considers the reliability of the organisation given its links with the LTTE, BBC reports essentially reproducing its press statements, and the suchlike don't strike me as being either trivial or incidental. -- Arvind 13:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Arvind and Deecevoice. This is a local Lankan human rights organization and shouldn't be shut out. It look notable enough and has been in the news. Human rights organization particularly from Sri Lanka shouldn't be removed from wikipedia just because there is a witchunt from ruling party circles to do so for political convenience. Sinhala freedom 00:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the definition of a human right organization ? could you please provide the definition and then we can see whether this is actually a human right organization or not. Did you go through the WP:ORG before coming here to make your comments?Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 05:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep NESOHR is a recognized legitimate human rights organization, unlike UTHR(J) which is nothing more than a propoganda machine for the GOSL. Wiki Raja 04:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UTHR(J) is pro gov? Seems you need a break from editing brother, seriously :-) --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 05:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't surprise me why UTHR(J) is defended so much by folks who want to delete NESOHR. Wiki Raja 13:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah? does UTHR recently criticized LTTE? I think thats why you are really pissed off with the UTHR :D anyway I think you should notify Taprobanus that the UTHR(J) is a propaganda machine for the GoSL. Then at least he will stop using it. ;-) --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 14:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you deserve a barnstar just for this comment :DTaprobanus 14:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hee hee hee :D :D --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 14:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would not surprise me if you awarded Lahiru_k a barnstar. After all, you awarded our Bakasuprman a barnstar here. I guess birds of the feather flock together. Wiki Raja 05:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiraja, I already gave Lahiru two barnstars, I am sure he cringed before displaying them but neverthless he does. You find compromises where you can, without that we will be warring endlesley. Baka helped me to make Sarathambal article as a DYK. He has voted against the conventional wisdom in many SL conflict related articles. Even Lahiru has changed his mind in this AFD nomination. Without appreciating such small gestures we cannot move forward. Just my opinion. The Barnstar comment was in tongue in cheek to let him know that UTHR comment was a hilarious attempt to get me not use them because a lot SL editors (not Lahiru) object to me using them because UTHR tends to tell the truth whether the killing was by the SL government (hence the objection) or by the LTTE (no objection). I know this is WP:SOAP. Taprobanus 14:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Looks nothing more than using Wikipedia for some ones propagandic activities.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 17:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. There are plenty of mentions in news[58][59][60] -- at least some of these seem to be non-trivial. The article should pass Heyman Standard with some more sources. utcursch | talk 05:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to meet notability guidelines to me. Dlabtot 05:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per dlabtot. Although might be clearer if better sources can be found in Tamil, Sinhalese or other languages. Greenshed 22:56, 19 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 by User:Carlossuarez46, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A&D Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/A&D Records

Article has 0 references, one red link to one singer, fails to demonstrate notability of the record label. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete no assertion of notability whatsoever. Rackabello 18:41, 11 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 00:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainers by nickname[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Suggesting deletion because this list fails the very basics of our WP:FIVE pillars as loosely associated trivia, and despite being nominated for deletion previously, continues to fail WP:V as well. Burntsauce 17:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, this is what amounts to a list of nicknames. Is not sourced, and is just a collection of loosely associated topics. Entertainers' nicknames, if verifiable, belong on the article about the entertainer rather than a wholesale list. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's customary to include a link to the previous AfD (which in this case was less than a month and a half ago): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of entertainers by nickname. Deor 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now fully emended the nom. By the way, keep per my opinion in the previous AfD. Deor 18:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT, WP:TRIVIA, and WP:V Rackabello 18:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, not referenced. These performers are not known as "nickname" artists - there is no coherent topic, just an accidental connection. MarkBul 20:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "The majority of these nicknames are mentioned in the WP articles for the individuals, and I think that's where the sources should be cited. (If they were cited in this list, the citations would obviously double the length of the article.) Indeed, many of them, such as "Bing" and "Bix", are present in article titles. The list is merely a handy reverse directory—and, please, don't jump in with a reference to WP:NOT#DIR because I used the word—of the bynames. Any unsourceable ones can be summarily deleted." Deor wrote that on 3 August and, weeks later, it's as true as it was then. Maybe you can nominate this one again in October. October is Inventory Month at Wikipedia and on one very lucky day... I can't tell you when... every single article nominated on that day, no matter how people vote, will be summarily deleted. Pretty cool, huh? Mandsford 22:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete open ended list that is full of WP:OR. WP:NOT a collection of useless trivia. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing but trivia and original research. Anything verifiable can go in the articles themselves, a list is absolutely not necessary. --Core desat 22:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR, unsourced, biased to US celebrities and also to current day. Impossible to maintain and possible BLP violation. Bigdaddy1981 00:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Totally indiscriminate, stupidly trivial, and a list of loosely associated people whose only connection is having a nickname. WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR, WP:OR, WP:V, etc. Crazysuit 00:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOT trivia collection. Hal peridol 02:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft, trivia stuff, unencyclopedic. Keb25 15:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These should exist in the entertainers' respective articles, and as redirects if they are extremely common. Calliopejen1 20:38, 15 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 delete per CSD A7. Daniel Case 03:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lunod[edit]

Wikipedia is NOT a repository of song lyrics (collection of random information), no claim of notability, not encylopedic Nick Y. 17:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Song lyrics are copyright violations. Seraphim ^Whipp 17:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I removed the copyvio lyrics, but the article doesn't even assert notability. --Haemo 18:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Agreed, the stub is not worth expanding. 70.100.251.10 18:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So tagged. shoy 22:39, 11 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 Courtesy deletion. I asked Jehochman (who handled the COIN end of this) for feedback and his thoughts echo my own. This individual is moderately notable nationally and marginally so elsewhere. He has asked us to delete this entry, a request I see no reason not to oblige. Jehochman raised the matter of the Brandt precedent. I note how unfortunate it is that we appear to only be able to implement it for living people from countries that are obscure to the average Anglo-American editor. El_C 20:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levan Urushadze[edit]

Reads more like a Curriculum Vitae than an article. Levan Urushadze has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Levan Urushadze to develop an attributable article on the topic. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 17:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has been created and mostly edited by someone who has a conflict of interest.[61] Although he seems like a likeable fellow, I regretfully have to vote to delete unless a neutral editor can be found to completely rewrite the article. - Pocopocopocopoco 23:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Dear administrators! Yes, Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze is my friend, but I'm NOT connected with his business. He is really a NOTABLE Georgian historian and public figure. The article is fully based on the data of official documents and publications about Dr. Urushadze: official certificates and diplomas of academies and scientific societies (World Academy of Art and Science, International Academy for Intercultural Research, Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, International Biographical Centre, etc.), about 80 published scientific-research papers and 5 monographs of Dr. Urushadze, diploma of Doctor of Historical Sciences Number 001694 from 19.05.2006 (Doctor of Sciences is the highest scientific degree in Georgia), publications in the Georgian press about Dr. Urushadze, letters of outstanding scientists and public figures (Otto von Habsburg, Zbigniew Brzezinski, etc.), CV of Dr. Urushadze, etc. Please, note: If I'm not a neutral editor, I will not edit this article in the future. Kalmosani 03:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The International Biographical Centre is a vanity scam that offers awards for money. It weakens your argument to use organizations like this as part of a claim of notability, and lends me to suspect the reliability of the other organizations you list. —David Eppstein 03:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Dear David Eppstein, please, see: the article about the World Academy of Art and Science (WAAS) and the Site of this Academy; the article about the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (RAS) and the Site of this Society; the Site of the International Academy for Intercultural Research (IAIR). Please, see also following material about activity of Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze: 1. International Conference "Genocide of the Peoples in the Caucasus" (Tbilisi, 1998); 2. International Congress "The Modern World and Human Rights in the Caucasus" (Batumi, 2000); 3. Caucasus Conference in Tbilisi (2002); 4. Authors Abstract of Dissertation Thesis for the Scientific Degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences (Dr.Sc., 2006); 5. WAAS Newsletter (June, 2004), Newly Inducted Fellows of the World Academy of Art and Science; 6. Advisory Board of the "Dictionary of Georgian National Biography" (DGNB); 7. List of the Fellows of the International Academy for Intercultural Research (IAIR); 8. Advisory Board of the Free World Academy; 9. Dr. Urushadze's CV. Dr. Urushadze's biography is listed in the "Marquis Who'sWho in the World". -- Kalmosani 04:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The overall notability based on publications is sufficient, supported by recognition from outside his own country. DGG (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC),[reply]
Delete per the subject's request below, since his notability is borderline. I assume this is actually the subject, and that if not, the actual subject could refute the request. Keep because I believe this person is in fact notable, but I request that Kalmosani, as a close friend of the subject who even uses his computer to access the Internet, avoid further involvement in this AfD, per WP:COI. ~~In a place like Georgia, we may need to look at the references with an open mind because things are a bit different there than in the United States, Australia or Western Europe.~~ - Jehochman ^Talk 15:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Georgia is a place with a very long and rich history, there are plenty of notable historians that study Georgia so it's not necessary to treat historians that study Georgia in a special manner. Also, David Eppstein raised some very valid concerns. If the subject is notable than why has he used the International Biographical Centre to improve his CV? Pocopocopocopoco 00:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Dear friends! First of all, I not use in my CV the International Biographical Centre, my biography is listed in the "Marquis Who's Who in the World"! I'm historian and I not study history of my country in a "special manner". PLEASE, REMOVE MY BIOGRAPHY FROM WIKIPEDIA!!!!!!! With best regards, Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze, 14 September 2007

Request granted. El_C 20:10, 14 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. At this point, I don't see any clear consensus on what to do with this. With a little time, it'll probably become clearer if this one is going to evaporate into the wind or actually see the light of day, and it'll be easier to evaluate at that point. That does not, of course, rule out a merge, that's an editorial decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tron sequel (film)[edit]

Per WP:CRYSTAL, until it is announced, it doesn't belong Spryde 17:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Tron rumored sequel (film). Per the below conversation the article was renamed to Tron rumored sequel (film) as it appears it will be a fine article on the phenomena of the sequel, which has 10+ years of reliable sources as revealed by Google. • Lawrence Cohen 21:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Keep. Adding an AFD with 140 seconds of making the article...? • Lawrence Cohen 17:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added a ton of sources and will be building out the article. News will only grow each day -> week -> month on this, given the original Tron's iconic pop culture place in history. We can certainly delete the article today, but will only need to undelete it as soon as there is any more press again. • Lawrence Cohen 17:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am not against the article but the timing is off. I think until it is confirmed, it is rumor and speculation. I remember rumors like this forever for Tron as well as the Superman Remake. Spryde 17:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ Knowing that it probably will need to be recreated soon. I don't think there is sufficient documented evidence of being in the works. I believe it but I think I heard this a year ago too from a good source. Maybe enough rumors and reports of it being made will make it actually happen?--Nick Y. 17:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think there is sufficient documented evidence of being in the works." Uh, what? There have been attempted sequels for nearly ten years. The rumours that directors and writers had been hired for a greenlighted story have been going around for several weeks. Today it is all over the entertainment press. I can't believe you actually made this comment without doing a basic search. SchmuckyTheCat

Uh, Yeah??? There is no documented evidence of it being in the works (i.e. at some point in production). There have been years of rumors and stories like today's have come and gone before. There are no official announcements that are usually the threshold to overcome WP:CRYSTAL. The "news" sources from today are rumor mags and are very unreliable.21:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter is not a rumour mag. SchmuckyTheCat

As he said, Hollywood Reporter is the main daily news service for the film industry. • Lawrence Cohen 22:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both the author and the nominator are a bit hasty. It is a little hasty to create an article within hours of a rumor - there may turn out to be some basis in fact but rushing off to Wikipedia to write an article every time some blurb is heard on the TV is not wise encyclopedia building. By the same token, slapping an AfD tag on an article literally minutes after it has been created is a bit of a trigger-finger sort of activity - give the contributors at least a little time to try and edit up to standards. That rant all aside - the proper action here is to delete as speculation per WP:CRYSTAL unless more sources can be found to show there is more truth to the rumor. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
total 100% speedy Keep We could have had an article detailing all the rumored sequels, and aborted plans for sequels, plenty of times, all reliably sourced. Even if this current sequel attempt gets bogged down in production and canned, it has enough sourcing for an article. It is notable. It is sourced. The end. SchmuckyTheCat

That is a really grand idea. We can take this article, expand to cover the entirety of it--news sources with Lexis Nexis searchs will likely go back over fifteen years or more. Then, once enough proper information on the sequel itself arises, fork that from here into the actual so-called "Tron 2" article? It would be improper to include all this simply in the Tron (film) article as the section on sequel development will likely be larger than the main article itself. • Lawrence Cohen 20:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is pretty standard stuff for widely expected sequels. We've had an Indiana Jones 4 article for three years detailing (sourced) rumors, conjectures, story writes, story re-writes, etc. All this stuff gets published in the Hollywood Reporter and Variety, there isn't anything wrong with us documenting the process. SchmuckyTheCat

OK, then this shall be an automatic Keep then and the AfD can be closed, as Indiana Jones 4's article, and it's creation all the way back in 2004 as seen here set prescedent. Correct? If so someone can simply close the AfD now. • Lawrence Cohen 20:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only problem with that is IJ4 is in production now and just because it exists doesn't mean that this has to. IJ4 has a LOT more weight behind it than Tron 2. I like SchmuckyTheCat's idea of the upcoming page and once production begins, an article can be written. I am not opposed to the close, but I think it still is premature due to the fickle nature of hollywood. Spryde 20:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IJ4 wasn't in production when the article started, that was my point. There is, and has been, enough hype, rumor, and false starts on Tron 2 for us to make an article documenting that even without the latest announcements. SchmuckyTheCat

Are you saying that we should keep this article because other similar articles exist? Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 21:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is saying that there are 10+ years of reliable sources (casual Googling reveals them) that cover a Tron sequel that has been in semi-permanent development until this new series of stories broke. • Lawrence Cohen 21:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could possibly support the concept of an urban myth/persistent rumors article. The phenomenon of rumors of a remake/sequel of such a notable film and the continuous chatter for years about it are notable enough for me. The name space currently used is not consistent with this concept. Also looking at the Tron (film) article it seems that there is currently more information about such rumors there, but is in need of more sources. I think a section should be developed about the sequel within the article until it becomes burdensome and/or the sequel is announced. I think that would be a better use of everyones time and energy. Again delete within this name space. I might be ok with Tron (film) rumored sequel or similar.21:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I have renamed the article to Tron rumored sequel (film). Would you be willing to support this as a persistent article, which can always be moved to a proper sequel article with a great history section later? • Lawrence Cohen 21:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncertain about it but I think it should be clear that that is the better name space for the current state of things. The new article will have to be careful about crystal ball and original research issues. I think the rumor/urban myth page has a chance to develop and survive but the "there will be a sequel" page is premature. Therefore delete this page and see what happens with the new name space (I vote rename and delete).--Nick Y. 21:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...what would be the benefit of deleting if I'm already renamed it? The whole article can be simply edited as needed. This is a content issue rather than a notability issue which does not seem to be even in contention now. Deletion would have no benefit at all now, since the page would just need to be instantly remade as Tron rumored sequel (film), which already exists now at Tron rumored sequel (film) since I've renamed it. • Lawrence Cohen 22:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to delete the old name space and consider the new one.--Nick Y. 22:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Tron. DUH! I recognize that this announcement was made today, and it's very exciting, but it's not an article. Mandsford 22:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge I have even tried to add to the article and found some good info but I don't see it growing sufficiently to warrant anything more than a section in Tron (film)--Nick Y. 22:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this AfD be a bit premature? Granted, I will admit the article would have been stronger if began in 2-3 days time, but the announcement of the sequel was out for all of 2 or 3 hours before I noticed it on Drudge Report. The sourcing and media coverage of this will only increase with each passing day or week, so that in a matter of days or weeks even a merger would just need to fork right back out of the main Tron article for space reasons. • Lawrence Cohen 22:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —• Lawrence Cohen 23:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shrek 4 (2nd nomination) is further evidence that this can be kept. • Lawrence Cohen 23:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that film article should undergo a merge per films like Spider-Man 4 and Jurassic Park IV. The content is verifiable, but a stand-alone article is not warranted per notability guidelines for films. That article and this AfD'd article can be recreated if they enter production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sequel has been rumored forever, but this is concrete action, and Disney is pretty credible when they announce their projects. WP:CRYSTAL permits articles about films if they are well-sourced and very likely to actually be produced. The sequel rumors alone should make it sufficient in this case. --Dhartung | Talk 04:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When did Disney announce this? There have been no announcements!!! It's just a Hollywood Reporter article people. ~~They are not a reliable source.~~ I see no certainty that this will happen at this point. Crystal ball requires reasonable certainty.--Nick Y. 18:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollywood Reporter is a professional trade paper in the Hollywood industry. It is completely acceptable as a third-party, published source. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the article does not mention an announcement. It simply reports about that "Disney has hired".--Nick Y. 17:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the notability guidelines for films. Stand-alone articles of notable films should only be created if the film enters production. There are many factors that can halt a project before it ever reaches production. The verifiable content should exist at the original film article, and when this one enters production, a stand-alone article can be created (especially under the right title per naming conventions for films). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can I suggest that editors read WP:NF in regard to unreleased films? Take a look at the following articles which have been successfully merged and will be placed in their own source materials' articles if (not when, if) they enter production: 24 (film), Ant-Man (film), Driver (film), Fahrenheit 451 (2008 film), The Flash (film), Gears of War (film), The Hobbit (2009 film), The Jetsons (film), Jurassic Park IV, Knight Rider (film), Land of the Lost (film), Logan's Run (2010 film), Magneto (film), Metal Gear Solid (film), Namor (film), Onimusha (film), Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (film), Spawn 2, Spider-Man 4, Spy Hunter: Nowhere to Run, Street Fighter (2008 film), Superman: The Man of Steel (film), The Sims (film), Underworld 3, Voltron (film), Warcraft (film), Wolverine (film), Wonder Woman (film), and X-Men 4. As you can tell, a lot of these projects are of franchises of similar notability to Tron, many being more so. These items are merged because the development process of a project is slow and subject to many factors. Just read the history of each not-yet-produced project to understand the delays that occur in the film industry. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Erik's comment above is the stake in the heart of this afd. The few examples of dubious premature keeps is an established bad argument for keeping other stuff. Also the article does not state that the film has begun shooting as is required by WP:NF. Btw I'm a big fan of Tron and can't wait for the sequel/reimagining or whatever it is.--Nick Y. 17:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge information into Tron as it is not noteworthy enough to hold its own article until there is an actual movie.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 21:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tron. On one hand, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the whole idea of the movie might go nowhere, and end up in history's garbage bin. On the other hand, all those canceled Superman movies have their own article. But other scifi/fantasy genres that have had rumored movies that died after years of buzz but no activity (Star Blazers comes to mind). Maybe the collective effect of all the Superman movies merits an article, as much as been published and written about those movies, whereas here there's not much information beyond a couple of press releases. BrownHornet21 03:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To respond about the canceled Superman films, you'll notice that there is a request to merge the content to Superman film series, which is a better host for such content. Information about the Superman Returns sequel should probably be placed there, too, but the series article is not in the best shape. A better example to cite is Spider-Man film series, which has the coverage for Spider-Man 4 in a "Future" section. Sorry for the off-topic comment. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree with your comment above, by itself the article/film project does not appear to meet Wikipedia guidelines on notability for films, at least not until shooting begins: "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles." So until that time, I think it should remain part of the Tron article. BrownHornet21 20:03, 17 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 Mr.Z-man 18:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Hoffman[edit]

Twice failed political candidate for house US house seat does not make this person notable Nick Y. 17:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable losing candidate. NawlinWiki 18:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major-party candidate for national legislature is notable, even without the unusual feature of his having openly criticized his own party for its lack of financial support. JamesMLane t c 17:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply being a candidate does not confer notability. Eluchil404 04:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is the odd thing of him criticizing his party. Mbisanz 01:38, 21 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 by Alkivar (csd a7). Non-admin closure. shoy 22:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Potter Puppet Pals episodes[edit]

A non-notable internet cartoon, whose main article, Potter Puppet Pals was merged, demonstrating how non-notable a list of its episodes is. Judgesurreal777 17:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom--Nick Y. 17:15, 11 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 move --Haemo 18:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large faggot worm[edit]

Wow. Just wow. There is no such thing as a "large faggot worm". The first supposed reference gives a 404 Not Found and the second (PDF) makes no mention whatsoever to a faggot worm. It really says a lot about the project that such an obvious hoax has managed to survive on Wikipedia since October 23 2005. If this isn't indicative that something needs to change (ie. more vigorous sourcing requirements) then I don't know what is. Suggest deletion, obviously. Burntsauce 17:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Strong delete per nom, obvious hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Eumeta crameri per NawlinWiki, logical option. Not a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Seems like a clear hoax to me. Bfigura ^(talk) 17:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC) see below Bfigura ^(talk) 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move per NawlinWiki. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so sure. Google returns a number of hits in scientific papers for the latin name, including a cached copy of the "404 Not found" document. And this abstract seems to agree at least with parts of the article. Maybe "Large faggot worm" is just an unusual translation? --B. Wolterding 17:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, there may be a problem with the link, but see this one. --B. Wolterding 17:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Eumeta crameri, the scientific name. There are plenty of references to that name, but all of them except WP mirrors use the common name Bagworm moth for this species. But our article Bagworm moth includes many genuses and species. NawlinWiki 17:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect this name doesn't seem to be often used, but a simple google will show that the latin name given in the article is that of the Bagworm moth.Merkinsmum 17:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is patently false. Google will show that the ONLY hits for "Large faggot worm" refer back to Wikipedia or one of its mirrors. I am a strong proponent of redirects in many circumstances, but certainly not for unsupported hoax terms. The links that B. Wolterding cited do not verify that this term exists either. Burntsauce 17:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. What makes you so sure that this is an obvious hoax? Are you perhaps unfamiliar with the "bundle of sticks" meaning of faggot? Seems like an apt name for this critter to me. Deor 19:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm familiar with the bundle of sticks meaning, but I remain unconvinced that we should have a redirect let alone an article by this title. Burntsauce 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - At least some people are familiar with other meanings, which explains the unusually high level of vandalism in the page history ;-) --B. Wolterding 19:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Here's a picture of one. Note the slightly different spelling "fagot," though. Deor 19:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Hm, in fact, the spelling seems to vary. Infopedia 1.5 on "Tea": The tea plant is attacked by several injurious insects, the most important of which is the fagot worm. --B. Wolterding 19:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Google Scholar turns up two papers that use the spelling "faggot." Some of the indications point to "faggot/fagot worm"'s being a term that is perhaps used more in Asia than elsewhere. Deor 20:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move per NawlinWiki - E. crameri is a real species of moth and the information presented here seems to be correct with the exception of the odd name. It is likely an artifact of translation or name of local interest that should not be used on Wikipedia, but this is no reason to dump the article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, you are suggesting a move, but not a redirect, is that correct? IF the current material can be properly attributed to reliable sources this is a possibility, otherwise I think we are better off just starting from scratch. Burntsauce 18:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've updated the second source in the article; that should suffice for attribution. I'm neutral to the question whether to move or rather merge the article (to Bagworm moth). --B. Wolterding 18:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Eumeta crameri per NawlinWiki--GregRM 18:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Eumeta crameri. My reading of the ghits for both terms is that eumeta crameri is the usual name for this species of bagworm. The hits for "large faggot worm" do seem to be tapping Wikipedia and its mirrors, and I was unable to find evidence for the independent use of this term. Valerius 02:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Eumeta crameri. There are persuasive arguments that scientific names should be used for all organism page titles because of the variations in common name usage and this is an especially convincing case because a) Google doesn't seem to especially associate the sci name with this particular common name and b) the cast iron certainty of constant vandalism. Richard Barlow 07:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For all organisms? Felis domesticus instead of cat, for instance? DS 19:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- nb I don't believe the original author had anything but the best intentions when they titled the article. They cannot be blamed for the more modern, more familiar usage of the word "faggot". Richard Barlow 07:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, my recommendation is to move this to the scientific name as advocated by many above, move the resulting redirect to Faggot worm, create a redirect page at Fagot worm, and then delete the Large faggot worm redirect. A Google Books search turns up 28 hits where the term "faggot worm" is used and an additional 6 hits for "fagot worm" (no hits for "large faggot worm," though). I think that people for whom "faggot/fagot worm" is the common name of this beastie—and clearly there are some—should be led to the article if they search for that name. Deor 15:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Eumeta crameri and delete the resulting redirect. Yamaguchi先生 00:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the latin name. Silly issue over an not so common (in some parts of the world) common name and a lake of precision in the common names available. We should really rename all species, Felis domesticus included, to their taxonomic names. Common names are inherently vague and POV, and redirects + disambigs would serve Wikipedia well. So long as the redirects work it doesn't matter if the actual article name might be surprising to some readers. We are an encyclopedia after all. --Gmaxwell 20:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Eumeta crameri. While I suppose large faggot worms might live in large bundles of wood for use in a bonfire, the article rather disagrees. We've been had. Keep the the good bits and move. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't live in bundles of wood; the larvae cover themselves with little twigs and other woody detritus, so that they look like little bundles of wood. Deor 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to (humourously) explain the seemingly fake term. Perhaps that really is why they're called the faggot worm. The point is that there is a better name for the article. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge Likely created as a joke article. Should be moved to scientific name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.252.210 (talk) 06:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all research indicates that this is a valid, even those initially inclined to believe that this article is a hoax have changed their mind and now accept this is not a hoax. The only controversy is that the title is politically incorrect, with the scientific name giving an easy PC way out, so what are about all the other articles at Faggot, such as9M111 Fagot or Faggot (food) would you try and rename all those to. KTo288 00:11, 20 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 by Alkivar (csd G11). Non-admin closure. shoy 22:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just Done Productions[edit]

No claim of notability Nick Y. 16:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article for the book that it published, Borderstrike, needs to be deleted as well. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 21:42, 11 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. Walton^One 19:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fomi[edit]

Delete: No assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. The article is simply a quotation of the website verbatim. Strothra 15:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: More soap than Marilyn Chambers in a bubble bath. --WebHamster 17:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This is fairly notable in Sweden. And the article is well written and interesting. Also, may I remind you, that we have an article on Faith Freedom International. This is the exact same thing. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:42 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Response - WP:WAX applies. --WebHamster 12:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Notability not demonstrated. The article has had plenty of time to develop, and has not progressed beyond a formless, free wp hosted airtime for FOMI's own soundbites. Swedish article has not demonstrated notability either, not with independent references which are normally required of all articles at WP. The tone is heavily POV due to lack of independent references or any other content taken from secondary sources. Three quarters of the article are directly copied from FOMI website, without commentary. In my mind this is more than what is generally meant by "fair use" in the US. FOMI's website says that all its members are anonymous. It says their primary work is done through an unmoderated internet forum. So far as I can see, FOMI is very unlikely to be a notable organization, thus there is nothing so far suggesting this is a good "keep".Professor marginalia 17:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep with reservations: Now that an independent reference has been uncovered, I think the article can be improved. The organization's talking points need to be removed, the opposing view of the organization described in the reference should be described as well.Professor marginalia 19:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This is one of the cases when censorship is rearing it's ugly head trying to turn wikipedia into a PC-moderated climate of an elite group of opinionated know-it-all's. And the forums are moderated. They're also working together with other notable organisations and seem to have a tendency to keep articles fair and factually correct. If this deletion would be finished I think wiki would have to begin deleting ~20% of the information in the database since a lot of it is of similar style. One thing I do agree with is that it might need update on information beyond the current description of the site itself. ---Mononucleid-- 18:50, September 8th 2007 (CET)

Note The above comment is the user's first and only contribution to Wikipedia. --Strothra 17:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with some of the criticizm about the article on FOMI not being very explanatory to non-swedes about why it actually does have importance and notability. FOMI has been mentioned in various reports on religion, secularism, islamophobia and similar. FOMI is well known in the nordic academic world. I don't agree to the SOAPBOX opinion at all though. FOMI does have a political stance, but nothing anti-islamic is being spread here in the form of articles, op-eds or whatever. That would, in my opinion, be required for deleting with reference to soapbox. - Frater illum 22:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Also, closing admin should note that the above comment is one of the user's first contribs to Wiki. --Strothra 02:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Note:Would you be able to identify references for these mentions you allude to? The article needs to have references to demonstrate notability.Professor marginalia 23:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment AfD is not a ((cleanup)) tag. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:50 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment Professor marginalia is correct, there is no notability established here whatsoever. No sources, nothing that even suggests notability in the "nordic academic world." Right now, Soapbox applies because the article is being used simply to portray FOMI's political views using its exact words verbatim. --Strothra 02:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal: A Google on "Forum mot islamisering" brings up 43 000 hits. It is a well known organization, cited, criticized and agreed with in everything from bloggs and forums to argumentative articles in newspapers. I agree with the article in its present form not reflecting this fact, but as such, it should be updated to reflect this, not to be deleted, since the organization is noteworthy. I still resent the soapbox implication. If I go to Wiki for facts about an organization, I want the views of that organization, whether it be Hamas, CAIR, FFI or any other. Soapbox applies to op-eds and propaganda. To say "This organization doesn't like sharia" and to say "Sharia is bad because ..." are two entirely different things. This article is not soapbox. Poorly presented notability in need of improvement, sure. Soapbox in need of deletion, not at all. Also, I've been registered since february 2007, so please don't imply that I am recently registered or whatever. Frater illum 10:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you add "-blog" to the search string you get 538 hits, and as we all know blogs are not a recommended source for WP articles. --WebHamster 12:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only 6 edits, all were in February when you registered. Since then your account was inactive until you took notice of this AfD. Being a new editor isn't qualified by time, but by edit history. Unless, of course, you were editing with a different account. --Strothra 13:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, can we put aside his editing history for a change? Because it's really beside the point. Since none of you wanting it deleted live in Sweden, who are you to decide its notability? — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:41 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

WP is not a regional encyclopaedia, therefore regionality is not an issue for deletion or inclusion. Residence of editors is immaterial. --WebHamster 13:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to claim that it's not notable, then you had better make sure you know what you're talking about. Residence of editors, is important in this case if you're going to decide it as not-notable. Because this is notable in Sweden. Obviously, a Swedish organisation is not notable in the US. But then again, English Wikipedia isn't limited to the Anglophone world. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:04 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Notability is dependent on WP guidelines not the residence of the editor who thinks it should be kept (or deleted). To implement what you suggest is a precedence that could have lots of negative ramifications for the whole of WP. --WebHamster 14:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously doing your best, to misunderstand me. Look, I'll be clear: you are not the right person to decide what's notable in Sweden, for you are not a Swedish resident. It's like I would try to delete an article about a company in China based on my subjective opinion, that it is not notable. Well, who am I to decide what's hot and what's not in China? I think I got my point across. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:20 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not deciding what's notable in Sweden. I'm opining on what's notable in the English language version of Wikipedia. Your comments sound remarkably like a straw man argument to me. I haven't mentioned Sweden. --WebHamster 15:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying the problem:The personal assurance by an editor (their residence is irrelevant) that a subject is notable may be sufficient for the short term in a newly launched article. However this article has been given 6-7 months to develop and editors have as of yet failed to identify a single reference. The Swedish article suffers the same faults as this one. It too was proposed for deletion, and in that case only a WP:WAX argument was used to save it. I have been unable to find a single usable reference with google. They were each self-references in various blogs, or in some cases, mentions by other bloggers. The following guideline was developed to help judge self-published websites-Notability-web-and thus far this article doesn't meet criteria in the guideline. Many arguments have been offered to defend the article which are, unfortunately, beside the point. The point is that notability needs to be verified with non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. NPOV is impossible if the contents of the article consist entirely of self-claims written by FOMI itself. Independent published verification is a key requirement at wikipedia.Professor marginalia 15:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is dependent on WP guidelines not the residence of the editor who thinks it should be kept (or deleted). To implement what you suggest is a precedence that could have lots of negative ramifications for the whole of WP. --WebHamster 14:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[62] No question about it; 42,400 hits is certainly notable. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:55 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

As stated previously, the vast majority of those are either blogs or FOMI's own publications. Not to mention the fact that the FOMI website is nothing more than an internet discussion forum. --Strothra 16:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I try to eliminate from the websearch the hits at fomi's own websites, hits to refs to the articles here at wikipedia, and blogs--I only have 900, and so far as I've seen they're each (for those relevant to organization) self publish internet forums as well. It might be more productive to a "keep" to genuinely find the refs needed rather than to simply guess about whether they do in fact exist.Professor marginalia 16:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to "The point is that notability needs to be verified with non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.", examples of notability: http://www.mkc.botkyrka.se/biblioteket/7683/2005-02.pdf published with ISSN 1404-5370 by Integrationsverket in 2005. It is a governmental organization, English info can be found at http://www.migrationsverket.se/english.jsp The report itself bears the not so flattering title "Racism and xenophobia in Sweden". On pages 101 and 102, FOMI is adressed and mentioned. I'm not going to argue on whether criticism of islam can be categorized as racism or not, but for a governmental organization on immigration to mention you in a nationwide report, it needs to have risen over the radar of non-notability before that, yes? That report is two years old by the way, and FOMI has since then had a large increase when it comes to public awareness over the internet. - Frater illum 17:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't consider 2 minor mentions in 2 small paragraphs from a 260 page document to be trivial? It's certainly not "substantial". Although I can't speak Swedish I can extrapolate and I got the impression that the two paragraphs it was mentioned in were referring to FOMI as an example of that type of website rather than comments specifically about FOMI. I could have misunderstood it of course... --WebHamster 18:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FOMI is mentioned in this government report, so we have a reference finally. I'm inclined toward a "Keep" with reservations. I can make out the outline of the issue as expressed in the report. The immigration agency takes an alternative position of the organization as one which is encouraging islamophobia in Sweden.Professor marginalia 19:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability" The contents of that report, vis-a-vis FOMI, could hardly be called substantial, and from what I could make out its inclusion was incidental to the main crux of the report. Although it is indeed a reference, that's all it is, virtually a passing reference, certainly not what WP:N calls for.--WebHamster 19:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, FOMI is not CIA, all right? I'm sure there are more references to FOMI available. Just don't expect this to be the most cited site on the Internet. Also, may I remind you, that FOMI exists in Norway as well. So, it's a multi-national organisation. That's one extra point for its notability. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:13 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Are you proposing that we allow WP articles on the premise that people can guess that there are references to uphold notability? As regards Norway, are we talking bricks & mortar or are we talking exists in a virtual sense? --WebHamster 21:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search and you will find... [63] Being charged for Islamophobia does sound notable to me. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:43 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that a new buzzword for religious racism? If it is then it's hardly notable. It's not as if it's new the Moslems have been getting it in the neck from non-moslems for centuries. As regards the article FOMI gets a 1 line incidental mention as an example (maybe the journo had seen something about them recently?). Personally I just think it's a backlash for the cartoon debacle. It sounds like it's not so much notability as being dumb enough to shout out in "public" something that they know to be illegal then getting it in the neck from the authorities. I still don't see anything that is notable about these bigoted people. Bigots are ten-a-penny, websites and soapboxers are ten-a-penny. FOMI is just one more in a long line. --WebHamster 21:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Search and you will find... [64] "--another blog link. Blogs aren't references. One very minor reference is a very slim start, but I agree the article is not worth keeping if that's all there is published about FOMI, period. More refs are important, and need to be hunted down. But blog buzz, in any language, is not a relevant cite for wikipedia.Professor marginalia 22:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this better then? It's the same report, hosted on a political site. Never mind if the previous link was a blog, what's notable here is the incident in itself; FOMI was charged for Islamophobia. Oh and by the way: Isn't that a new buzzword for religious racism? — Last I checked, criticism of religion(s) did not involve race. You only devalue the word racist if you conflate it with criticism of religion. Also, the entire reason you want this article deleted, based on your last post, seems to be religious censorship. It's not as if it's new the Moslems have been getting it in the neck from non-moslems for centuries. — You don't care about historical accuracy, do you? — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:10 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Errr, let me see, The Crusades were before The Beatles, or was it before Depeche Mode my memory's a bit hazy on things so long ago? Now I wonder how many white, non-Arabic Moslems had to put up with grief from FOMI and the like? Be honest; it's frequently presumed that any Arabic looking person is a Moslem and very rarely presumed that a blonde caucasian is anything but a Christian. Of course race and religion are intertwined, especially amongst the average lowly-educated bigot. Anyway, this is not the place to continue this line of discussion. I still remain unconvinced that these guys are anything but your typical non-notable bigots who don't deserve an article, not because they are bigots, but because they just don't rate in the scheme of things. Like it or not in this day and age there are far too many "Islamophobes" around to make any particular one notable, certainly not this one. I suggest that you (me too) keep this debate on track and keep to the pertinent points, i.e. lack of notability and lack of substantial, non-trivial references. --WebHamster 23:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Is this better then? ". I'm not impressed by it, no. It was written by a blogger identifying himself as "Fjordman". General note to all parties commenting-please remember to focus on the relevant issues, ie references and notability, and avoid debating here about the controversy over whether or not FOMI is a racist organization.Professor marginalia 23:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Crusades were a 400 year late response to the massive, and brutally violent Muslim conquest. Never mind that though, the Crusades were after all racist! Anyway, all jokes aside. It's becoming more and more clear, that you WebHamster, want this article deleted, simply because you find it offensive. You clearly have NPOV issues here, and you are disregarding just about everything because you want this article deleted. Needless to say, you obviously have NPOV issues because you're somehow trying to make this a racist issue, yet it's not. I'm sorry, but we're obviously dealing with censorship issues here. — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:52 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

In which case you'd be very wrong. I couldn't give a fig about their beliefs (or anyone else's for that matter). Quite simply I don't think they are notable. They are just one more organisation in an arm's-length list of similar organisations, nothing makes them stand out from the rest. As for my own POV, I'm an atheist who dislikes any and all organised religions. It doesn't matter to me whether it's Islam, Pentecostal or Moonies they're all a bunch of charlatans seeking power and control over something. My comments about bigotry is meant as a descriptive term, not a pejorative term. Now we have my bio out of the way let's get back to the notability issue eh? --WebHamster 01:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the positions the group takes are irrelevant. Fact remains, that the group fails to meet Wiki's notability guidelines. --Strothra 03:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lack of independent sources means this article has insufficient evidence to demonstrate notability per WP:ORG. --Gavin Collins 14:51, 10 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, Mailer Diablo 16:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article relisted as per talkpage request. - Mailer Diablo 16:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the length of this AfD, we still have no proof of notability. Bfigura ^(talk) 17:18, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alloftv[edit]

Non-notable website. • Lawrence Cohen 16:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable. Yes, not just someone's list of cool stuff but still not notable.--Nick Y. 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Bfigura ^(talk) 17:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ff m 16:09, 17 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team Pacman[edit]

tag team cruft, can be accomplished in a few lines on the Pacman Jones and Ron Killings articles. Large amounts of this article is nothing but a recap of Jones arrival in TNA, which has nothing to do with the team. Holding the title doesn't automatically make them notable. «»bd(^talk _stalk) 15:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom--Nick Y. 17:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to the two individuals article in question.--JForget 00:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can be covered in the the member's articles as op noted. Insignificant plotline, and the team won't be around long enough to warrant it's own article. Horrorshowj 22:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination, as this plotfine fails to warrant encyclopedic coverage. Yamaguchi先生 00:45, 16 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) 01:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eurolinx[edit]

Queried speedy delete for not-notable. And Image:Eurolinx_logo.jpg which it uses. Anthony Appleyard 15:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient media coverage Addhoc 15:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks to be a non-notable business from here. Google news hasn't heard of them, and there doesn't seem to be critical analysis about them in Google, but there could be somewhere behind all of the spam links. Burzmali 15:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to sound like an idiot here, but I'm not understanding the issue here. If it's the jpg, I can easily remove it. With Regards to being a non-notable business, I would appreciate some information on this. I noticed that most of our direct competitors have wiki entries, so from my point of view, I can't really see what this is all about. Needless to say, I would appreciate if the page could stay up. If anything needs to be done with regards to this, I would appreciate any feedback as to how this may be achieved, Thanks Tankhara 17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Burzmali. Perhaps the direct competitors have notability and have demonstrated it. Accounting4Taste 22:16, 11 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) 01:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Heine[edit]

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

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

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

No WP:RS that can establish that the articles subject is notable is being used, and no such sources seems to exist. Fail WP:BIO. -- Karl Meier 14:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Delete -- Karl Meier 14:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Doesn't meet notability standards of WP:BIO. There are a few blog sites that give him coverage, but not many reliable sources outside those blogs and minor internet web newsletters. Participating in the Teheran Holocaust Cartoon contest does not make him notable-- there were a lot of non-notable cartoonists who had submissions in that contest, and he didn't win, either. He's just a minor cartoonist. OfficeGirl 15:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The footnotes in the article lead to blogs and websites. Reliable sources include those having established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The blogs and websites listed in the Ben Heine article appear to lack such established structure. I did a search and the only information on a Ben Heine I could locate was a waiter who works on the Western Railway Museum's Wildflower Express. The recent blog post Wikipedia joins Daily Kos ion the 'Censor Game' and the recent blog post Israel: Criticism not Allowed mentions Wikipedia and the Benjamin Heine article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. → AA ^(talk) — 15:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above and WP:VSCA. Leuko 16:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - i don't think there is much to add. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to assert notability, has no valid reliable sources to back any claims. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; every source I can find (in or outside the article) are blogs and similar unedited sources. No reliable sources means no established notability. — Coren ^(talk) 01:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- For an allegedly unknown cartoonist, I got 17,300 Google hits for "Ben-Heine Belgian", and many of them seem to originate from legitimate cartoon sites outside of Mr. Heine's control. -- Atlant 15:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits do not confer notability. This cartoonist's work is primarily published through the internet and would be marketed as same. He is a part of a very active blogging community, which will account for more google hits than usual. But the main thing is that publishing CARTOONS BY this cartoonist is not the same as publishing STORIES ABOUT this cartoonist. There needs to be significant, non-trivial coverage ABOUT HEINE HIMSELF, not by him. And he is somewhat young. It may be that his level of notability will increase as his career progresses. He's just not ready to be in an encyclopedia now.OfficeGirl 22:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if you just check on google how many site .be write about him: 26, and several negatively. He only published 2 cartoons in a Belgium newspaper and these 2 were the last he will publish. He is in for complete deletion from Wiki. (Savasorda) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.182.25.32 (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking like Kevin Federline's stunt double does not make you notable. Burntsauce 22:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a well-known cartoonist in the Middle East. This deletion was a topic in the news called 'Cionist censorship in the Wikipedia', so it is an important article, we can add this affair to the article.— 84.2.131.63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - "i don't think there is much to add." Gabucino --89.133.22.224 19:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of reliable sources about the person. If independent sources are provided prior to the closure of this debate, please email me and I will reconsider my !vote. Yamaguchi先生 23:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "I don't think there is much to add." Shahram -- 15 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahram (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Delete — if you feel a compelling need to transwiki, as a late suggestion mentioned, contact me or another admin who will provide a copy of the deleted article. --Haemo 18:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HoloNet[edit]

Original research, no third-party sources, no assertion of real-world notability. Should have included in my earlier dragnet. --EEMeltonIV 14:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Informative. The Rypcord. 16:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no double voting--Nick Y. 17:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. The Rypcord. 16:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Being informative is not sufficient grounds to retain an article. There are lots of "informative" things out there that don't meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. Additionally, an article's "informative" nature is dubious in absence of reliable sources. --EEMeltonIV 16:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Then we find sources, insert sources to show verifiable evidence. No need to delete an article just for that sole reasoning. As there is obviously a ton of online as well as in print sources for all things Star Wars. The Rypcord. 17:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Still doesn't address issue of lacking real-world notability. See WP:FICT. --EEMeltonIV 17:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - In that case, no fictional character should have an article. The Rypcord. 17:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - That's ridiculous. Look at, for example, Padme Amidala, which includes much real-world information about the character's development, costuming, etc. -- real-world aspects to the character. Or TIE fighter, which includes information on its design and real-world merchandising. However, there are no significant real-world aspects to either of these two articles. Notice, too, that Padme Amidala's and TIE fighter's assertions and information are supported by reliable sources. Again, please read WP:FICT for more on notability for elements of fiction. --EEMeltonIV 21:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both As notable as star wars is and many of the characters and places therein these two are a real stretch. Most people other than the die hard fans have no idea what these are. Everyone knows who Darth Vader is though ;)--Nick Y. 17:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Many fictional things have notability, this does not demonstrate any. Judgesurreal777 20:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Slice~~Delete per EEMeltonIV. shoy 22:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per EEMeltonIV. Epbr123 18:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you just go to every Af'd to vote, or did you follow me here? Because you have yet to edit a single Star Wars article or seem to know anything about Star Wars in general. The Rypcord. 19:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TransWiki or Keep Both are notable in the Star Wars community, so I vote either transwiki to Wookiepedia or keep. Viperix 16:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think TransWiki would be best. Epbr123 16:58, 15 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. CitiCat^♫ 23:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bar tack[edit]

This article is a basic explanation of a technique of stiching clothing. It's notability is hardly the criter for an article as there isnothing special about this specific type of stitching. It could easily be merged with any number of articles and doens't need to have it's own article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, a quick google search suggests that it is a widely used technique used in industrial apparel manufacturing. As industrial sewing isn't exactly the hottest topic on the Internet, I recommend referring the article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts for improvement. Give them a few months, then let's revisit this issue. Burzmali 15:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It always seems to me that we have a shortage of coverage in the areas of clothing/sewing and manufacturing, and this is definitely something worth mentioning. There's not a huge amount to say about it, though, so a merge/redirect to some page on types of stitching would probably work fine when such a page is made. Pinball22 18:20, 12 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 by Alkivar (csd G11 advertising). Non-admin closure. shoy 22:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC) )[reply]

Boony doll[edit]

This article seems to be a hodgepodge of information which is very difficult for me to comprehend the meaning of. Most of it seems to be irrelevant and overly detailed. The relevant info in the article (what little there is) could easily be merged with Boonanza. I suggest this article be deleted and a few bits of material added to the previously mentioned article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:19, 11 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. John254 02:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1951 in British music[edit]

This article serves little purpose. Ideally if we lived in a perfect world, There would be an article for many years of "british music" but since that would be impossible, This atricle serves little purposes and I see no possibility of it being improved enough to actually meet the criteria of an article. The info could easily be incorporated into a numerous number of other articles Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This needs editing, not deletion, and it at least tries to have references. Nothing in the nomination suggests that the subject is not notable, or that the research presented is so original that it violates policy - only that 1951 was an uninteresting year in British music. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability isn't the only reason to delete an article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out what those reasons might be, other than that it's badly edited and would seem to be part of an unfinished series. The text is not so impertinent to the title subject, nor so irretrievably bad that it would be better to start from scratch. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically it serves no purpose as an article. Articles need to serve purposes and need to be something that people are willing to read and can learn from. This article selects an arbitrary date in a specific country and tries (badly) to explain the advances in music from that specific time and place. This in itself wouldn't be so bad but unless we can have 1953 in British music, 1954 in British music, 1955 in British music etc then it really serves no purpose. Moreover, Even if we had every year of every decade of "in British music" it wouldn't in itself serve any purpose. A better approach might be British music in the 1950s and British music in the 1960s etc. In my opinion the text is indeed in the shape that starting from scratch would be ideal, or perhaps not starting at all and simply merging the relevant information to specific articles such as Music of the United Kingdom (1950s and 60s). Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we do actually have 1952 in British music, which apparently is significant because this represents the inception of popular song popularity charts in the UK. The two articles should perhaps share a common fate. Claims of "uselessness" aren't usually considered to be strong arguments for deleting an article. Nor is the fact that it may be a long time before future articles in a series are created, nor the fact that a series may never be complete. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That says that the argument to avoid is saying something is "useless" without context or elaboration. IMO all of the relevant info of those pages could be merged into Music of the United Kingdom (1950s and 60s). Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Merge discussions don't need to come to AfD. Put a merge tag on it and be done with it! Canuckle 20:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, But this is much more efficient for getting opinions on the article and what to do with it. Merge tags have a tendency to stay on articles for months at a time. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and format better --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. The article needs work but there are sources. It does indicate that some notable events happened in British music such as the opening of the Royal Festival Hall and the debut of Billy Budd. Capitalistroadster 03:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of these kind of articles (like 2007 in British music, 2007 in Irish music, 2007 in country music, 2007 in heavy metal music), and they can be sourced and do "meet the criteria of an article". The fact that we don't have 1953 in British music, 1954 in British music, and 1955 in British music doesn't mean that those articles can't be created and sourced and expanded with a little research. If it turns out that there is not enough to tell about a certain year in British music, you could merge them all into one article titled "British music in the 1950s", but you don't need AFD for that. This article just needs a lot of cleanup, but that can be done. Melsaran (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Melsaran. - Rocket000 19:35, 13 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Contemporary Christian music artists[edit]

Bare, unverified list with no context and excessive redlinks. Fails WP:NOT, WP:V. Deiz talk 13:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOT#INFO. Even Johnny Cash made the list. --Evb-wiki 14:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, it's a bad list by definition. Johnny Cash definitely was a Christian, but he didn't do Contemporary Christion music. I don't see how you save this one as written. MarkBul 14:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --T-rex 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:LIST Bfigura ^(talk) 17:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The textbook WP:LIST indiscriminate list. Mandsford 22:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford. Accounting4Taste 22:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford and nom - indiscriminate list.--JForget 00:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Condemn the article, save the Category. Bearian 00:18, 13 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. WjBscribe 03:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hydraulic loss/damage aboard an aeroplane[edit]

Duplication of material, much of which is already covered by flying a fixed-wing aircraft without control surfaces. Article is an orphan, itself being an unfeasible redirect even if merged. - Mailer Diablo 13:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete n Computerjoe 's talk 16:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Flying a fixed-wing aircraft without control surfaces explains it much better. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:58, 12 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 redirect to Star Fleet Universe, with history left intact due to the amount of interest expressed in a merge. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Powers of the Star Fleet Universe[edit]

This in universe article can only be described as POV fork from the game Star Fleet Universe, which is arguably a POV fork from Star Trek that does not provide evidence of notability per WP:FICTION guidlines. The article does not contain real-world context or sourced analysis, nor does it offer detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, but is actually an essay based on WP:OR. --Gavin Collins 13:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Star Fleet Universe Fosnez 13:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Fosnez. Note that Star Fleet Universe is the creation of a games manufacturer called Amarillo Design Bureau, Inc. and is inspired by Star Trek Mandsford 22:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Star Fleet Universe - Neither article is particularly long, so it should be an easy accomodation. ◄Zahakiel ► 15:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Star Fleet Universe. I don't understand the "...the game Star Fleet Universe, which is arguably a POV fork from Star Trek..." section of the nomination... "POV fork" is a Wikipedia concept, while the Star Fleet Universe is a thing that exists outside the Wikipedia as a setting for commercially-produced games. Pinball22 18:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the author of this article, and a major contributor to all the SFU pages, I have watched this polling but not voted as that I do have a bias. If the concensus to merge is reached, I only ask that I be notified at the end of polling and given 24hrs to do the merge myself so that I might make it as seemless as possible. As it is, I created the page to help prevent the SFU page from becoming aukward in size. I do defend it in that Wikipedia is not a paper entity and that there are numerous other articles discussing sub-entities such as this for many other fictional universes/worlds. The games of the SFU are steady sellers (the base Star Fleet Battles has been around 30 years and is a gaming Hall of Fame inductee) and I simply want those who might be interested to know that there are notible differences between the SFU and cannon Star Trek. I will directly dispute the POV fork label though, as my review of that guideline does not seem to match this article.

Thank you for taking my comments into consideration. --Donovan Ravenhull 07:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- A further note, if it is merged, I would personally merge it into Alpha Octant myself, rather into Star Fleet Universe proper.--Donovan Ravenhull 07:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Many people have proposed a merger here, but I ask merge what? This article is entirely uncited original research. There is nothing that can be merged into another article that shouldn't be removed again as unacceptable original research additions. —gorgan_almighty 13:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand how this is Original Resarch. The article is a summery of information presented in the assorted game systems published by Task Force Games. These are not where someone simply began to make up information and posted it on Wikipedia, but those who wanted to give a basic breifing on a subject covered much more fully in an established, published fictional universe. If we wish to debate Notability, then we shall, but from my reading of the Wikipedia policy, this does not constitute original research. --Donovan Ravenhull 13:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an original research commentary on the star fleet universe because it does not attribute any of the information it provides to verifiable reliable sources. —gorgan_almighty 14:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not original research, by the Wikipedia definition, to describe something based on reading a primary source (the game books in this case), as long as the information used would be obvious to anyone reading the same text and doesn't involve interpretation or synthesis. Now, this article does fail to cite those primary sources, which is a problem, but it's a correctable one and not a case of WP:OR. Pinball22 14:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. Unfortunately, the definition of OR seems to vary massively from one editor to another. I've seen one editor claim, and assert in his edits, that "see also" links have to be backed by sources - which would make linking Threads and The War Game unacceptable personal interpretation. Another (an active maintainer of the WP:OR page, alas) said that she'd only accept a statement that the planet Jupiter is bigger than the planet Pluto if it comes with a reputable, verifiable etc. external source specifically about Jupiter being bigger than Pluto. At which point the entire Wikipedia, starting with the science coverage, collapses into an unmaintainable nightmarish forest of reference tags... No conclusions in this article are drawn by its editors. Looks good on the original research front to me. --Kizor 00:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Fancruft_and_Role_playing_games before commenting on this AfD - Fosnez 14:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Some of this should live with the parent article, but not all of it, and not on it's own. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 16 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 by Alkivar (csd a7). Non-admin closure. shoy 22:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duerre thomas[edit]

Nonnotable author/preacher, appears to be self-promotional. No sources. Author removed notability and unsourced tags. NawlinWiki 13:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Without a doubt. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 13:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly self promotion. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the foregoing, notwithstanding the assertion that "can be heared on a well recognized radio program . . . ." --Evb-wiki 14:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, his books are self published, and the only new reference I can find to him is http://freeport.nassauguardian.net/national_local/303520615338468.php Burzmali 16:22, 11 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 recreation of deleted content. Article has had 5 prior speedy deletions. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Junaid Sheikh[edit]

This page has been deleted loads of times previously. I'm not sure why this particular version stuck, but the guy still fails notability guidelines by a mile. He didn't even win anything. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 13:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nowhere near notable enough to meet the criteria of having own article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Only in rare cases is a kicked off reality show contestant notable.--Sethacus 16:36, 11 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 with redirect to Tsuki. Alabamaboy 00:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oi zuki[edit]

This article, which is about a specific punching technique in karate/Japanese martial arts, consists of about 95% "howto" material, contains no references, and is possibly non-notable, or at least not notable enough to deserve its own article. It is also listed at List of shotokan techniques, and List of kyokushin techniques (there as "seiken oi tsuki"). I tagged the article with ((howto)), which lasted all of 40 minutes before it was taken down, with the rationale that the article cannot be made less "howto", so it seems appropriate to "test" the article with an afd nomination. I believe notability is the primary concern; if notable, a two to five sentence stub (with a reference) would be an appropriate non-howto treatment of the subject. If kept, I also propose a move to Oi-zuki (same title but with a hyphen) to better indicate the compound nature of the word, rather than its current appearance as two words. Bradford44 13:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. Bradford44 13:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support; previous work in de-howtoing random martial arts techniques stubs (including this one) has convinced me that they're rarely worthy of their own articles. Chris Cunningham 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge together with Choku-zuki and Gyaku-zuki back into Tsuki. I am not sure it is possible to explain the differences between various punches in any non-howto way. --Cubbi 14:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If a stub can't be expanded, then it's not a good article. MarkBul 14:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fg2 10:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to appropriate budo article as unredeemable. VanTucky ^Talk 22:42, 14 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) 21:56, 21 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 delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 13:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Montana-Caceda[edit]

Does not assert notability, no secondary sources found Spryde 12:40, 11 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 Snow - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez 13:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bolster Day[edit]

Notability not asserted, no third party sources. 680 ghits but some WP:RS appear to exist. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and I have also objected to the "speedy" tag which is also on the article. Is it proper to both speedy and AfD the same article on the same day so both are running simultaneously? Anyway, the festival is notable in regional (i.e. Cornish) terms, and Google is not a reliable measyre of notability for community events. DuncanHill 12:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was no speedy tag on the article anymore. The original speedy tag had been removed (somewhat improperly) by the originator and the nominator has simply brought the article here for wider discussion. Another user then just added hang-on tag that that doesn't apply to AfD and that i consequently just removed.--Tikiwont 12:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I misread what had become a rather confusing page. The hangon was added by the editor who brught it here, and originally added the speedy. DuncanHill 12:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Snow - Invalid Nomination (not trying to be aggressive) - Google is not a notability guide and if you found reliable sources, why did list an AfD instead of adding them? Fosnez 12:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've rewritten and added more sources. Fosnez 12:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I also objected to the speedy of this article. There are notability issues (and whilst Google is not a notability guide, it is a useful indicator of notability at times) but, as per nom and WP:RS, BBC is top google hit and there has been reputable print coverage of this event too - I recall reading a Guardian article some time ago. Needs to be properly referenced and beefed out - but that is not a reason to delete. Keep and tidy up. --manchesterstudent 12:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Local tradition covered by the BBC and various tourist guides. The article is sourced, I don't see the problem.Nick mallory 12:58, 11 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) 01:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JME (rapper)[edit]

nn rapper using his own label to self-publish 1redrun ^Talk 11:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.He is nominated for Hip Hop awards 2007 as best garage act, there are artists on here with less credentials. fails WP:MUSIC. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.138.92 (talk) [reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The version that was tagged for AfD included some recent vandalism, which I've removed. (I don't think the changes make the subject any more notable, but I wanted to make sure !voters were aware of this.) Pinball22 12:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Perhaps when some notability has accrued. Accounting4Taste 22:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral based on performance at Glastonbury. Needs a reliable source or three, and a heavy cleanup and a crapton of spam removal. But if he performed at Glastonbury, and a secondary source can back that. He just barely meets WP:MUSIC criteria imo. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC.OfficeGirl 12:31, 18 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 delete as recreation of deleted content. This article has had 3 prior deletions as CSD:G11. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Better Know[edit]

Small Label used by an unknown rapper to self-publish himself and his friends 1redrun ^Talk 11:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This needs to go, as well as the unsourced artists on it: JME (rapper) (see above), Skepta, Wiley (rapper). These all fail BIO. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 13:33, 11 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. He's already covered in the main article. Mackensen (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R. L. Brooks[edit]

Delete: Non-notable, unreferenced, trivial. Dudleydooright 11:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Eh. Other bands' individuals get separate pages. I suppose if the band is notable, the guy can have a page too. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 13:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge with Flee the Seen unless more verifiable info can be added to this article. Members of bands notable enough to have articles are probably notable enough to have own articles but the lack of info suggests it should be merged. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The guy, the band and the label all seem non-notable. It's a local band, getting some gigs locally opening for touring bands. That's nothing special. The label was created by a guy in a band. Nothing special. There are no citations for the claim of sales. Googling R.L. Brooks gets this article and then other people. MarkBul 14:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Flee the Seen, and only because I couldn't come up with a good excuse to keep. mobyrock 23:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Mbisanz 01:41, 21 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 05:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film on Thursday[edit]

Defunct film-viewing club with no claim of notability. SolidPlaid 09:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Unless someone can find something in the wayback machine about those awards (www.filmonthursday.org), they are not notable. Burzmali 16:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over the last version of the page in the wayback machine, and there doesn't seem to be any mention of awards. Burzmali 22:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. No claim of notability.--Sethacus 16:41, 11 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 copyvio. >Radiant< 11:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traumatic incident reduction[edit]

Lengthy, unsourced essay of what appears to be original research on a marginally scientific topic. >Radiant< 09:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The scary thing is that no less than 47 editors have worked furiously on it, but have not bothered to put many sources. But there are some sources, so maybe we don't know enough to judge. SolidPlaid 10:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha - It's part of WikiProject Scientology, which explains, well, everything. SolidPlaid 10:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an original research essay. A NPOV article could possibly be made under this title in the future, but this is definately not a suitable starting point for that future article. —gorgan_almighty 10:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Copy vio [65]. Turlo Lomon 10:35, 11 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 no consensus to delete, and the two statements in support of deletion were made prior to the reviews being added.--Kubigula (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Kamien[edit]

Non-notable guy who wrote a non-notable textbook. Probably pure spam, or maybe a student of his wrote it. SolidPlaid 09:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete Amazon shows this one book is certainly in existence and Google returns hits for the author as well, however all related to this book. WP:NB Applies here. The book is not noteworthy by those criteria and the author, seemingly having only authored this one book (and multimedia related to it) would therefore inheret a lack of notability. Pedro | Chat 10:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are 2 questions at hand here: the notability of the book, and the notability of the author. The book would be notable if it were "the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate", providing that reliable source can be found to assert this notability (per WP:NB). However, I can't find any reliable sources to make such an assertion (the author/publisher's own writing being discounted per WP:SPS). The book is therefore not notable enough for inclusion, and since this is the author's only claim-to-fame, neither is he. —gorgan_almighty 10:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it passes WP:PROF - he's a tenured professor, at a leading public college (CUNY Queens College), whose textbook is in its 8th edition. Bearian 00:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are on the order of 350,000 professors in the US alone. I don't think being tenured and putting out a book passes WP:PROF. SolidPlaid 00:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He seems to have written a number of other things as well. "In addition to Music: An Appreciation, Dr. Kamien was the editor of The Norton Scores and on of the co-authors of A New Approach to Keyboard Harmony. He has also written articles and reviews for journals including Music Forum, Beethoven Forum, Musical Quarterly, Journal of Music Theory, and Journal of the American Musicological Society." --summary this is from his publisher's site, & I find a good deal on google & google scholar to back it up; it will take me a while to transcribe it all.

And most important, apparently "In 1983, he was appointed to the Zubin Mehta Chair of Musicology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem." Queens College is a good undergraduate college--but Hebrew University is a major university of international repute, and the holder of a named chair there is very highly notable. --I dont think the nom. even tried to look; Inadequate article, notable guy, but the nom., was judging on the basis of the article alone.

As it should be. Notable things are sparsely distributed in small article space. SolidPlaid 12:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very few textbooks reach an 8th edition. As for widespread use, I find [66] , [67]. [68], [69] , [70] -- just as a start, first few google pages out of hundreds. . I don't think either the nom or the people commenting above tried to look for this aspect either.,

He's also a performer: I see a concert with Murray Perahia, [71] , and that he's a 1951 winner of the Concert Artists Guild competition [72]

and--to show the care--I notice no attempt was made to list this at any relevant workgroup, which might get some more expert views on whether this is notable. Unless I'm mistaken, I think the Norton Scores are notable & the editorship of the series highly important.

and, as my final comment, on the 6th of several hundred pages of ghits, I find Wikipedia:Deletion today DGG (talk) 03:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I respect that several examples of this book's use have been presented, but there is still an issue of reliable secondary sources. None of these links qualify as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Also, we are talking about the author's notability, not the book's notability. —gorgan_almighty 08:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the selection of the books by other faculty is the evidence of third party recognition. Professors do not get in the news very much, but they are significant in their own fields nonetheless. DGG (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable secondary sources are still required to assert notability. Even WP:PROF agrees with this. Secondary sources don't have to be news articles, but they must give the subject specific in-depth coverage. A reading list, or anything else that notes a books usage, can't do this. —gorgan_almighty 11:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in this respect the secondary sources are the listings by the other universities--we do not need to find a source that says that the universities have adopted it. With respect to the notability of the books, the reviews are the secondary sources. I added a sampling of the reviews. I think this is enough to meet any concept of sourcing. DGG (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the book is in the 8th edition, it is reasonably well used. That seems to pass the PROF reqs.Mbisanz 01:44, 21 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. John254 02:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bunnies and Burrows[edit]

Despite this gaming instructions being published 30-years ago, no claim to notability per WP:NOTABILITY appears to have been established with independent sources. Perhaps this could be merged with List of furry role-playing games? --Gavin Collins 09:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First off, this has nothing whatsoever to do with furries, and predates that culture by several decades. Second, this is one of the more well-known old RPGs, which had a significant impact on that genre, and is now taken over and published by one of the major industries in the market. Aside from that, it's a published book (not self-published) with reasonable sales figures and market coverage. >Radiant< 09:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question What are the sales figures? If you could let us know, this would be a step towards ascertaining notability. --Gavin Collins 09:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that Steve Jackson decided to buy and republish it should be an obvious clue. Also, there's plenty of outside reviews such as this one, although most of them will be offline since B&B predates the internet. >Radiant< 09:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Why didn't you ask, or make an effort towards ascertaining it, before nomination? --Kizor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kizor (talk • contribs) 10:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This game, as the article indicates has something of a cult status among gamers still today. It is notable for it's emphasis on social role-playing, something unheard of in the time it was out and for it's completely non-human approach. Web Warlock 10:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep What it could use is some additional sources. Definitely not a merge issue. I'll try to find some. Turlo Lomon 10:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Notability clearly established now (with references!)~~. First RPG with martial arts. First RPG with skill system. First RPG that allowed for non-humanoid play. First RPG to appeal as widely to women as to men> all of this is sourced, so I upgraded my comment from Strong Keep to Speedy keep. Turlo Lomon 10:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Does not appear to have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as required by WP:N. There are a lot of ghits, but these are all personal websites, forum posts, and non-reliable sources about RPGs. The one reference added by Turlo Lomon is a personal website, and therefore does not pass Wikipedia's reliability requirements. —gorgan_almighty 11:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my view to Weak Keep based on the improved references. Weak because many of those references are still of questionable reliability. —gorgan_almighty 16:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is the website of a game publisher independant of B&B. Specifically the company that publishes Fudge (role-playing game system). How exactly is this isn't notable again? Turlo Lomon 11:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The reliability of a competing game publisher is questionable, but it is irrelevant in this case since it is the personal website of Steffan O'Sullivan, not the official website of his company. Being a personal website, he can put whatever he wants on it, therefore there is no fact-checking or editorial oversight that takes place. That makes this an unreliable source. A reliable source would be a newspaper (or well-known magazine) article, for instance. Find something like that that talks in-depth about this RPG.—gorgan_almighty 11:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is the official website of his company, but not going to argue that right now. I also added links to multiple reviews by different companies. They are a bit messy, but I will work on cleaning them up when I get home from work. Turlo Lomon 11:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding a newspaper... I actually have a magazine with a review on the original B&B on CD, but that's at home. I will try to get the exact vol and date information. Turlo Lomon 11:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will look through some of my Dragon magazine articles tonight. There should be something there as well. Web Warlock 12:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Google test is irrelevant for items that predate the internet. >Radiant< 13:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems like enough online sources have been added, considering it predates the internet and google. Google hits are irrelevant anyway. Article can be improved, and seems notable - Fosnez 13:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above, it seems like enough sources have been added to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Roman Empire predated the internet. A Google search will find a few reliable sources. There are no exceptions to the requirement that articles be based on reliable sources - including "it predates the internet". MarkBul 16:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except there was reliable sources that the OP discounted because they appeared to be a personal website. In addition, there is now a ton of new references that would have been easily found via google. Turlo Lomon 16:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep, article is now well referenced and clearly establishes notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Per above args. — RJH (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This game was mentionned in a history of RPGs in the French RPG magazine Casus Belli, and it's got an article on the Guide du Rôliste Galactique. That's enough sources for me. Rell Canis 17:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you are able to find out the publication details for the Casus Belli article? It would definitely remove any doubt about B&B's notability. --Goochelaar 18:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources in the updated version of the article, confirming the notability of the game. --Goochelaar 18:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because Oh my God, Watership Down is my favoritist book ever!. I can't believe they made an RPG based on it. Oh, right, and because the sources establish notability, blah blah blah. But that's far less important. --UsaSatsui 21:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I'd draw attention to the pattern of a whole slew of gaming articles being nominated for deletion by someone apparently ignorant of the culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.253.208 (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I moved the page to Bunnies & Burrows since this is the published name of all works involved. Turlo Lomon 10:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above and arguments elsewhere Percy Snoodle 12:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again, per above arguments (Signed: don't have login yet) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.220.29 (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten, I believe that notability is now firmly established within the article. Yamaguchi先生 00:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I couldn't any arguement for keep that hasn't already been made so does becoming collectable indicate notability a search of Amazon indicates that the going price for a second 1992 edition is $75.00.KTo288 00:51, 16 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. Mackensen (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Sherry[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable martial artist, no sources on any of the claims Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Andy Sherry is a living legend in the shotokan world and is certainly notable. He was instrumental in the split between the JKA and KUGB and acheived several firsts in the UK karate. simonthebold 10:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this individual is a "living legend". Googling doens't change my mind either. This person doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria of having own article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could see him meeting notability as "highest amateur level" athlete based on the British All-Styles and European tournaments won. However, would need proper sourcing for the claimed tournament victories. Horrorshowj 16:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I found a small extract in the Liverpool Echo (subscription site) that states that "Andy Sherry became first all-Style European (karate)champion in 1968". More reliable and substantial sources are needed. The KUGB is notable, but notability isn't inherited.--Sethacus 16:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Appears (more or less) about as notable and well referenced as Steve Crane, Dave Hazard, Paul Herbert, Rafael Nieto, Bob Poynton, and Ticky Donovan (other members of Category:British karateka). Bradford44 17:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Chief instructor. Maybe not olympic medal holder but thats notable. Some who were under him achived nice things. M.V.E.i. 21:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment several articles on the Karate Union of Great Britain have recently been created, all are short and the articles overlap, would merging them be sensible? --Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. google search "Andy Sherry" great britain, and over 100 results. How many google results come up with a search on your name? Seems legit and notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User5802 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google test is not an accepted barometer of notability, which is only determined through significant coverage in reliable sources. VanTucky ^Talk 22:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with VanTucky on the "Google test". How many does my name get? Close to 1500 (with quotes). And I have a fairly uncommon name.--Sethacus 02:01, 15 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. Mackensen (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft: Uprising[edit]

This overlong article for a spinoff book from a computer game is comprised of what can only be described as POV Fancruft which does not provide context or demonstrate notability per WP:FICTION, and tagged as such since July 2007. Notability has been assumed to be inhertited from the computer game, but should be evidenced by independent sources. --Gavin Collins 08:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (restart from scratch, establishing notability from the word go). In it's current state this article might as well be a straight copy of the book (I'm the one who tagged it). It is a surmountable problem (although a problem that will require a lot of work to overcome), but my reasoning for deletion is close with the final paragraph of WP:RUBBISH: "Sometimes the current article is so poor that deleting the whole article and history, and starting from scratch is the best option." This article needs to be entirely restarted. Plus, whilst SC novels are on my to-do list, they are at the bottom of it and it will take me a few months to get round to redoing them. Until then (unless anyone else wants to give it a shot...), I'd say delete the page and redirect to StarCraft. In any case, POV is not an issue - notability is. And can I please direct you, Gavin Collins to this essay section before you tag more fiction articles for deletion. -- Sabre 09:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of StarCraft novels (and create)... 132.205.44.5 21:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- preferably to a List of StarCraft novels article created for the purpose. This article gives far more plot detail than is necessary, but a list of the novels with data about them (author, date, etc) and brief plot summaries would do well to cover this aspect of the StarCraft universe. I don't think POV really applies here either (though in a different way than it didn't apply in the discussion about the Star Fleet Universe) -- what point of view is this article advancing? Pinball22 18:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If you'd remove the (incredibly long) plot section, the only thing that would remain is the intro (which does not establish notability, it just says that it was authorised by a notable game company and published by a notable publisher, and notability is not inherited), and a list of contradictions with the video game. I couldn't find any relevant sources that establish the notability of the book. Melsaran (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Fancruft_and_Role_playing_games before commenting on this AfD - Fosnez 14:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:FICT deals with notability within a fictional work, so it doesn't really apply to this situation. What you're likely looking for is Wikipedia:Notability (books). -- Ned Scott 06:42, 16 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You Don't Love Me (No, No, No)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/You Don't Love Me (No, No, No)

Not notable, fails WP:MUSIC - this song is not realeased. — *Hippi ippi 07:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in this state. The original is a landmark Reggae classic and definitely notable, however this doesn't seem to apply to Rihanna's version, and the article doesn't cite any references anyway. Regards, High on a tree 07:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - this version has no notability whatsoever, other than the fact that Rihanna sang it. Even then... Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 08:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jonathan Remember 9/11/01. 22:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article states that the single didn't sell well, and doesn't even have references for that! No evidence of notability, not even an assertion of notability. Cogswobble talk 21:45, 12 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. John254 02:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chatham County Line[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Speedied once, re-created. Assertion of notability is weak, no independent sources. Guy (Help!) 06:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good reviews on Allmusic, so they meet WP:MUSIC. Appears notable as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - needs more sources to really assert notability. - Vox puppet (talk • contribs), 08:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa as author; The band pass WP:MUSIC fairly easily, but after I created this, I meant to go back and source it properly, and then forgot to put it on my to-do list. I'll fix it today. ELIMINATORJR 10:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bit rushed for time, but the two albums on YepRoc records (WP:MUSIC#4) and the international touring (WP:MUSIC#5) - which are now both sourced - should suffice for the time being. ELIMINATORJR 11:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly good, but having released stuff <> independent sources, so don't forget the all-important non-trivial independent critical coverage, will you? Guy (Help!) 17:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chucked a few more refs in, plus a load of reviews including WP:RS such as Pitchfork and AcousticMusic. ELIMINATORJR 18:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A weak keep. Barely passes notability guidelines. It needs to be improved though. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes at least one criterion of WP:MUSIC, what with two albums on a notable label. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep They seem to pass notability guidelines for bands, although the article could use improving.--Gloriamarie 01:07, 14 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. John254 02:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take Back The Memorial[edit]

WP:SOAP issues. Jmlk 1 7 06:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tagged with ((npov)). They seem to be notable, it's just a bias article, which can be improved. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Notable group. References cited. The rest of what we need is some good editors to work on the style and accuracy. This can be whipped into shape.OfficeGirl 15:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dihyrdogen; band seems to be notable enough, article needs cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep minor, though notable group, rewrite areas which appear biased. — MrDolomite • Talk 02:32, 12 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 — if you wish parts of the article to merge into episodes, then request the deleted version. --Haemo 18:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-off characters on South Park[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Trivial dumping ground for anyone that has appeared one time on South Park. There is already a minor characters list, where relevant characters should be. RobJ1981 06:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:NOT#PAPER. --Borgarde^talk 07:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, Wikipedia is neither toilet nor tissue paper. This nomination is right on point, and I share the view to delete. Burntsauce 22:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This list is NN - any special characters that absolutely "need" to be mentioned can be mentioned at another appropriate, existing page. The list is rampant with fair use images, and the content contradicts the article's title "List of one-off characters on South Park" - some of the characters have appeared more than once, such as Chris, Jenkins (The Griefer), Damien, Luigi and Bradley (Which were featured in double episodes, so why are they included if they are meant to be one offs?). Considering South Park is a waay off finishing, this list could be endless and really isn't relevant or encyclopedic. Delete - Spawn Man 08:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - by its very definition, it fails WP:N. OK, so it's kind of funny that Bart Simpson has appeared in South Park, but, as there is already a similar list and asthe characters haven't really earned notability (given that they've only appeared once each), I think this list is pretty much redundant. Vox puppet (talk • contribs), 08:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivia. Every episode has an arbitrary selection of random one-offs. >Radiant< 09:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless trivia. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because the subject is from a notable show, the article survived the first nomination with 8 keeps to 2 deletes, the article is well-organized and is visually pleasing, a large number of editors have worked on it thereby demonstrating that deleting it would only turn off a number of contributors who dedicated time on the article, the article is not a hoax, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None of the arguments above are legitimate according to Wikipedia. Where are the references showing that these characters are notable? Where are the references that show that one-off characters on this show are notable? Without legitimate sources, the topic - and the characters - are not notable. MarkBul 16:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful to those who are interested. M.V.E.i. 21:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well referenced to the show and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into their respective episodes (e.g. Damien into Damien, Bart into Cartoon Wars, the Mole into BLU) Will ^(talk) 22:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An excellent example of "excessive detail". Guy (Help!) 22:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we had a detailed story about every character who made a one-time appearance on "The Andy Griffith Show", would it be a keeper? Unfortunately, there's an expectation among many people that Wikipedia should have articles about individual episodes of TV shows and articles about each regular on a TV show or a film. Thus, the argument will probably be made that this is "far better" than having individual articles about each one-off character. It's kind of like the way we get excited when gasoline drops to "only" $2.50 a gallon. Back in 2003, we hadn't broken the $2 barrier yet. Mandsford 22:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete random trivia, open ended list. Move content to a southpark wikia and delete. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exessive detail? Is that not what a encyclopedia is for? Viperix 17:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge worthwhile characters into the South Park characters article. My primary concern here is that there has most likely been much back-and-forth between this article as-is, so we probably need to retain this edit history for GFDL purposes, in which case I would suggest a protected redirect to South Park characters. Yamaguchi先生 23:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The detail is strictly needed and useful for people who need the information, its also ver useful for juddging episodes. MJN SEIFER 12:53, 18 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. As always, no prejudice to re-creation should In Unison achieve wider notoriety. Mackensen (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Unison[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable college student publication. No independent sources. No relevant Google hits aside from its own web site. Realkyhick 06:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Realkyhick, I would like to contest the proposed deletion. The article's sources aren't online (in fact, they predate Wikipedia), but I believe they are still legitimate. I have cited the text, author, and month, along with contextual quotes where appropriate. I believe the article expresses a neutral point of view, and I envision this as an ongoing chronicle of the magazine. Both Craccum and Critic (magazine) are similar articles with arguably more grounds for deletion (minimal information in one and lack of referencing in the other), but each of these publications are significant and have been allowed to remain as ongoing chronicles. I'm afraid I'm rather new at this, so I'm hoping you could help me improve the article by embedding a cover image - I've uploaded it as In_Unison_cover.jpg Underscore b 06:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The fact that supposedly similar articles exist is not a valid rationale for keeping an article. Besides, both of the other magazines you cited have been in existence for a very long time, which in itself makes them notable. (I did tag both articles as lacking sufficient references, though, and thanks to you for bringing that to my attention). If In Unison had been around a bit longer and had more recognition by other reliable sources, it might clear the bar of notability, but not yet. You envision this article as "an ongoing chronicle of the magazine," but that role should fall to the magazine itself. Realkyhick 06:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "sources" needed for this article are not excerpts from the In Unison magazine itself, but discussion of the magazine in other, reliable publications. The only independent source that has been provided so far is in Chinese, which is unusual for an English-language student magazine from New Zealand; I would need to hear from a Wikipedia editor who can read Chinese to find out if that Chinese article gives significant coverage to In Unison. --Metropolitan90 06:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Chinese article is definitely not significant coverage; one bullet point in a long list of brief news items called "One sentence of news" (一句話新聞). In its entirety, it says: "Unitec's student magazine published a poem by the name of An Auckland Story, which was written by an arts faculty student named Chris Kirk, and contained content which clearly insulted Asians. 3000 copies of the student magazine were distributed around campus, raising the anger of students of Asian descent. Because of this, the magazine issued an apology to all students and teachers." (In Chinese, that was all one giant run-on sentence). cab 10:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information about the Chinese, cab, it sure helps this discussion and your knowledge is much appreciated.OfficeGirl 18:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - if notoriety counts as notability, this article passes WP:N. However, I agree it needs more sources. I am also concerned that "Underscore b" may be a single-purpose sockpuppet, as the In Unison subject is the only one in which he has participated and he is suspiciously competent at using Wikipedia's system (creating articles as well-written as that, contesting its deletion): I certainly wasn't that competent myself. Voxpuppet (talk • contribs), 09:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any evidence that Underscore b is a sock puppet. Note that other than you, Underscore b is the only person who has endorsed keeping this article yet. It takes multiple identities to have both a puppeteer and puppet. --Metropolitan90 13:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~keep~~Hi Vox, I can assure you I'm not a sock-puppet. It is my first article, but I have every intention of contributing to others in the future, particularly those relating to student publications and alternative media in New Zealand. I'm flattered that my work is "suspiciously competent", and I must confess it took several hours of drafting and reformatting before I felt it was ready to upload. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia has unlimited space, and that the article is carefully and objectively written and cites references (offline, as they predate Wikipedia), I hope the article will be retained with plans for future development. I will be sure to update and edit this page as necessary.Underscore b 22:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see any instance of reliable, independent sources taking note of this student publication among the 500 or so GHits for Unitec "In Unison" [73]. Doesn't seem to have much notoriety over the racism incident; Google search for "An Auckland Story" gives only 5 hits. [74] The Chinese article cited is just a trivial mention, as I stated in my reply to Metropolitan90 above. cab 10:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~Probably not the best reference, no, but I've made an effort. Unfortunately many New Zealand online publications such as the NZ Herald require a subscription to view their online archives. The information is out there, and I will do my very best to source this article more comprehensively in future.Underscore b 22:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's going to take a LOT of significant coverage from outside sources to make a college newspaper notable for Wikipedia purposes. Awards are great, but if the awarding agency is just an association of school papers hailing form only 13 schools, then that's not going to indicae what we need in terms of notability. One brief flash of externally noted controversy about a poem that was published in this school paper is not enough to confer notability. This isn't an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article.OfficeGirl 15:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ Hi OfficeGirl, the Aotearoa Student Press Association is another article I intend to edit and expand on. 13 member publications may not sound like much, but bear in mind New Zealand only has nine universities, which lends some perspective. ASPA is actually a fairly significant body within New Zealand's journalism community and has been recognised and sponsored by some of NZ's major publications like the NZ Herald and the NZ Listener. As I said above, I believe Wikipedia has room for a comprehensive article with admittedly limited appeal, and I will take responsibility for sourcing and referencing this and related articles in future.Underscore b 22:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OfficeGirl and Metropolitan90. I don't think this really meets WP:ORG. Bfigura ^(talk) 17:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Underscore b: You are only supposed to list the word "keep" or the word "delete" once to indicate your overall position in this discussion, though you may comment or respond to any remarks made by anyone else in this AfD. Just mark your subsequent responses something like COMMENT or reply or Note. This will help the Admin evaluate more quickly how many different people are in this discussion and each person's stance on the issues. Think of it as a "one user, one vote" principle. You are not the first person to be confused on this procedure, so don't worry about it. But that's why all but one of your "keep" notes have been struck through. OfficeGirl 01:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, certainly needs more sources, but as has been pointed out above, this is the case for many student newspapers. A better google search is one which restricts itself to New Zealand pages ie [75]. There's still a lot of false hits to wade through, but I found a link to the press release of the ASPA awards of 2005, where an In Unison journalist got best education writer, and the paper was judged second best designed. I've added this link to the article.-gadfium 02:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They did well in the ASPA awards of 2006 as well. I don't think the 2007 awards have happened yet.-gadfium 08:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As far as I'm aware, the main justification for deleting stuff as non-notable is that if everything of equal notability (ie all unsigned rock bands, all chiropractors etc) were featured Wikipedia would be dominated by pages no-one is interested in. But even if every NZ student magazine had a page, that would only be nine or ten pages. So we're not setting a bad precedent here. Since it's entirely plausible people might want to find out about the magazine, I can't see the harm in the page. Also, 14 years is fairly old for an alternative publication; it's not like it is something founded this year which might cease publication at any moment. --Helenalex 00:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the main reason behind the notability policy isn't space (disk space is cheap), but maintainability. Wikipedia is a world-wide encyclopedia; New Zealand may only have nine or ten student magazines, but what about all the other student publications at all the other universities in the world? It's quite hard to write much verifiable information about people and organisations which reliable sources haven't discussed previously. Your Wikipedia article becomes either:
  1. An unbalanced collection of little factoids resulting from passing mentions of the subject in random newspaper articles which are mainly about something else
  2. A bunch of unsourced material
  3. A repetition of whatever the person or organisation says about itself on it's own website or in its own publicity materials.
None of those kinds of things should appear in an encyclopedia. cab 05:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - I'm not sure I agree with you entirely, cab. Certainly encyclopediae should not feature regurgitated PR screeds, or entirely unsourced material. But the maintainability of this article should be self-evident. All articles are a process of ongoing revision, and the number and range of sources in the article will surely grow if it's allowed to remain. And I would submit that the lack of external references in the article at this time is countered by its neutral point of view: it certainly pulls no punches with regards to the magazine's past. So in that regard, it certainly isn't a repetition of publicity materials etc., and as I've said above, if the article remains we can expect a more comprehensive range of sources resulting in less 'factoids' and more narrative/organised information.Underscore b 22:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: five other members of the Aotearoa Student Press Association have student newspapers/magazines that have Wikipedia pages. In Unison looks as notable as those and has won ASPA awards (but I don't know how significant that is). Bondegezou 10:31, 20 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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhood Planning Unit W[edit]

Non-notable neighborhood group. Article is written like a press release. Very much a promotional tone, and I suspect there are major WP:COI issues here. Speedy-tagged and removed. I didn't even bother with a ((prod)) as the discussion page dialog was already very contentious. Realkyhick 05:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep - I had already removed most of the "promotional" language prior to this article being nominated for deletion. Any residual "promotional" language can be cleaned up easily. I think the question is whether or not this organization is notable or not. Looks like a quasi-governmental group whose job is to be the first-pass filter on a number of municipal permit applications. Author claims that there is plenty of coverage in local Atlanta media. Assuming that he can provide cittions to these, I would argue that we should keep the article. --Richard 06:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. It's a local group with out any impact (or coverage for that matter) outside of their areas in Atlanta. 1redrun ^Talk 08:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - no notability whatsoever, also seems to me like blatant advertising. Vox puppet (talk • contribs), 09:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Voxpuppet. This belongs on the city's own website where they can pay for the bandwidth. And adding a hundred paragraphs of cruft is not the best way of convincing me, BTW. Accounting4Taste 22:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what cruft is, but from the context it is clearly pejorative. I listed the citations below because I was told that notability required discussion in the local media and I was attempting to comply. Since what I put forward was not compelling, can I ask what you would find persuasive in a position sense? Emgilg1 04:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Comment on Emgilg1's long message below - I think that the "Delete" comments are a clear indication that this article was and still is poorly written. The text of the article has not managed to convince other Wikipedians that NPU-W is notable. The citations that you mention below help to establish its notability. However, what you need to do is weave the citations into the article in such a way that the reader can understand the importance of NPU-W.

--Richard 00:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Fair enough. Let me take a stab at revising it and including the citations. May I have a stay of execution for a couple of days to do so?

--Emgilg1 03:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussion last for five days barring an overwhelming consensus or obvious reason to close, neither of which exist here, so you have a little time. On question while I'm at it: Are there others of the these units in other Atlanta neighborhoods, and how to they compare to NPU-W? Realkyhick 03:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All 485,000 residents of Atlanta live within one of the twenty-four NPUs. However, NPU-W is unique for a number of reasons including a long tradition of speaking on issues which have had implications for the entirety of metro Atlanta, the State of Georgia, and in some cases nationally. NPU-W has also been a launching pad for political leaders. Most recently, an NPU-W Board Member, Margaret Kaiser, was elected to serve in the Georgia House of Representatives.

NPU-W also has a rich history with some fairly dark chapters, specifically, when former DeKalb County Georgia Sheriff Sidney Dorsey attempted to intimidate NPU-W into silence and/or acquiescence when his wife, former Atlanta City Council Member Sherry Dorsey, who nominally represented some of the NPU's residents, didn't like the NPU's positions on various issues. Sidney Dorsey achieved national fame later when he was convicted of arranging the assassination of Derwin Brown who had beaten Dorsey in the November 2000 election for the position of DeKalb County Sheriff. After Dorsey was convicted, a list of 25 names of other people to be assassinated was recovered and the Chair of NPU-W at that time was on the list.

So in response to your question about comparison, NPU-W is distinct in many ways from the other NPUs and hence, I believe, notable.

I will confess, when I first began trying to respond to people's comments on the article, I found it very frustrating; however, I have found the exercise useful as I have been able to substantially improve the content of the article. I believe I will be able to generate something that will withstand criticism and provide a positive contribution.:--Emgilg1 04:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations Offered as Basis for Notability[edit]

NPU-W does review issues of purely localized concern; however, it also deals with issues of concern to the entire 4,000,000 metro area of Atlanta as well as issues which are national in scope. If people are interested in details, I would be happy to provide them.

I don't think that size alone should be a requirement as I would imagine that if someone put up an article about a municipality of 20,000 people or less, no one would argue for its removal based on it being too small.

I would appreciate some clarity from those who are asserting "no notability whatsoever" and "blatant advertising" as I have reviewed the Wikipedia guidelines and cannot find support for their positions in them.

I have listed below some of the mentions of NPU-W in the local media. I can provide further if necessary.

NPU-W's actions with regard to a proposed Atlanta Park Authority, which would have removed the Parks Department from the City of Atlanta governmental structure and placed it under state control was discussed in The Status of Black Atlanta 2004, published by the Southern Center for Studies in Public Policy, Clark Atlanta University, ISBN 1-8900078-17-4, Publication 2004, Page 17. http://www.scspp.org/sba.htm

During the course of this action, NPU-W submitted legislation to be considered both by the City of Atlanta and the Georgia State Legislature.

The following are recent mentions of NPU-W in The Story, a publication which covers issues throughout metro Atlanta. The link for it is http://www.the-stories.com. I have listed various headlines, dates, and authors below for articles which discuss NPU-W.

East Atlanta residents add to Beltline Overlay District opposition By Marcus Franklin | February 1, 2007

NPU-W hears of Memorial development By Marcus Franklin | August 10, 2006

NPU-W okays zoning exceptions By Melody Heffner | July 6, 2006

APAB told city to adopt Beltline Redevelopment Plan into CDP Atlanta Department of Planning and Community Development Commissioner Steven Cover on Saturday announced at a meeting of the Atlanta Planning Advisory Board (APAB) that the city plans to adopt the Beltline Redevelopment Plan—created as a prerequisite to obtaining the Beltline Tax Allocation District (TAD) last year—into the city’s Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) By John Schaffner | May 25, 2006

NPU-W rejects traffic ordinance City Councilwoman Anne Fauver’s new traffic calming ordinance has proven unpopular with Atlanta’s Neighborhood Planning Units, as NPU-W became the latest to reject the ordinance at its April meeting By Marcus Franklin | May 4, 2006

NPUs citywide give input on infill development at forum Atlanta’s 24 Neighborhood Planning Units (NPUs) had the opportunity to voice their opinions and needs with regard to Atlanta’s proposed infill development legislation at a public reporting forum Saturday, March 25, at The Boisfeuillet Jones Atlanta Civic Center By Amye Walters | March 30, 2006

NPU-W spends lively 15 minutes on major issues The last 15 minutes of the March 22 NPU-W meeting proved to be the liveliest, as four of the most pressing issues were brought to the floor during the meeting’s waning moments By Marcus Franklin | March 30, 2006

Vacated Omewood Park school to become Atlanta Charter Middle School The vacated Anne E. West school building has come one step closer towards being useful once again, thanks to a proposal from the Atlanta Charter Middle School—currently in its first year of operation on Grant Street—and a favorable vote taken at the Jan. 25 NPU-W meeting By Marcus Franklin | February 2, 2006

License for local bar doesn’t go down smoothly at NPU-W In what may have been its shortest meeting in years, Neighborhood Planning Unit D December 27 approved applications for three zoning changes, a subdivision review and a street abandonment in 59 minutes By Marcus Franklin | January 5, 2006

Grant Park finally okays Cherokee Lots site plan Representatives for the proposed Cherokee Lots came before GPNA to request a favorable recommendation for their site plan, which had been in development for months and has been discussed with the GPNA body during a number of previous meetings By Marcus Franklin | December 22, 2005

Beltline hearing becomes all public comment In a turn of events that Atlanta City Council member Ceasar C. Mitchell called “amazing,” Atlanta residents took the floor to make their comments about the proposed Beltline Redevelopment Plan and Tax Allocation District legislation at the Oct. 6 public hearing at City Hall before the architects of the proposals made their presentation By Amye Walters | October 13, 2005

NPU-W urges city formalize policy on TADs Neighborhood Planning Unit W last week voted 14-2 in favor of a resolution calling on the City of Atlanta to create a formal policy for the creation, implementation, operation and termination of tax allocation districts (TADs) within the city By John Schaffner | October 6, 2005

Editor’s Notes NPUs, APAB behind in time curve on Belt Line plan input By John Schaffner | September 22, 2005

East Atlanta gas station may be closer to getting addition The East Atlanta Community Association voted to approve the planned changes pending approval from the neighborhood’s business association By Marcus Franklin | September 15, 2005

NPU-W moving to East Atlanta library starting in September Neighborhood Planning Unit W held their last meeting at the Georgia Hill Center on Georgia Avenue last week and voted to move their monthly meeting to the new East Atlanta Branch Library at 400 Flat Shoals Ave. S.E. starting in September By Michelle Mendieta Mitchell | September 1, 2005

Crime, alcohol on the top of East Atlanta’s list at meeting Crime and alcohol were two prevalent topics of interest during Tuesday’s East Atlanta Community Association meeting, as the group heard two requests for alcohol licenses By Marcus Franklin | August 18, 2005

Supportive housing ordinance gets NPU-W’s attention The ordinance—proposed by City Councilman Ivory Lee Young Jr.—was designed to clear up zoning complications as well as to change requirements of community centers and supportive housing By Marcus Franklin | August 4, 2005

NPU-W approves Benteen Park development plans Neighborhood Planning Unit W began the summer season by approving a large-scale plan that would bring new homes to the Benteen Park area, though it is unknown at this point the number of houses the area will be able to accommodate By Marcus Franklin | June 30, 2005

Code enforcement moves into 20th century, NPU-W hears Code enforcement officer Harold Jackson paid a visit to Neighborhood Planning Unit W last week to inform everyone that “the city has gotten into the 20th century” by getting department of planning and community development employees uniforms, cars and computers for business use By Marcus Franklin | June 2, 2005

NPU-W denies liquor license, cites applicant’s past non-compliance One of Memorial Drive’s newest restaurants was denied a favorable recommendation for a liquor license from Neighborhood Planning Unit W last week, following the applicant’s non-compliance with previous beer and wine license conditions By Marcus Franklin | May 5, 2005

Editor’s Notes Watershed Management’s style in taking homes arrogant—again By John Schaffner | March 31, 2005

NPU-W debates Watershed Management taking of property A City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management (DWM) sewer separation project—especially the initial plan to acquire private homes and property via the eminent domain process—was a cause of contention during last week’s Neighborhood Planning Unit W meeting By Marcus Franklin | March 31, 2005

Parking deck road show travels to NPU-W Members of the Piedmont Park Conservancy, Atlanta Botanical Garden and Friends of Piedmont Park were all on hand at the group’s February 23 meeting to state their views on the controversial Piedmont Park parking deck proposal By Marcus Franklin | March 3, 2005

Neighbors fight rezoning application Neighborhood Planning Unit W’s sleepy meeting two weeks ago was jarred awake when almost half of the attendees identified themselves as residents of a neighborhood vehemently opposed to a rezoning application By Julia Francesconi | February 10, 2005

Editor’s Notes NPUs air Piedmont Park parking deck via emails By John Schaffner | January 13, 2005

NPU-W struggles with wine drive-thru Neighborhood Planning Unit W ended its public year of business December 22 by electing the officers that will guide them through 2005 By Marcus Franklin | January 6, 2005

East Atlanta welcomes new officers Several different positions were open for nominations. Four officers—president, vice president, treasurer and secretary—were open, as well as a representative for The Porch Press, the community newsletter. EACA members elected Dennis Madsen, who was previously EACA’s Zoning and Land Use chair in 2004, as president By Marcus Franklin | December 16, 2004

NPU-W wants East Atlanta Village speed limits decreased NPU-W voted 10-2 last Wednesday on a resolution to change the speed limits on Flat Shoals Avenue to 15 mph (from McPherson Avenue to Glenwood Avenue) and on Glenwood Avenue to 20 mph (from Moreland Avenue to Patterson Avenue) By Michelle Mendieta Mitchell | November 24, 2004

NPU-W calls for alcohol ordinance repeal, greater community involvement The new alcohol ordinances, NPU-W Chair Ed Gilgor said, include a legal “bar” definition and a revision in the liquor license process By Michelle Mendieta Mitchell | November 4, 2004

NPU-W on sidewalk maintenance: Repair city’s responsibility Currently, if the city finds the sidewalk to be “unsatisfactory,” the property owner will be cited, given 10 days to reply and 30 days to bring the sidewalk “up to spec or the city will do it and put a tax lien against them,” explained Ed Gilgor, NPU-W’s chair November 4, 2004

Threat of city parking meters has East Atlanta up in arms East Atlanta Community Association resolution urges obtaining community support before meters are installed October 21, 2004

East Atlanta battles crime, parking fees Security concerns dominate the October meeting of the East Atlanta Community Association By Mike Mikula | October 21, 2004

Community prosecutors seek space in NPU-W NPU-W will help in finding space for the prosecutors By Marcus Franklin | September 30, 2004

NPU-W endorses raises for council, mayor, school board By Marcus Franklin | September 2, 2004

NPU-W pushes for Watershed Dept. accountability By Marcus Franklin | August 5, 2004

Letters to the Editor July 15, 2004

Special Public Interest district on its way to Memorial Drive By Layla Bellows | July 2, 2004

NPU-W leery of zoning changes By Layla Bellows | June 3, 2004

The donuts may be happy, but no one else is By Scott Christian | May 20, 2004

Planned development zoning gets NPU-W approval By Layla Bellows | May 6, 2004

NPU-W approves Mercer Street variances By Camille Goswick | February 26, 2004

NPU-W sides with East Atlanta, says no to liquor license By Camille Goswick | January 29, 2004

East Atlanta liquor license not in line with community interest By Layla Bellows | January 15, 2004

NPU-W carefully considers development throughout Grant Park By Layla Bellows | December 24, 2003

NPU-W, council okay Eastside TAD By Camille Goswick | December 4, 2003

NPU-W has mixed feelings about another Tax Allocation District By Camille Goswick | October 30, 2003

NPU-W approves Habitat rezoning, historic district expansion By Camille Goswick | September 4, 2003

Poncey-Highland: Increasing road capacity not the answer to traffic By Camille Goswick | July 24, 2003

Pedestrian safety along Ormewood Avenue requires community activism in East Atlanta By Layla Bellows | July 10, 2003

NPU-W denies CDBG grant, makes plans to improve traffic flow on Boulevard By Layla Bellows | June 25, 2003

NPU-W takes on unapproved building, supports homegrown conservation efforts By Layla Bellows | May 29, 2003

Residents approve parking exception for Boulevard retail center By Camille Goswick | April 24, 2003

NPUs disagree on city ordinances By Layla Bellows | April 3, 2003

NPU says no to alcohol license, outlines accomplishments, goals By Camille Goswick | January 23, 2003

City official blames voting residents for anticipated sewer rate increases By John Schaffner | December 27, 2002

Sewer review panel told 80% By John Schaffner | July 18, 2002

City unveils Turn Around Plan By Camille Goswick | July 18, 2002 --Emgilg1 20:13, 11 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter Shark[edit]

Non notable photoshopped image hoax. One of thousands of such fake images that circulate the internet. All that is asserted is that the photograph was widely circulated, so are viagra ads. There is no indication in the article or any of its sources that this hoax was accepted by anyone, or has any significance on internet culture, or anyone for that matter. I seek the opinions of others on this matter. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep well, Nigerian scam has its own article, and the shark meme even has an article in National Geographic. It meets all requirements for notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, huh? The NG article is a denial that it was them. 419 scams have touched the inboxen of most of Western civilisation and the bank balances of more than a handful. Apples and elephants here. Chris Cunningham 08:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I am not quite sure what you are trying to convey. It doesn't have to be real to have an article, otherwise we wouldn't have the Category:Hoaxes --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nigerian Scam is a world wide scam that affects thousands of people and is much more notable than a stupid internet prank. If it's notable, which it is not, merge it into the Nat geo or Email hoax articles. However, I feel the article should be deleted. There's tonnes of email hoaxes going around, just because it's in a Nat geo article, does that mean they're encyclopedic? Not particularly... Spawn Man 08:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oddly enough, it is the very definition of WP:notability. You have the wrong concept of notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to photo editing just like that picture about the "scientist predict a computer in 2004" picture that actually is of a submarine control panel and some real estate sales guy. JIP | Talk 08:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merge might be worthwhile if the copyright on the image were actually correct, but it isn't (the three-image composite was lifted from NG, the shark image is copyrighted and the helishark is unattributed). Chris Cunningham 08:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Just one of a seemingly infinite number of silly photos that get passed around online. NG did deny it in print, true, but their mention wasn't substantial enough to source an article upon, nor is it notable enough for one anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is an article in National Geographic not "substantial enough". The definition of notability and verifiability is that all the information in the article can be confirmed in the sources. You seem to imply notability is "biggest, or best". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability to have been established by reliable sources clarifing that the image was a hoax involving one of Charles Maxwell's photos. Fosnez 14:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question is, does simply being debunked by a reliable source a sign of notability? This articles sources do not seem to indicate it has much effect on the world, the articles simple say it was fake. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not invoking WP:ILIKEIT but I actually had this come through my inbox and had to politely inform the person that it was fake. Pointed them to Snoops and sent them on their way. I think the fact that National Geographic took the time to debunk the fake and interview the author of the original photo signifies enough notability. Fosnez 14:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how it's notable enough to have it's own article. Interesting image which got a lot of attention but it's not notable enough IMO. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If your friends are annoyed by e-mails of the "Helicopter Shark" (or the post 9/11 picture of the guy on the observation deck of the WTC with a jet approaching in the background).... they'll really be pissed off at you when you e-mail them an article about the Helicopter Shark. Why not write an article about those funny postcards that are all black and have the caption "_______ at night"? Mandsford 22:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article provides reliable and verifiable sources from The New York Times and National Geographic documenting the hoax, something that can't be said for all of the alternatives cited by some of our deletion-minded editors. A Google News Archive search using the terms "San francisco" helicopter shark photo found dozens of other sources available about this photo. The reliable and verifiable sources in the article easily satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 23:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of the sources give any kind of indication that this hoax was significant? Or is it simply a collection of refutations and mentions? I have no doubt that we can verify the hoax actually happened, but did it have any significance worth of encyclopedic mention? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 00:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that sources have to include a sentence that states "Subject of Article is significant". Wikipedia:Notability states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." and defines "Significant coverage" to mean "that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." Both sources provided in the article from the NY Times and National Geographic clearly meet the significant coverage standard as the sole subject of each of the cited articles. Alansohn 00:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree, the fact that it was mentioned by National Geographic and the NY Times is all the is required to establish notability. Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content and Notability_is_not_temporary - Fosnez 02:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above; the simple fact that this was covered in multiple highly significant publications is enough to determine its notability. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 05:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another shooped meme. This is not memeopedia. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is a "shooped meme" and why is it an acceptable excuse to delete an article. Here on Wikipedia we require references to violations of real Wikipedia policies as a basis of making policy decisions. We don't delete articles because they violate the WP:SHOOPEDMEME policy somebody made up in school one day. As the article provides multiple reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability, you need to present a valid argument that Wikipedia policy requires its deletion. Alansohn 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shooped = Photoshopped. Just another shooped meme = no evidence of lasting cultural or historical significance. I don't think anyone else was in any doubt what my reasoning was, but I think that WP:SHOOPEDMEME is a cool idea and I'll get right on it. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously. Unnotable internet meme; reliable sources are a canard - NYT does not equal notable.

Alansohn may legitimately be wide-eyed over a spelling error, but his comment looks suspiciously nasty. Eusebeus 18:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- What's the spelling error? I'm a tad suspicious of your actions, as well. Alansohn 22:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you quote some policy that is in violation? It appears to meet Wikipedia:Notability in that the "topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Why the need to disparage the New York Times and National Geographic? If they have their own articles, they are reliable and well known sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this insignificant tidbit. We don't need Wikipedia to chronicle everything that's ever been on the internet- the net itself does this. Friday (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; notability requires multiple independent reliable secondary sources; several such are cited, including a New York Times article and a National Geographic article, both specifically about this faked photo; it's not here because it's an internet meme, but because it's a NOTABLE internet meme per WP:NOTE. I've had little luck getting articles deleted when they lack any such references, so I don't understand why this one is being challenged on the basis of notability when the evidence is clear. Articles about => notability; Punkt! Dicklyon 22:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in multiple independent sources is widely seen as a bare minimum requirement for encyclopedic notability, but having sources does not mean that the article must be kept. This is why we have AFD. Not everything that's been in a newspaper belongs in an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What other notability criteria are there? Did I not read all of WP:NOTE? Dicklyon 23:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I just found two books that talk explicitly about this image, and added a bit about that (see refs 3 and 4 with links to book pages); so I change from keep to strong keep. Dicklyon 23:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't complete the edit of ref 4 when I said that; finally got it in now. Dicklyon 03:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously not the only example of its kind but probably the most notable per comments above, mentioned in context both at Hoax and Photo editing as an illustration of the impact of image manipulation on popular culture. I thought at first that an extended caption on the image page would do, but wider issues are addressed in the article, saving space in others and hence making it worthy of a keep. mikaul^talk 01:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as substantial reliable sources are currently listed in the article. This is the most notable meme that comes to mind when I think of photoshop-created images. Yamaguchi先生 00:50, 16 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 delete. Has already been speedied on this title and on Raisin' Hell Part 2 and Raisin' Hell 2: The Raisin Ultimatum. -- RHaworth 07:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raisin' Hell (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Raisin' Hell (film)

joke article about a nonexistent film P4k 05:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and Raisin' Hell 2: The Raisin Ultimatum. Obvious hoaxes. Maxa megalon 2000 05:41, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Peizer[edit]

Prod tagged as non-notable page (probably created by subject, given editor name); no non-trivial sources to establish notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious vanity page created by User:Jpeizer, who's almost certainly the article's subject. Spawn Man 05:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Watch out for possibly snowball. —gorgan_almighty 11:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-vanity page and probably non-notable.K14 12:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I originally proposed the deletion. Note also the recent removal of the deletion tag by possible sockpuppet User:Alexpwm. Alexwoods 16:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. However, please note that 'vanity' isn't really a good term to use in AfD's. Please see WP:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD Bfigura ^(talk) 17:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to notability issues. However, it could be userfied if the author wants to --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:08, 12 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 Delete, failure to assert any notability. Keegan^talk 04:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caneball[edit]

Non-notable game some kids made up. Violates WP:MADEUP. OfficeGirl 04:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until such time as there is coverage by reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 04:16, 11 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. John254 01:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha[edit]

A list without sources, has many deadlinks, and has been unsourced for nearly a year. Jmlk 1 7 03:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs sorting through, maybe inclusion in a project or three. I have added a couple of references/sources, but I am not an expert on the subject and can't tackle a rewite. Fosnez 14:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This mostly needs expert attention rather than deletion. The redlinks are needed as suggestions for future articles. As a list, I would also question what kind of "references" it needs; if there's a question about the inclusion of any item, that should be addressed in the articles themselves rather than on a list that compiles them. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article needs a good deal of work, but that is not grounds for deletion. Edward321 01:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It's clearly encyclopedic, notable, and now sourced. Keep per WP:HEY. It needs work, but that will happen. Bearian 00:23, 13 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 delete as a copyright violation from http://www.jessicadhatch.com/bio.php. WODUP 04:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica hatch[edit]

Non notable model. Has won a minor competition and is a finalist in a WWE competition, but nothing truly notable. WP:BIO OfficeGirl 03:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also, the text is directly copied from her website-- [76]OfficeGirl 03:48, 11 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. Wizardman 02:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain View Adventist College[edit]

procedural nomination Deleted via WP:PROD 3 September; new but substantially the same article created 7 September and re-PRODded the same day. Original PROD note: "This appears to a non notable school. There is no assertion of its importance." Second PROD note: "Original version tagged as copyvio/advert. Current version does not assert notability." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a user of education in aus, i must say that is has to go. Twenty Years 14:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of Christian schools offer a Christian environment, with dedicated teachers. If they didn't, they wouldn't stay in business very long, even in Doonside. This appears to be a high school rather than a university. Mandsford 22:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable college. Keb25 23:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article is unsourced and short. There are stories in Google News Archives about this school but may not be sufficient to establish notability. [77]. Capitalistroadster 03:29, 12 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 — even as a haircut, the notability concerns are not fixed. --Haemo 22:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea girl (culture)[edit]

There have never been any references, it duplicates topics from the skinhead article, and the term is not used in the United Kingdom, where the skinhead subculture originated. Spylab 02:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems there's notability somewhere there, though it's a poor article. The term appears to have some currency in the US as per Chelsea Girl, the disambiguation, but I'm wondering if the article gets it wrong. Perhaps it derives from Hotel Chelsea, Chelsea Girl (album), etc., or other things to do with Andy Warhol. Americans tended to adopt British punk culture without understanding it or being particular as to accuracy, so that could be it too. Definitely needs expansion and clean-up, if it's a real term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 03:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but rename to something like Chelsea haircut. Skinhead with bangs, basically. Where the name comes from may be lost to time, but the term is out there. I really don't see this as a term pointing to a subculture, just a particular female variation on the hair. --Dhartung | Talk 04:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After a quick Googling - it's a haircut. Are haircuts notable? MarkBul 04:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In the UK, the hairstyle is called a feathercut, so if the article remains as an article about a hairstyle, there will have to be consensus about which term is used; the original UK name, or the later North American name.Spylab 14:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced, NN, OR and all that is written can be found on other articles. Basically, same reasons as below. Spawn Man 05:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsensical article. David Q. Johnson 11:37, 19 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russel Lehoisky[edit]

Non-notable minor league baseball player, 85 games over three seasons in the low minors MisfitToys 02:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 21:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing noteworthy about his minor-league career. NawlinWiki 13:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy never got above "A" ball. I don't know if i'd consider playing in the "Roy Hobbs League" to be a comeback either. Also, the same guy who made this article seems to have created pages for other members of this "slow pitch softball league" that should probably also be deleted. Spanneraol 20:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A minor league, but not-bad there. M.V.E.i. 21:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fewer than 10 non-wiki ghits, most of which were brief mentions of his initial drafting by the Twins.--Fabrictramp 22:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:V and WP:RS Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 01:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO.--Truest blue 21:00, 12 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 --Haemo 00:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brimstone Press[edit]

Brimstone Press is one of seven articles (now listed at AfD) created by a new user. These seven articles seem designed to advance the publisher, Brimstone Press. I have listed them separately so that they may be considered separately. Brimstone Press has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Brimstone Press to develop an attributable article on the topic and the article should be deleted. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Brimstone Press has had some independent coverage[78] but that is the only coverage I could find. The other articles should be deleted. Capitalistroadster 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this and the other articles in question. I'm an avid reader of Australian horror and on the weekend (3 days ago) I began a project to wikify the Australian horror writers and publishers I knew of. I used the Australian Horror Writers Association and Brimstone Press as my start points as they're the ones i'm most familiar with (like me, Brimstone is in Western Australia) and i've been expanding out from there. I've also been in contact with one of the writers Shane Jiraiya Cummings who gave me alot of advice and told me where to look for more sources. From my contributions, you'll see i've revised entries for writers like Rocky Wood (and his link on the books about Stephen King list) who doesn't appear to have any connection to Brimstone Press (although he's a Horror writers Association member). I've also edited entries for other Australian horror writers (from the Category:Australian horror writers) - Lee Battersby, Martin Livings, Kim Wilkins, Stephen Dedman etc and I am looking to add more this week - Jason Nahrung, Paul Haines, and a couple more i've heard about. Re: independent coverage - i've been uploading these entries with the sources that i've been able to find quickest: the online links, the Ditmar Award and Aurealis Award winners lists, the Australian horror writers Association pages, online interviews and news posts on HorrorScope and ABC Online. I thought these refs would be seen as independent (enough) coverage while I looked into more sources, although some of the stubs (like Marty Young) don't have many references - but they're stubs!. I'm looking at more sources offline too. For example, i have a non-fiction book called Australian Speculative fiction: A genre overview by Donna Maree Hanson which i've cited on Cummings' entry but haven't got around to adding to the others. My goal is to expand the Category:Australian horror writers and if other people think the entries i've made aren't notable enough, then fair enough, they should be deleted. If this is the case, most of the writers in the category might have to go. But these entries aren't spam. I just need more time to fill them out and add more references. I've only been at it 3 days! --Outcast44 13:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Capital. Twenty Years 08:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I'm not convinced that outcast44 does not have a conflict of interest in creating the Brimstone Press page, I do think Brimstone Press are sufficiently notable in Australia Speculative Fiction to warrant inclusion in wikipedia. I have attempted to make the text more neutral than it was previously, removed extraneous references (particularly those that don't directly support statements made in the entry). I have also linked to reviews of Brimstone Press publications in both Australian and International SF/F review sites to support Brimstone's notability. Kathrynll 12:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They won an Ditmar Award and this is sourced (although not very well). The article could definitely use some cleanup, but they are notable. Turlo Lomon 06:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just gave the entry a cleanup and added a couple more reliable sources as in-text references. --Outcast44 12:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Very nice job cleaning it up. Turlo Lomon 10:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the reference supplied do not evidence notabililty. --Gavin Collins 09:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question I am confused. ABC News, 2 independent newspapers, and about a dozen or so awards, all of which is sourced. How exactly does this not meet your criteria for notability? Turlo Lomon 10:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd second Turlo's question. The entry cites a number of verifiable, third party references and the award wins and nominations are confirmed by multiple sources. --Outcast44 12:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, over 3,000 hits for "Brimstone Press" on Yahoo (with quotes). They are an award winning publisher (2007 Ditmar Award for their magazine HorrorScope). Yes they are fairly new, but they have been nominated for every major Australian genre related award Aurealis Award, The Australian Shadows Award, Ditmar Award, and the WA SF Achievement Award. Their books have included many top names in horror fiction including Poppy Z. Brite. They even do charity e-anthologies Antmusic 22:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge (with redirect) Angela Challis with this article. Certainly the references provided here, together with the others in that article will give a notable article. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That large number of results in a bona fide search engine evidences notability. While I am not sure the length of the entry is appropriate, as usually encyclos have smaller listings for less important topics (i.e., stub?), it seems reasonable to keep this one. Hbomb phd mom 22:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Their award tally is impressive. Bondegezou 10:24, 20 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 --Haemo 22:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HorrorScope (webzine)[edit]

HorrorScope (webzine) is one of seven articles (now listed at AfD) created by a new user. These articles seem designed to advance the publisher, Brimstone Press. I have listed them separately so that they may be considered separately. HorrorScope (webzine) has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of HorrorScope (webzine) and Brimstone Press to develop an attributable article on the topic and the article should be deleted. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of independent coverage. Capitalistroadster 03:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. I created this and the other entries mentioned in the AfD banner. For a full explanation, see my note on Shane Jiraiya Cummings AfD talk page and my talk page. Re: this entry, I believe this is a notable webzine that has won a major Australian literary award. I'd propose if editors feel this entry is not notable enough on its own, then perhaps it could be merged with Brimstone Press? --Outcast44 05:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails notability requirements of WP:WEB --Gavin Collins 09:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I disagree. This webzine has won two well known Australian literary awards and has been nominated for several more - easily satisfying criteria 2 of WP:WEB. Again, I suggest either Keeping this or Merging the entry with Brimstone Press. Outcast44 14:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'd like to see more independent references, but it barely squeaks by with the ones it currently has in my interpretation of notability. Turlo Lomon 10:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or possibly Merge with Brimstone Press. It has won two awards that so seem to satisfy WP:WEB criteria 2. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:31, 18 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 with addition of reliable sources. Alabamaboy 00:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Shadows Award[edit]

Australian Shadows Award is one of seven articles (now listed at AfD) created by a new user. These articles seem designed to advance the publisher, Brimstone Press. I have listed them separately so that they may be considered separately. Australian Shadows Award has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Australian Shadows Award and Brimstone Press to develop an attributable article on the topic and the article should be deleted. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of verifiable sources. Capitalistroadster 03:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this and the other entries mentioned in the AfD banner. For a full explanation, see my note on Shane Jiraiya Cummings AfD talk page and my talk page. Re: this entry, it is a relatively new literary award from a notable Australian writers association and is worth expanding upon. Re: the original AfD complaint, this entry contains only a tangential reference to Brimstone Press. --Outcast44 05:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins 10:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a recently developed but prestigous Australian Award (for its genre).Antmusic 23:03, 17 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. Being nominated for major awards and the being archived in Australia's national archives supports notability.Alabamaboy 00:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowed Realms[edit]

Shadowed Realms is one of seven articles (now listed at AfD) created by a new user. These articles seem designed to advance the publisher, Brimstone Press. I have listed them separately so that they may be considered separately. Shadowed Realms has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Shadowed Realms and Brimstone Press to develop an attributable article on the topic and the article should be deleted. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of verifiable sources. Capitalistroadster 03:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this and the other entries mentioned in the AfD banner. For a full explanation, see my note on Shane Jiraiya Cummings AfD talk page and my talk page. Re: this entry, I believe this is a notable magazine that has been nominated for a major Australian literary award and published several notable genre writers. The verifiable sources is cited in the references include a long-standing publishing trade magazine (Locus), an international writers peak body (SFWA), and The National Archives of Australia. I'd propose if editors feel this entry is not notable enough on its own, then perhaps it could be merged with Brimstone Press? --Outcast44 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails to demonstrate notability per WP:WEB.--Gavin Collins 09:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I disagree. This webzine's content has won an established, well known Australian literary award and has been nominated for several more awards - easily satisfying criteria 2 of WP:WEB. Again, I suggest either Keeping this or Merging the entry with Brimstone Press. Outcast44 14:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The site was important enough that the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Australia) archived its material for the National Archives of Australia's Pandora project. On its own, this means it was very significant for Australians. They also published the very significant Poppy Z. Brite and many others on their site Antmusic 21:19, 20 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 Brimstone Press. The article is currently a redirect; interested editors can use the history to merge what content they feel is appropriate. --Haemo 22:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Challis[edit]

Angela Challis is one of seven articles (now listed at AfD) created by a new user. These seven articles seem designed to advance the publisher, Brimstone Press. I have listed them separately so that they may be considered separately. Angela Challis has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Angela Challis and Brimstone Press to develop an attributable article on the topic and the article should be deleted. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of verifiable sources. Capitalistroadster 03:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this and the other entries mentioned in the AfD banner. For a full explanation, see my note on Shane Jiraiya Cummings AfD talk page and my talk page. Re: this entry, it's a stub but per my note about WP:N on my talk page, one I think is worth keep so it can be expanded upon. At least one verifiable source is cited in this entry. --Outcast44 15:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as reference given do not provide evidence of notability, particularly her partner's won website. --Gavin Collins 09:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added appropriate in-text citations and additional references to clarify and support notability. Given several independent, verifiable sources, the track record of award nominations etc, I believe this stub/start article meets WP:N. However, I can see Turlo Lomon's case for merging with Brimstone Press and more substantially fleshing out that entry (as there is some duplication). Outcast44 15:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brimstone Press, assuming it passes AfD. There does not seem to be enough independent references to support her (specifically her, not the company), but would be a good addition to add to the history of the company. Turlo Lomon 10:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brimstone Press for the reasons that Turlo Lomon gives. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:59, 21 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 --Haemo 00:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Jiraiya Cummings[edit]

Shane Jiraiya Cummings is one of seven articles (now listed at AfD) created by a new user. These articles seem designed to advance the publisher, Brimstone Press. I have listed them separately so that they may be considered separately. Shane Jiraiya Cummings has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Shane Jiraiya Cummings and Brimstone Press to develop an attributable article on the topic and the article should be deleted. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of verifiable sources. Capitalistroadster 03:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Pasted from the Brimstone Press AfD and Outcast44 talk page):

I created this and the other entries mentioned in the AfD banner. I'm an avid reader of Australian horror and on the weekend (3 days ago) I began a project to wikify the Australian horror writers and publishers I knew of. I used the Australian Horror Writers Association and Brimstone Press as my start points as they're the ones i'm most familiar with (like me, Brimstone is in Western Australia) and i've been expanding out from there. I've also been in contact with one of the writers Shane Jiraiya Cummings who gave me alot of advice and told me where to look for more sources. From my contributions, you'll see i've revised entries for writers like Rocky Wood (and his link on the books about Stephen King list) who doesn't appear to have any connection to Brimstone Press (although he's a Horror writers Association member). I've also edited entries for other Australian horror writers (from the Category:Australian horror writers) - Lee Battersby, Martin Livings, Kim Wilkins, Stephen Dedman etc and I am looking to add more this week - Jason Nahrung, Paul Haines, and a couple more i've heard about. Re: independent coverage - i've been uploading these entries with the sources that i've been able to find quickest: the online links, the Ditmar Award and Aurealis Award winners lists, the Australian horror writers Association pages, online interviews and news posts on HorrorScope and ABC Online. I thought these refs would be seen as independent (enough) coverage while I looked into more sources, although some of the stubs (like Marty Young) don't have many references - but they're stubs!. I'm looking at more sources offline too. For example, i have a non-fiction book called Australian Speculative fiction: A genre overview by Donna Maree Hanson which i've cited on Cummings' entry but haven't got around to adding to the others. My goal is to expand the Category:Australian horror writers and if other people think the entries i've made aren't notable enough, then fair enough, they should be deleted. If this is the case, most of the writers in the category might have to go. But these entries aren't spam. I just need more time to fill them out and add more references. I've only been at it 3 days! --Outcast44 14:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how it looks like a cross promotion for Brimstone Press but i've been linking to all linkable publishers I could find in the Australian horror writers bibliographies and it looks like Brimstone has published most of them at least once. Other publishers i've been linking are MirrorDanse Books, Ticonderoga Publications and Andromeda Spaceways Inflight Magazine. The stub articles I wrote don't have alot of references but you'll find every one of them has at least one reference or note that comes from a verifable third party . Obviously the references are not complete but i'm working on that! This really is a genuine attempt to build a referenced wiki of Australian horror, not spam!

A note on reliable, verifiable sources for this entry. I haven't added notes (yet!) and references cited include the author's website and other websites connected to Brimstone Press, but how can the following independent, verifable sources not be taken into account?:

Dawn, Gibson (April 9, 2007), "State eyes crackdown on elective caesareans". The West Australian.
Hanson, Donna Maree (2005). Australian Speculative Fiction: A Genre Overview. Murrumbateman: Australian Speculative Fiction.
Kemble, Gary (April 2006). "Horror: give it a name". ABC Online news (Articulate). Retrieved 9-9-2007.
Kemble, Gary (December 2006). "A new age for Australian horror". ABC Online news (Articulate). Retrieved 9-9-2007.
Peek, Ben (April 2005). "2005 Snapshot interview". Tabula Rasa website. Retrieved 9-9-2007.
Sizmore, Jason (May 2007). "Featured writer interview: Shane Jiraiya Cummings". Apex Online. Retrieved 9-9-2007.
Stuart, Kirsty (May 2007), "The Surgical Birth". Nova Magazine.

--Outcast44 15:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references you list have little to no information that may be used in the article. For example, what material would you use in the article from this reference: Dawn, Gibson (April 9, 2007), "State eyes crackdown on elective caesareans". The West Australian? It makes no mention of Cummings. In fact, The West Australian has no mention of a Shane Cummings. The Wikipedia Cummings article makes no mention of caesareans and yet you cite the "State eyes crackdown on elective caesareans" article as one of the references in the Shane Jiraiya Cummings Wikipedia article. It seems as though you wrote a bunch of text for the article, listed a bunch of sources to give the appearance of the text being referenced, and are hoping for the best. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That reference in the West Australian did not mention Cummings by name but cited the report he wrote in Medical Forum magazine. It was one of three footnotes I had to add to the Journalism section at the bottom of the entry which specifically mentioned a caesarean story Cummings wrote. Had I had the time to add these notes rather than responding to numerous AfD discussion, the references would have been made clearer. However its a moot point because a newer edit has removed that section and reference. --Outcast44 15:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at the references listed subject has 5 WP:RS articles listed over a 2 year period. Which easily meets the requirements for significant coverage per WP:N. Has also won a notable award, albeit in a minor category. It needs to be cited properly in the body of the text, but that's not a reason for an Afd.Horrorshowj 16:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Recently cleaned up entry with in-text citations and additional verifiable, independent references. Outcast44 15:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like Brimstone Press, I think Cumming's entry has sufficent notability to warrant inclusion in wikipedia. However the majority of text in the original article is nor referenced properly and the text is not neutral. I have edited the entry, but it could probably do with more Kathrynll 14:27, 12 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban Reptiles[edit]

The subject of the article does not meet the requirements for notability per WP:MUSIC. No charted songs, no albums, no major awards etc. Nv8200p talk 01:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did enjoy reading the article - the band just isn't notable Wikipedia-wise. MarkBul 02:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At least they're not listing a MySpace page. Fails WP:Music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1redrun (talk • contribs) 08:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:Music, although I wish them well for the future. No MySpace page, but the YouTube video makes up for it. Accounting4Taste 22:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep Easily passes WP:MUSIC, thank you very much. Members from this band later went on to be involved in prominent NZ bands such as DD Smash, Split Enz, and The Swingers, all of which had no. 1 hits in New Zealand, as well as Australia's internationally famous band Midnight Oil. The band embarked on a national tour, and were Auyckland's top punk rock band, and one of the two or three top exponents of the genre within New Zealand. I have added the required independent published sources so that they pass a fourth criterion of WP:MUSIC (remember, they only require one to be regarded as notable enough for an article). I wonder if those listing delete votes above actually read the page, since a band that split up 25 years ago are being "wished well for the future" and aren't "listing a MySpace page". Grutness...wha? 01:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Grutness...wha? 01:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grutness. The claim to be NZ's first punk band, and the subsequent career of several members certainly make this notable.-gadfium 01:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any New Zealand band that was produced by Tim Finn and contained Phil Judd and Bones Hillman sounds notable enough for mine. Grutness has provided sources for the article. Capitalistroadster 03:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated above. --Helenalex 00:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as I agree with Grutness. I don't have much to add, but they had a tremendous effect on the development of New Zealand music's underground.Underscore b 22:20, 13 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. [NOTE: A deletion review has been made for this article here. Also, a copy of the referenced talk page has been moved over to User:Caudax/Talk_Accumulate_and_fire in order to preserve the context of this AfD. -Caudax 03:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)] [reply]

The result was Delete — lacks 3rd party source to establish notability. If you want to request a user copy so you can properly source tis article, just request one. --Haemo 00:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accumulate and fire[edit]

Nonnotable concept in computer programming; although the article was created as early as in 2003 (!) there is no traces of reliable source in the 'net: the most sure red flag for computinmg-related articles. `'Míkka 01:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Interesting, I'm sometimes programming this way... :( . Without sources to back the concept up however notability is not proven. 1redrun ^Talk 08:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if I remember right, this is a known and documented anti-pattern. JIP | Talk 08:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you remember it right, refernce please. I failed to find one, hence nomination. `'Míkka 17:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This style exists, and yes it's well known. M.V.E.i. 21:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- References, please. `'Míkka 21:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The virtual absence of references in google, with sole exception of perl design patterns wiki means that it is someone pet neologism withiut any evidence of notable acceptance. Mukadderat 00:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is useful information, and a common antipattern. What needs to happen is a source needs to be cited, possibly something listing this problem under a different name. Wikipedia is full of useful information lacking enough sources, and the correct solution is not to go around deleting it.bvbellomo 09:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC) The edit is by 12.168.81.98 (talk · contribs)[reply]
STRONG KEEP. Christ, I've gone through an argument arguing why the notability tag should be deleted exactly to prevent this deletion request. I find your request for deletion, in absence of consulting the pertinent talk page highly distasteful. (For the record, my reasons opposing this deletion have been enumerated in length on the linked talk page, where they have been made before this deletion request was made, although Mikka apparently hasn't seen fit to respond to them. Furthermore, the strong wording has been used because this has been a point that I've discussed rather strongly, so to have someone blithely ignore it offends me. My message to this extent is clear: DONT DO THAT. You can apply this statement both to deleting the article and to ignoring someone's highly pertinent comments on the matter when attempting to proceed democratically.) -Caudax 21:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry you feel offended, but i don't think your comments have been ignored; rather, they just don't address the problem. This article has been standing without sources (or substantial content) for literally years now: unless you can find reliable secondary sources to back up the book this was published in (i've tried, and failed), there can be no argument for keeping it. —Piet Delport 2007-09-17 01:32
  - Well, I do have a feeling that Mikka neglected the talk page when initiating the deletion request. At any rate, I do believe they address the issues at hand. Namely, I've specifically gone over the significance of the Google results, why even without sources we should keep the article, why notability isn't an iron-clad standard by which we should delete this article, why no original research should not be applied to this article, why this isn't an uncommon, esoteric practice (instead, it's a fairly common way to code monolithic programs), and why this isn't a neologism as much as it is a tentative title for the programming practice. Furthermore, the presence of programmers that write code this way is akin to that of a blue sky. You see it everywhere, and you don't go through elaborate proofs to prove that it indeed exists. Programmers tend to write code this way, we can see that. The sky is blue, we can see that too, or do you believe that it should be more appropriately "The sky is blue.^{[citation needed]}"? At any rate, if need be, examples can probably be found and provided. Beyond that, I realize that the article has been around for years, but I'd like to attribute that to being a result of neglect and insufficient participation rather than the article being "beyond help." Also, thanks for participating. -Caudax 20:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd like to point out the sheer irony in my comparison to the sky being blue, considering that the article, Sky, has no less than four citations concerning the sky being blue. Although for the sake of maintaining my point, they're only providing citations on it being "the result of the air's scattering of sunlight," not on the sky being blue itself. -Caudax 20:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's no analogy: Sky is about the sky in general, and has more than enough references (and could get hundreds or thousands more solid ones on demand). This article is about a design pattern coined by one book, with no independent references. —Piet Delport 2007-09-18 22:13
        There is indeed. Here are some Google searches: [79], [80], [81], [82]. I think we've hit over a thousand. Also, the use of the term coinage does confirm that you are disputing the naming convention, to which I refer back that this is moreso a tentative title for the practice. -Caudax 23:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see a single mention of PDP's Accumulate and Fire pattern anywhere.
        It seems like you're defending not the subject of this article, but the general notion of global state sharing: this is perfectly fine, but belongs in other, more appropriate articles (e.g. Shared memory and Global variable), not this one. —Piet Delport 2007-09-19 23:03
    - I believe i've already addressed your points: i hope we're not talking past each other. I don't think any reason has been given for this article to be exempt from the no original research policy. (Frankly, i think it would need pretty extreme justification, for such a core policy.)
      As i said on the talk page, it will probably be better to discuss general practice(s) on other, more appropriate articles, instead of dragging them into a battle over this obscure coinage. —Piet Delport 2007-09-18 22:13
      - Excuse me, I believe I made the last point in that discussion without you responding (not even to point out that I was missing the point and how I was missing the point of whatever you were saying, if such was the case), so it strikes me as a tad inaccurate to say that, especially considering that I have raised newer points in that post which went unaddressed. Also, I believe I addressed yours. Also, now that you've turned it against the naming convention, rather than the content itself, my point regarding whether it should be discarded on grounds of being a neologism is indeed applicable. Also, I fail to see a more appropriate article for the discussion of manipulating global variables with subroutines than an article exclusively devoted to the subject matter. -Caudax 23:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I never said anything against the naming convention: it's the name used by the authors, after all. I'm saying that the content and coinage itself does not meet Wikipedia's standards. —Piet Delport 2007-09-19 23:03
        POST MERGE: I'm going to respond to all three posts here because rampant discussion forking is only going to make this a lot more annoying to read. Right, with that said. Re: "I don't see a single mention of PDP's Accumulate and Fire pattern anywhere." I don't see a single mention of it (PDP) in the article either, and just for certainty I did just go through every single revision to check, so my point, as it has been from the beginning, is that this is concerning the practice in general and not strictly in terms of how PDP views it. (Heck, I can't even see how we can make a differentiation between the two to begin with. PDP's accumulate and fire is about the practice in general itself. The only thing specific to PDP is the terminology.) Furthermore, the page itself makes no references to Perl at all, but instead makes references to COBOL and BASIC, so your claim that this article must be specific to PDP's version of accumulate and fire is even more bizarre. Once again, I've checked every single revision to be sure of this. (For historical purposes, this is the most recent revision as of this writing.) The only part of this article that is specific to PDP is the name "accumulate and fire," which I've put forth is more of a tentative title than anything else because it's just one way you could possibly name the subject matter. Too many globals itself is probably a more indicative title of the subject matter, although also misleading because it isn't the quantity but rather the use of global variables that constitutes this practice. Needless to say, your insistence that this article is meant to adhere to PDP's specific pattern is not only empirically disproved and nonsensical (in that PDP itself discusses the general practice) but also constitutes a neat form of odd specificity that would force us to be left with only PDP itself, forcing us to discard all other sources as irrelevant since they do not specifically conform to PDP which result in the article substantiating the claim of non-notability (which, truth be told, I am now somewhat tempted to suspect has been your intention all along in suddenly applying this criterion, seeing as it has been interestingly absent of all discussion prior to my involvement of those links, but I'll assume good faith anyway, especially considering your efforts to improve wikipedia, rather than assuming you would be disrupting wikipedia to prove a point for whatever reason, possibly your pride, in which case one would be gaming the system, which I take it would be quite unlike you), although you have for a while completely neglected my points on how we should ignore the notability guideline altogether with respect to this article, and perhaps that is merely because you disagree with my making this the occasional exception. (Then again, I largely disagree with these notability guidelines altogether.) Anyhow, merging the article into shared memory is also problematic since this is not exclusively inter-process communication we are discussing, and any attempts to expand it beyond that could potentially result in original research problems, although I suppose it should be possible to comment on how global variables can be taken to constitute a form of shared memory in intra-process communication. The article could be merged into the global variable article, as could the action at a distance article, but perhaps it is better to leave global variables themselves in one article and practices concerning them in another. Essentially, this is reasonable, but I see no real need. Re: "I never said anything against the naming convention." You discussed "dragging them into a battle over this obscure coinage," and coinage, as per dictionary.com, means "an invented or newly created word or phrase," although it can also mean "anything made, invented, or fabricated," for that matter. However, your comment about "the content and coinage" later differentiates the two, so you are evidently not discussing the content when referring to coinage but rather "an invented or newly created word or phrase" (which is synonymous with neologism), dragging the naming convention into the matter. Also, the naming convention is the only part of this article specific to PDP's accumulate and fire. Lastly, I did look into the matter with the editor Eep²/Gamer Eek, and I find mostly that he simply has his own view of how the world works, and finds people who disagree to be simply wrong. I suppose at least he didn't waste people's time that much with getting to the point that he thinks you're wrong, and then the discussion, if any, instead of going through a lengthy discussion whereupon it slowly becomes apparent that he thinks others are simply/unequivocally wrong. Beyond that, he probably also ran into a few issues with the cabal. You haven't, however, stated, how that relates to the discussion at hand, so I'm guessing (not sure) that you mean that you don't agree that you should ignore all instances of ignore all rules (WP:IIAR), but you haven't exactly reconciled this with your own criterion of "pretty extreme justification," so... maybe you really do agree with IIAR? Also, there's a lot I've mentioned before that you haven't responded to. At any rate, if you could answer, that would be nice. Thank you. -Caudax 07:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources, or delete. Without sources, it simply does not matter how useful or interesting anyone thinks this is: Wikipedia is not a vehicle for publishing original ideas. —Piet Delport 2007-09-17 00:55
- I think I've given several responses to this line of reasoning already. In addition to that, I'll go back and point out that I'd like to ignore all rules to "to improve [and] maintain Wikipedia," as I've established before. -Caudax 20:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've asserted that the article is in a "fledgling state", but this simply isn't true: it's had 4 years—almost half a decade—for references to be found.
    I don't believe you've actually established that ignoring the rules improves Wikipedia in this case. What about this article makes it an exception? —Piet Delport 2007-09-18 22:19
    - Now I believe I'm the one who already addressed the point, and I do hope we're not talking past each other. (As mentioned above, lack of progress is due to neglect (grand total of 19 edits before you put up the notability tag), not because the article is irremediable. Thus, the fact four years have passed does not at all prove that efforts to improve the article are futile.) Furthermore, this is dangerously bordering on wikilawyering, points two and three specifically, but I'd like to point out that on the talk page, the second part of the third paragraph of the post you haven't addressed on the talk page yet specifically goes over this. If you don't find my reasons to be sufficient to suit your tastes (and judging by your criterion of "pretty extreme justification" and fine appreciation of WP:IIAR[83], nothing short of "Global nuclear war will happen if we don't ignore the rule." seems to be sufficient justification for your tastes), that is fine. If you insist that I failed to answer your request, however, that would just be silly. Lastly, thanks for sharing your thoughts. -Caudax 23:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - We're talking past each other. :)
        As i said above, it seems that you're talking about a discussion of global state sharing in general, while i'm talking about PDP's Accumulate and Fire pattern (the specific subject of this article). There's obviously nothing wrong with the former, and Wikipedia needs it: it should just be covered in other, more appropriate articles (see above), not this one. —Piet Delport 2007-09-19 23:03
      - Addendum: For the record, that discussion you link to involves a problem editor who continually claimed IAR as a catch-all excuse for disruptive editing (for which he has since been unanimously banned from Wikipedia). —Piet Delport 2007-09-20 00:58
Keep. I think associate author should add some picture and citation so that it gives a clear view. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 07:47, 18 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 a snowball delete. Acalamari 18:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone Effect[edit]

Tagged for speedying but seems to me not to fit, so I changed it. To me, should be deleted per WP:NEO as it seems to be something someone came up with and is trying to promote Daniel Case 01:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only does the article fail WP:NEO but all of the sources listed do not mention a relation between the two effects, and two of them don't even cover the price drop. --Michael Greiner 01:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NEO. Sasha Callahan 02:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, synthesis of sources talking about slightly related things. None of the sources uses the term "iPhone effect". --Dhartung | Talk 04:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly, insignificant, unpublished concept. - Shiftchange 05:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as WP:NEO. 1redrun ^Talk 08:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NEO. Thin Arthur 08:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unpublished, not notable. • Lawrence Cohen 16:56, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Officerships[edit]

Vague and confusing essay, appears to be almost solely a direct quote of vaguely attributed source material. Eleland 01:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Not an encyclopedic article by any stretch of the imagination - and it is likely that tidying up will make no difference given the vague subject matter. --manchesterstudent 12:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless improved and sourced.Biophys 01:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely biased. The duties of an officer is to uphold the right of the Communist Party to dictate what's what and defend the Supreme Soviet :) . The duties of an officer is to defend the Her Majesty, The Queen, and The Realm. 132.205.44.5 22:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 01:58, 16 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 --Haemo 00:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The First Birobidzhan International Summer Program for Yiddish Language and Culture[edit]

This article fails WP:N, it could be mentioned in the article for the Far Eastern State Academy, but this does not exist. Russavia 01:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Kotlerman gidonb 11:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, a nonnotable endeavor yet. No assertions of any significance. It is even unknown whether the event happened at all. `'Míkka 01:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - This article is a notable entry. In 2007, for the first time in the history of Yiddish studies, a summer program on Yiddish language and culture took place in Birobidzhan, the capital of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. Since 1934, Birobidzhan has been the only place in the world where Yiddish has status as the state official language. This program is associated with Bar-Ilan University. The Jerusalem Post and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency have written articles about this program. These are reliable sources commenting on a cultural event relevant to both Yiddish studies and the Jewish Autonomous Oblast's history. Culturalrevival 19:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN event. gidonb 07:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete as an article for a particular year of a conference, summer program, etc.,, which are very rarely notable. And can't have a series one yet, as its just the first & we don't know if there will be more. But the material could probably be turned into an article on Yiddish in Birobidzhan, with a different emphasis. That's what most of the material supports. DGG (talk) 22:53, 17 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; humerous indications it is hoax. `'Míkka 01:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Gisele Angelique of Portugal[edit]

Patent hoax created by a SPA. Portugal is a republic & doesn't have princesses of any sort, and there's no member of the former royal family I can find by this name. Even in the (highly unlikely) event that she does exist, every single line of this would be unsourced POV & an obvious BLP violation. Besides, I somehow doubt an "active member of the Catholic Church" would really "travel to promote pro-life issues". Since hoaxes can't be prodded/speedied, and it doesn't quite slip into "nonsense" territory, off you go... — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Such a waste that it has to go to AfD. We really need speedy criteria for these occasions. Delete as OR. the_undertow ^talk 01:28, 11 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 delete and salt as material recreated after previous deletions. Daniel Case 01:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunplus[edit]

I think this article is basicly advertising. I nominated it for speedy deletion but the author removed the tag. Banana 01:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the tag so another admin can take a look. The author failed to use the 'hangon' template and you were certainly welcome to restore your speedy tag, instead of bringing it to AfD, just FYI. the_undertow ^talk 01:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy under G11 - yeah, that's a CSD page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:53, 11 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, BLP issues. In addition, the only keep comments are from the subject himself and are highly disruptive to this process, so it could be considered a snowy close as well. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Kayyuen Lo[edit]

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

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

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

Appears to be non-notable. Although there is an imdb page it does not list any appearances and none of the appearances listed on the article page have any references. They also all appear to be insignificant parts. The page keeps getting vandalized with BLP violation material. This isn't a reason to delete an article we should have, but it does illustrate that keeping a non-notable individual is not free to us, it will require effort on the part of the community. SiobhanHansa 01:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We cannot have these bios that are unsourced. the_undertow ^talk 01:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source I could find to back up the filmography was a petition from the president of his fan club to IMDb. Hardly reliable, and hardly establishes the notability. All claimed appearances are very minor anyway, which doesn't fit WP:BIO from the start. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The president of his fan club writes in the exact same way which shows that it is really just him. There is a petition to get him banned from the net, plus negative comments made about him in a number of places which implies that he has annoyed a huge number of people. The movies and tv shows he claims to be in are never backed up with any definate proof. He is also now attempting to bribe the editors like on IMDB by saying about giving this site an award for best website.Truesora 13:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Truesora[reply]
Delete This biography is not reliable as there is no references to find the parts or any way to confirm the parts listed. No IMDb account has listed these roles, and they only thing that says the like is his so called "fan club" and himself. Nothin else, definitely delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.233.152 (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I am a true actor! If this page get deleted, Than my fans will be very angry. You should know that The_undertow, Hersfold, Truesora, & 70.177.233.152 are trolls from IMDb threating me.

Please read my IMDb Page Again by going to my IMDb Resume at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2397348/resume Please try to understand, I am a real actor! —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdmundKLo (talk • contribs)

Comment What the above user is actually quite true, and I am somewhat ashamed to admit my role in this AfD. After Edmund stole my girlfriend with witty tales of Bea Arthur and the acting days of yore, I shaved my head, worked-out and got tattoos. I spent a year on Wikipedia, and during a failed night of drunken phone calls to my ex, I decided to become an admin - all fully-knowing, watching day after long, restless night, that the day would come that Edward would have his article brought to AfD and I, the_undertow, would have the pleasure of destroying him by not deleting him, not blocking him, but by pointing out that his article lacked sources. I can finally breathe the air again. the_undertow ^talk 05:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliance, pure brilliance. Oh, and delete, as per WP:BIO and WP:V. east.718 at 10:23, September 13, 2007

Don't Delete I am going to give a $2,000.00 award to this site for best web on September 25'2007 & this is not a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdmundKLo (talk • contribs)
Don't Delete. This site will stay online! Think about Wikipedia Admins. $2,000.00 is a lot og money. Please keep this site online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdmundKLo (talk • contribs)
You've got a long way to go. east.718 at 10:33, September 13, 2007

Don't Delete It not right for users to threating an actor. Everyone should know that me (Edmund Kayyuen Lo) is the best actor & a great singer. So please belives me by not delete this page. If this page get into deletion, It will make my fans upset & very angry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdmundKLo (talk • contribs)
Delete - No reliable sources provided that verify he's ever done anything notable. IMDB site doesn't list any parts. Anyone that shells out US$25 a month can print pretty much anything they want to on InstantCast --Onorem♠Dil 11:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 11:59, 13 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 Redirect (probably merge too, given comments) to Steve Perry. --Haemo 22:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Project (band)[edit]

Non-notable band other than the fact that Steve Perry left it shortly before joining Journey—the band had been together for about six months or less. Any necessary information on the band can be included in the Steve Perry article per WP:MUSIC: it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. As it is, the Alien Project article is based on information taken from two fansites, not from reliable sources. I started this AfD, changed my mind and simply redirected the page, but the author reverted my redirect so here we are. Precious Roy 00:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no bark in this dog - the very definition of non-notable band. MarkBul 02:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Devil's advocate The full sentence from the guideline mentioned by the nominator is Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. Personally, I would say this should be a redirect, but a case could be made for it per WP:BAND. faithless (^speak) 03:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, I am the author of this article and think the band is notable as per WP:MUSIC guidelines, as they produced the first recorded works featuring Steve Perry on vocals, later and best known as the lead singer of Journey. The Steve Perry article does not sufficiently cover the Alien Project, briefly mentioning the band in two sentences. Another member of the Alien Project band, drummer Craig Krampf, went on to become a hit songwriter with two songs that reached the "Top 40" on the Billboard Hot 100 charts and as a producer. Some (not all) of the information quoted in the article is hosted on a fansite, but includes record company biography material so I believe it is considered a reliable source. The other sources, including album liner notes, are also credible. Given the era it is difficult to locate other published references. Z00ropean 03:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: clearly not notable apart from Perry; seems to be one of a number of small bands he was in; no references to establish notability apart from fansites. David Mestel^(Talk) 16:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Note: I have now located a published reference (book) to the Alien Project story and updated the article accordingly. I have also added a link to the 'official' record company biography referring to Perry's history in the band. Oddly enough, after reviewing WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:VERIFY, I cannot locate a specific guideline that says referencing a published article (i.e. originating from a magazine, newspaper, etc) that is hosted on a personal website is not considered a reliable source. Regardless, the article is credible based on its other references, even without the one reference to a 'fan site'. I will repeat the band is notable due to the accomplishments of Perry and Krampf, both of whom had successful careers subsequently, including their work together on Perry's first solo album Street Talk. Z00ropean 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not a question of whether or not the band existed, or even if Steve Perry was a member? The question is: Is Alien Project notable aside from the fact that Steve Perry was a member. As for using a fan site for a reference (even when the document referenced purports to originate from a reliable source), I think this is the guideline you're looking for, and it states, the linked version should be checked for accuracy against the original, or not linked at all if such verification is not possible. The other references you've added are still only trivial mentions (the interview with Krampf is about him, not about Alien Project, a band that took up less than 6 months of his musical career). Really, to establish the notability of this band, you'll need to show multiple, non-trivial published references, which, considering the incredibly short period of time the band existed, seems unlikely. Precious Roy 11:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The book I quoted is not trivial, it's a book about the history of drums & drummers including Kramph, and there's a whole page dedicated to Alien Project and his work afterwards. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that the band Alien Project was more than just "Steve Perry's old band", it was also a vehicle for Kramph who became a success in his own right. So from the top let's remember that the WP:MUSIC guidelines for notability state: "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." I have answered the original criticism that the article is only "based on information taken from two fansites", there are other credible references established. I have also established two of the 12 WP:MUSIC guidelines, one for the members, one for published works (although you continue to debate that). The music they produced has even been released on Steve Perry's remastered Street Talk CD, so it's available for listening today, it's not some strange work that never saw the light of day. It's clear we do not agree, but it's a shame you put this much energy into deleting content instead of creating it. I would welcome help to improve the article, to me that's the whole point of Wikipedia's collaborative style. Z00ropean 21:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Quick rebuttals (I'd hate for you to feel worse about me spending any more time on this): The book is not trivial; it's the content regarding Alien Project that's trivial. Alien Project is not how Craig Krampf became notable, either. The primary references for the article are fan sites. It's not that the band is "some strange work", it's that it is not notable. It was a footnote is Steve Perry's and Craig Krampf's careers and deserves a brief mention in their articles and that's about it. Precious Roy 22:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:16, 9 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 00:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Steve Perry (musician) per WP:BAND, which states "it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such". This band isn't notable enough for its own section, but can be mentioned on Steve's page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has place to be. M.V.E.i. 21:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. This band is probably not notable at all aside from the fact that Steve Perry was in it (the article even says Before he became the famous lead singer of Journey, vocalist Steve Perry sang for a number of small, unknown bands). The band needs to be notable in itself to be worthy of an own article. My question is: are they any reliable sources that cover the band as a band in its own right, and not as "the obscure garage band that Steve Perry was part of before he became famous"? I couldn't find any. Any relevant info may be merged into Steve Perry (musician), and then we can redirect this. Melsaran (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under WP:MUSIC criterion #6. People often reach for WP:INHERITED in cases like this, but I think the situation is already better explained under WP:MUSIC. I quote: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." So, under that rule, this article clearly shouldn't be deleted, but should be merged or kept. The key point under WP:INHERITED, as I see it, is whether, and I quote again, "if there is not enough independently verifiable information to support a stand-alone article, merge the content into the parent article and create a redirect." Here, as there does seem to be enough "independently verifiable information to support a stand-alone article" (it does not matter whether that material is about the band in its own right or not, pace Melsaran), then we should keep rather than merge. WP:INHERITED goes on: "Often, sub-articles are created for formatting and display purposes, however - this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums." Again, here there are reasons "in the context of ease of formatting and navigation" to have this page separate from Perry's. Bondegezou 16:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Criterion #6 goes on to say "it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." That part, which you chose to overlook in your argument, has been mentioned at least 3 times in the course of this AfD. Also, there is not enough "independently verifiable" content: the majority of the information comes from a fan site—not a reliable source. And I'm not sure I understand how having an article for this band "ease[s] formatting and navigation"; that sentence even gives "books and albums" as examples, considerably different from music artists. Precious Roy 18:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your response suggests I haven't explained myself well! I was not overlooking the rest of criterion #6: the rest of what I posted was specifically tackling that issue, of whether it would be better to cover Alien Project under Steve Perry or in its own article. WP:BAND doesn't really give any guidance as to which cases are better handled with stand-alone articles and which are better handled through merges/redirects. Thus, in trying to answer that question, I turned to WP:INHERITED and the bit of WP:INHERITED that I feel often gets overlooked! There is indisputably some independently verifiable information given in the article now; and I dispute that the majority of the information is from a fan site. Ergo, I feel there is "enough independently verifiable information to support a stand-alone article". (If you are concerned about the quality of some of the sources used, then a clean-up tag to that effect seems more appropriate than deletion.) As for "eas[ing] formatting and navigation", to cover this material under Steve Perry would make a long article longer. Moreover, as Craig Krampf is also notable, it seems clumsy to me to repeat material about Alien Project under both Perry and Krampf. The quotation does give "books and albums" as examples, but those are examples, not an exhaustive list. Bondegezou 19:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The band's history can easily be summed up in a paragraph or two at the most. They were around for less than six months and never released anything. (Did they even play any shows? The article doesn't say.) They almost signed with a major label but even that is not notable in and of itself. The page should redirect to Steve Perry; a shorter mention can go in the Craig Krampf article, with a link to Steve Perry. That seems pretty simply organized to me. As for the length of the Steve Perry article, a quick read-through shows me that it could use some serious fat-trimming. Precious Roy 21:01, 19 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. John254 01:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas R. Grover Middle School[edit]

Does not assert notability and reads like an advertisement for the school's curriculum. Tomj 00:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. WP:NOT the school's webpage.Keep per notability assertions recently added. --Fang Aili ^talk 00:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District. The district article exists, the article in question makes no current claim of notability, and there is no legitimate reason not to change this to a redirect. If, at some point down the road, there is additional information available to demonstrate notability, the article could be changed from a redirect to a standalone article. Alansohn 00:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Keep Based on changes made to article and sources added, the article satisfies the notability standard. Alansohn 13:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support the redirect Tomj 01:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support the redirect also. --Fang Aili ^talk 02:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Changed to keep above.[reply]

Keep I think parts of the article that sound a bit like an advertisement can easily be improved. The article has too much encyclopedic information about the subject, and that information would be lost in a merge. This is one of the better middle school articles that I've seen. Noroton 01:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing in the article that hints at Wikipedia notability. Just another garden-variety school. A recitation of facts does not an encyclopedia make. Do they send more students to Harvard than any other such school? Is the school built on top of a diamond mine? What makes it notable among middle schools? MarkBul 02:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notability Actually, they may well send more students to a place like Harvard than any other school. Students from the school win national and state brainpower competitions quite often. See the "Awards and recognition" section that I just added. Keep in mind that it's in Princeton, so some of these kids may be well-endowed in the brainpower dept. Noroton 02:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 03:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's as notable as any middle school can be and far more solid of an article than most. Can't see a reason to split hairs. Deleting the sort of article would harm Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. Wikidemo 03:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So all schools are above average? MarkBul 04:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve the references for each paragraph. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It meets the notability guidelines on Wikipedia, and even if it is "just another school", it should still be recognized as an article.styrofoam1994 22:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep About 85-90% I would vote a middle school for the waste basket, but the notability is asserted there.--JForget 00:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per styro. Twenty Years 08:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of well-sourced notability. TerriersFan 01:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article now meets our guidelines for notability. Yamaguchi先生 00:52, 16 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, as there is at least one third party reliable source, [84], discussing this game extensively (the other German-language reference, [85], mentions this game only in passing, stating that a version of OGame for wireless telephones is being developed, in the context of an article concerning the release of a version of a different game for wireless telephones.) There does, however, appear to be a consensus that, due to the popularity of the game, it is probable that additional coverage in third-party, reliable sources can be found. John254 01:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OGame[edit]

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

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

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

Online war game. While it may have lots of players, it seems like there is no press coverage. I don't think this game meets WP:WEB. -- Ben 00:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear. I play this game. I like this game. I just don't think that now is the right time to have an article about it. If there are reliable, secondary sources out there... I'm very open to being wrong on this one. -- Ben 00:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of computer or video games-related deletions. —-- Ben 00:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Ogame for wiki is a good idea because only Ogame administrators edit it. They don't allow info or links or comments that they don't approve of even though it is relevant to ogame. Thats not fair to haw only half of the info about ogame thats really out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.51.22 (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I received a comment very similar to this on my talk page here. While I don't buy into the philosophy espoused by the comment, I do think that an article with no sources might tend to produce an effect like this. -- Ben 05:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm one of those guys who edits the site dedicated to cheat devices that the above continues to post. The site is also in large a copyright violation. I dont think we need a wiki for it either anyway if the developers of wikipedia couldn't care less about illegal sites being linked to from their site (yes, the site is actually a violation of copyright laws. That and why would you wanna push so hard to link a site that hosts devices used to cheat the honest players? I personally want to be able to play without random kids cheating to get ahead of me.
Yours truely.... a NON gameadmin
GFasian 05:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not going to address the issues apparently exitant between the editors of the article, I am going to advocate deletion per insufficient notability at this time, with no prejudice for re-creation if these demands are later met. Also, without taking a stand on the issue of validity of the copyright violations claimed by the poster above (as it's really not my bailiwick), there is, in any case, cause for some kind of action. --Agamemnon2 05:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to mr. 69.37.51.22, an ex player now of uni 9: He is just advertising his site, promoting cheats and trying to destroy the comunity. I'm sure many people agree that cheating in a multiplayer game is lame and harmfull for it. Looking at the history shows lots of people editing his link, not just admins. And by the way lets not forget that the admins work for free here and are member of the ogame comunity that wanted to get involved and make a difference.
Last time I checked wiki's response to this kind of advertising (you do know it's his own website?) was to black list it, not delete the topic. Just my 2 cents.
89.137.42.254 07:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though I personally hate it, Ogame is unbelievably popular; probably one of the most, if not the most popular browser-based online game in the world. I would think at this point one would need to give proof of non-notability, rather than ask for proof of notability, to justify the article's deletion. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 07:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep from someone who never ever even considered playing Ogame, but knows it is insanely popular. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dark Shikari and Ouro cover my exact reasoning. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you make ogameblog.com the bad guy for having a couple articles on "illegal programs" not literal cheats; Then what do you think of geologists, fleet admirals, technocrats...??? if you pay you can legally "cheat"!!! Ogameblog does not promote cheating! However it is a site about EVERYTHING OGAME and cheating is only one aspect of it. Wether you like it or not IT IS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.30.245 (talk • contribs)

the guy with ogameblog is trying to make money and sell t-shirts. If you want real guides to ogame look at the other links. Cheating is only part of the game after you promote it. Besides that site violates copyright rules. It's not to be allowed.
just a though: lets spam every game article on wiki with advices on how to cheat and ruin it for everybody else. j/k. Pointing out the obvious. Some things don't need to be shown in a public encliclopedia.
we obviously can't delete the article beause of a lonely cheater that tryes to advertise his website. It's him against the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.137.42.254 (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why delete it? Because of that stupid ogameblog cheater? Forget about him. How can you delete an article about the most popular browser game out there? 212.62.97.21 14:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The site would be ok if it wasn't for the cheating, and copyright violations. As it stands now though the continual addition of his site is pathetic. I guess I am more on the wall about deleting though. I will continue to remove his link however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GFasian (talk • contribs) 14:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refocus attempt. I have the feeling that I'm spitting in the wind here, but I think I should at least say this... This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with any external links that are or aren't in the article!!! This discussion is about whether or not the subject of this article meets WP:WEB. The only arguments that address this (so far) are "it's very popular." If you would like to talk about the issues with the external links, that discussion should be taking place over here. If you would like to talk about how much you like OGame... that goes over here. If you think the subject of the article meets WP:WEB (and you have read WP:WEB) then please explain how. Here. Thanks, guys. -- Ben 14:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Heise online called it "Europe's largest browser-based MMOG" [86] (last paragraph, it's in German) - that's got to be pretty notable, no? That being said, I think the article needs to be cleaned up significantly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by M2Ys4U (talk • contribs)

Kepp having 2,000,000 accounts for an online, browser game would denote some form of notability (Yes I know popularity != notability) I have added a reference to support that number of accounts too ([87]) - Fosnez 02:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for adding the reference. Thanks for noting that popularity is not notability. I regret that labusinessjournal.org is not a reliable source. From here we have the following: "Here you can publish your articles and add up to 3 links to your website(s)." Not much credibility there. -- Ben 05:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's popular and therefore notable rather than just some random small website. BTW I'm involved here because I looked ogame up on Wikipedia to see what was said here - was surprised to see it listed for deletion. zoney ♣ talk 15:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've heard of this game before knowing about the existence of it's article here, so I suppose notability must be asserted; of course, this reason may be unreliable, since my case could maybe be one in a million. ♠TomasBat 23:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I'm really glad that you had heard of the subject before you saw the article on wikipedia. That's cool. But I don't think that is a criteria set out by WP:N or WP:WEB. -- Ben 17:49, 15 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. Maxim_(talk) 15:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Arctic[edit]

Expired prod but I'm sure the Lego WikiProject will want to give its two cents on the subject. Pascal.Tesson 00:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as all the other Lego themes have their own articles (see List of Lego themes) and some of them are pretty nice Lego Pirates, showing that an encyclopedic treatment of these lines is possible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand I think it just need some work. Has anyone notified the concerned WikiProject? Maybe they can fix this article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lego. I assume this is the right thing to do. I know nothing about sources for Lego. Peace --TreeKittens 01:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note WP:N "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" Is this product notable? I see no evidence of it in the article. MarkBul 02:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be found to establish notability and ensure that the article content is verifiable per WP:N and WP:V respectively. Sorry. TreeKittens 01:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a lego catalogue. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:44, 16 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 withdrawn. Nobody is going to bother addressing the directory-like structure, so I'm not going to bother with this AfD. Remember folks: Wikipedia is not a directory, unless you are really popular.-Wafulz 13:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Heroes graphic novels[edit]

I'm a huge fan of Heroes, but Wikipedia is not a directory. The material that actually discusses the graphic novels is short and can be merged into the main article. Wafulz 00:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the concerns raised above, while valid, would be better addressed by expanding and re-titling this article to properly cover the webcomic, the themes and story-lines it develops, and its relationship with the series. (If there were only a handful of comics, I might be inclined to support the merger. However, given that there are already over forty issues with no end in sight, deletion would not be a positive step.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 00:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Expanding and retitling" is effectively writing a new article. Right now this article is a list of links poised on becoming a list of links combined with a list of plot summaries. The little content about the comics themselves can be merged into the main article, and relevant plot details about characters can be added to the individual or "list of characters" articles.-Wafulz 00:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with List of Heroes episodes. These are part of a story arc that is notable, and therefore, I believe we should not delete this info. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: If this article is merged with List of Heroes Episodes, maybe the product of the two should be renamed "Heroes Story Arc". J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 01:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How does this differ from List of Heroes episodes, or any other "list of X episodes" article? Metao 01:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is more or less the same as NBC's website. If people want Heroes comics, they can go to the Heroes comics website. We're not here to mirror a company's product.-Wafulz 01:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most networks provide episode guides as well, and there are numerous sites dedicated to episode guides. Duplication is no big deal. Im not saying that this article should have immunity from deletion just because there are lots of other episode guides on Wikipedia. Im pointing out that deletion of this episode list is a precedent for deleting every episode guide on Wikipedia, and I dont believe that that is your intention, or indeed a good idea. Metao 02:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those lists typically lead to articles though. These are just external links.-Wafulz 02:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Wikipedia's supposed to be an encyclopedic reference, isn't it? How isn't this encyclopedic or referential? Crazydiamond1to9 06:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep i'm all for keeping it. not sure how it would merge into the episode list page, so i'm for the keep. merging with the episode list would probably confuse those that don't read the comics. if it wasn't for this wikipedia page, i'd never have known about the comics. i've only been to the NBC site once (last week) to get details of the new comic to update wikipedia. if wikipedia was already updated, i'd never have went to the NBC site. this may sound weird, but i prefer to find out things from wikipedia, rather than each and every tv programme's site. why have 1, 5, 10 sites, when i can have this one!! i come here every monday/tuesday, to view the new comic (in pdf format) and get any other new info. i know of a few USA TV sites that restrict (or don't allow at all) international internet users to view their site (SHO springs to mind), therefore this list is great for me! granted NBC don't restrict me in viewing their site, but that day might come, and then how will i get my comic fix?!? this page gives the links to the comics, but also the 'easter egg' information, which i can't get by viewing the pdf file, as the easter egg is flash only. now the comics are being released in hardcopy, (however it will probably only be sold in the US, so i STILL miss out!) it is probably more of a reason to keep the page, as no doubt the hardcopy would get a page of it's own. if i knew of any other site that gave the same info as this page, then i'd maybe use it. however, i don't know of any other, and i don't want to have to join any, just to get a link. i agree with what was said by Metao, if you delete this guide you'd be as well deleting every other episode guide, and why stop there? album song lists surely fall under the same scope as episode guides, no? and tv/film/game character pages too? Geeness 08:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Everything on Wikipedia is put there with a reference, so everything on this website is essentially duplicated from the rest of the Internet and collected here. Your logic seems to lead to the eventual deletion of the entirety of Wikipedia. This list is encyclopedic, this list is useful, and it should be allowed to remain. To merge this with the main article would be to break the flow of the main article, since the list now stands at fifty issues and will continue to grow for as long as Heroes runs. It is too long to merge with anything else and should not be deleted, as such, it should be kept, very definitely. Add that to the fact that in fact, this list is much more easily accessible than NBC's version on their website (just to counteract an argument by Wafulz, above) and I don't believe there is any real reason to get rid of this. Certainly the main thrust of opinion is against Wafulz's proposal. John Coxon 11:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It would be ridiculous to get rid of an article like this, from Wikipedia. Not only does it provide integral AND original information pertaining to Heroes, but it's organized quite nicely. There's no real reason to merge this, as it acts as a stand-alone archive for the Heroes graphic novels anyways. Everything about this article is as solid as any other venerable article on this site. Keep it. 74.12.11.152 12:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Joe Caron[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 05:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars prequel trilogy references to the original trilogy[edit]

As succintly as a certain message board poster said, "the page is mostly "Episode 1 had white dudes. Episode IV had white dudes. This is a reference!" Will ^(talk) 22:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list will become way too long, and Wikipedia is not a directory.131.215.108.218 22:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally unreferenced, and appears to be pure original research. And very trivial in places - the words "not yet" are used in two films; that has to be a deliberate reference, hasn't it? Belongs on a fan-site, not Wikipedia. Maybe transwiki to Wookieepedia? Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 00:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - List is already way too long to be of any value beyond a trivia dump. Totally unreferenced, and OR, as mentioned above, and some of the entries appear to be somewhat hasty OR at that, listing coincidences or mere similarities as "references" between the works. ◄Zahakiel ► 15:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not needed. • Lawrence Cohen 20:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too long, and too trivial. Mearnhardtfan 19:20, 14 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.