< September 14	September 16 >

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no claim of direct notabilty, no sources to boot as well. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 00:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith sorensen[edit]

Memorial to a non-notable person Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:00, 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 result was speedy keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 19:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Spring Football League[edit]

nn football league that was never formed, only 76 direct google hits that isn't duplicates, even less discounting wikipedia and it's mirrors, and none of them meet WP:V or WP:RS, prod removed for no reason Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 23:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the article states, while the football league never played a game, they came very close, in that they had a full training camp, and it only folded a few weeks before starting. Most leagues that do not make it, and don't deserve a Wikipedia article, never get to the training camp stage. Also, there were a number of notable Arena Football and even future NFL players in the PSFL training camps. I could add those to the list to make the article more substantive. The PSFL had a preview show on Sports Channel America, a major sports network at the time. While many might not remember the short league history, I don't believe that means that it is necessarily unnotable.

For "verifiable" information about the league: [[1]] Dletter 00:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I didn't type in PSFL, just the full name, closing Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 19:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As Dletter notes correctly, the league did organize, arrange schedules, lease stadiums, sell tickets, sign players to contracts, pay salaries, and even held training camps.... but folded a few weeks before its first scheduled game, which I recall was going to be on February 29, 1992. I don't think any failed sports league ever came THAT close to playing a game. As for the "Google" test of notability, it's excellent for current events but NOT for yesterday's news. For instance, take a cruise ship that sank in 1912 with the loss of over 1,000 lives... no, not THAT one, but the Japanese ship "Kiche Maru", which sank in September 1912. If you don't find many google hits, do you conclude that the sinking of the Kiche Maru is not notable? Anyway, ghits are not always the measure of notability. I wish Dletter had voted on this one, but he's right on the money. Mandsford 13:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandahl 01:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy energy drink[edit]

Looks like some original material covering advertisement. I have a hard time seeing anything by this title being neutral. I have seen a fair bit of controversy regarding energy drinks and their possibly harmful effects, but that should be covered with reliable sources at Energy drink. Pekaje 23:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as WP:OR, and not very accurate research either, e.g. how can an energy drink be low calorie? It's a contradiction in terms. ---- WebHamster 23:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy Energy Drinks get their title by using something other than sugar for the temporary "sugar high" that the old energy drinks had. B Vitamins are the very things the human body uses to use the energy already consumed, and does so naturally. Abnormally high amounts of caffeine are not only potentially harmful, but are known to produce dehydration, since caffeine is also a diuretic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.166.101.51 (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC) — 172.166.101.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Calories are not a measurement of sugar, it's a measurement of energy, ergo regardless of the energy source it still needs to be high in calories to supply the "energy". As I said, not very accurate research. ---- WebHamster 10:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure if it is OR or spam due to the link in the text. Also, widely inaccurate in places, the drinks don't use sugar because that is bad, instead they use sucrose??? Whichever, this isn't a Wikipedia article. Nuttah68 07:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ad spam. The only "reference" provided links to a quasi-pseudoscientific "healthyenergydrink" ad site, and then on to a full-on sales web site dontgivemethatbull.com, which make essentially the same claims. Obviously a smear campaign against Red Bull (even the coloration and styling on the ATC Energy Drink cans are similar to Red Bull's). Approaches a CSD G11 criteria. Also encroaches into NPOV and OR in the last two sentences, by first casually suggesting (and then casually denying) that drinking a typical sports or energy drink is like drinking "embalming fluid". Classic drive-by hit-and-run and snake oil advertising method where one plants the desired thought, and then denies it in the fine print for legal purposes (What? No! Who said that? Ha-ha!...). If there is anything encyclopedic, notable, neutral, and verifiable in the article, then it can be deposited at the Red Bull, Energy drink, or Sports drink pages. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 12:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All voters for delete should categorically deny with a yes or no the following : They are receiving kickbacks of any sort ( any benefit or money ) from any company , like a drink maker, whether they claim to produce "energy drinks" or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.166.57 (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC) — 172.132.166.57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Come off it, there is no conspiracy. While I would like to get paid for this, I'm not. --Pekaje 15:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why just the voters for "keep", why not everyone, including you? Just to keep the playing field level of course. Or better yet, why not just you declaring your vested interests? The rest of us will maintain decorum and debate as adults. ---- WebHamster 17:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. No ability to get verifiable and independent sources. I have no conflict of interest. Bearian 17:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per part OR and part advertisement.--JForget 23:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 01:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articulated Body Pose Estimation (Computer Vision)[edit]

Article about a technology in recording human movement; however, I can't find any reliable sources that talk about this technology. A Google search finds scholarly papers that only make one mention of the technology, not enough coverage to meet WP:N. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article represents a general description of the technologies related to extracting articulated body pose, human body pose included. A google search of terms "articulated body pose estimation" reveals 238,000 ^[1] and google scholar returns 6180 ^[2]. This appears to satisfy the coverage requirement. Shinko Cheng 23:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Google scholar finds many articles on this subject, well more than enough sources to write a good article. Very few of the first few hits look trivial. Maybe the nominator searched only for the exact phrase in the article's title? That would have been a mistake, I think. —David Eppstein 23:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you feel strongly about it, it would be nice if you'd add some good references. MarkBul 00:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The trouble is that there are so many relevant looking references that one couldn't possibly cite them all, and it would take a lot of effort and subject-specific knowledge to work them down to a good representative subset. But an overabundance of sources is not exactly a good reason to delete... —David Eppstein 00:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe the nominator searched only for the exact phrase in the article's title? Sadly, this is exactly what I did. Considering your Google Scholar results, I'll just withdraw the nomination and remember to search a little more throughly before putting an article to AfD. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 20:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep AfD should not be used to prod for references. Numerous Ghits completely contradicts the nom--strongly suggest withdrawal. Dhaluza 20:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just attended a talk (loosely) on this topic, and while I don't have the expertise to do much with this article, notability seems pretty clear. Very central issue in computer vision. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonen[edit]

Not a dictionary. WP:NOT Tyler Warren 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marlith ^T/C 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 01:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism, dictionary definition, not so widely known that it deserves an article Fg2 01:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism, don't transwiki. -- Hoary 01:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Scarian ^Talk 02:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 03:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a dictionary entry, doesn't seem all that notable either. Bhimaji 20:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:NEO per Hoary & Fg2, and WP:N per Bhmaji. Bearian 14:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with the above. --Fire Star 火星 05:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy redirect. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Springfield, Simpsons[edit]

Not needed. Tyler Warren 22:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G3 and it is empty as well and as nom stated not necessary. Maybe it can be redirected as well to the Simpsons--JForget 22:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per JForget, a redirect in its place sounds sensible. Scarian ^Talk 02:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either redirect to Springfield (The Simpsons) or just delete. The current version has never had any content due to a speedy deletion of the previous creation. --Metropolitan90 03:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Butler (streetball player)[edit]

A very marginal claim to notability, but probably not enough for inclusion. No references and a Google search on "Kevin Butler" and streetball gives very few hits outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. I didn't see anything that looked like a reliable source. Pekaje 22:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pekaje, unfortunately ESPN no longer owns cityslamtv.com, which was the official ESPN site for the City Slam television show. It's now a tribute site to the show, but I managed to find a cached google page of his former bio page. I added other reference links as well, including clips of the actual television show I found on YouTube. I feel Butler is notable because he has appeared for two seasons on a television show which aired on ESPN. I would not mind this being merged or redirected into a City Slam article, if somebody would write one.--Section8pidgeon 12:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was a time when streetball (basketball played outside) wasn't that notable outside of local legend. Now these guys have sponsors and professional contracts and their own touring "crews" (teams) like AND1 or YPA. As with beach volleyball, streetball has its own celebrities. There probably should be a standard for what's considered notable within the streetball community, although the laissez-faire process may take care of that. Mandsford 16:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely weak, anemic keep. The sources are about as poor as the come. An appearance one time on a TV show doesn't equal notability in my judgment. However it does have one source that is reliable as far as I can tell so I would let it stay.--JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 23:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some info about Butler playing in 1995 for the San Francisco Pilots of the ABA and also added the article to the American basketball players catagory.--Section8pidgeon 08:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of reliable sources, the ABA is a minor league as well. Blahblahme 16:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The ABA isn't a minor league. It's a basketball league in its own right, with it's own Wikipedia article.--Section8pidgeon 09:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a minor league, all minor leagues has wikipedia articles. 131.94.145.132 04:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since he played one or more games in an American Basketball Association team, he qualifies under the draft guideline at Wikipedia:Notabilty (sports)#Basketball, which mentions ABA specifically. If I didn't have the guideline to work from, I would just say 'Weak Keep.' EdJohnston 15:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to Delete because, as the IP explains below, the draft guideline is referring to the original ABA, not the new league that was created in 2000, which seems to be considered a minor league. If Kevin Butler's performance on the new ABA team attracts third-party comment, then the article might be re-created. EdJohnston 05:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It talks about the ABA of the 1970s, not the current ABA 131.94.145.132 04:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Overall im seeing more grounds to kep rather than delete, there is notability and im sure more things could be found to expand it if people looked so it should stay --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability under WP:SPORTS established as per EdJohnston and other references in the article. Noroton 20:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the article from the "American basketball players" catagory, since he doesn't seem to qualify. I'm having the article stand alone under the "Street basketball players" catagory. As a street basketball, or streetball player, I feel he is notable for having appeared on ESPN City Slam for 2 seasons. To appear on television is pretty much the highest level in streetball. I am in the process of creating an article for City Slam. --Section8pidgeon 08:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freeze and Thaw on The Gatineau River[edit]

Original interpretation of unsourced data. Written as to suggest the author collected the data. The subject is somewhat trivial. Alksub 22:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR. The thing that amazes me is how the river knows when it's December 25th and April 6th. ---- WebHamster 22:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, maybe some elements about the freeze and thaw maybe mentionned to the main article (if sourced).--JForget 22:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the article wasn't complete original research, what would its importance be? The main article on Gatineau River doesn't say if there's any impact to shipping or other river usage when the river freezes. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article really doesn't establish that this particular phenomenon is notable for any reason. Even if sources can be found suggesting that the freezing and thawing of the river affects its usage or something, I think it still only deserves a mention in the main article, rather than its own article.--Danaman5 00:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it sounds like an interesting, ongoing school project. However, there are no sources and no establishment of why the freezing of the river is important and needs its own article. Nuttah68 08:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it or dunk it in Gatineau River. It definitely isn't worthy of its own article. If there's a freeze and thaw of the Amazon River or the Congo River, that might be notable. Mandsford 16:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's original research. Note that there's nothing to merge once the original research is removed. -- Whpq 17:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Nomination withdrawn by nominator. — Edokter • Talk • 14:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todor Skalovski[edit]

Delete:based on same information and same reasons as "probable" wife Marija Skalovska; see [2] Watchingthevitalsigns 21:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources in English establish a career that is notable. Article being a stub is no reason for deletion. Nuttah68 08:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say being a stub article (Marija Skalovska, Todor Skalovski) is subject to removal if the info. in the stub cannot be confirmed, much less expanded or updated based on a consensus of editors. User:Nuttah68 provided a Macedonian link for Todor Skalovski's article, but it appears to be an invalid link (I got an error message every time I tried to access it, but maybe that's my ISP). The website in question makes no mention of either artist, nor does it have an internal search engine, when I last checked (30 seconds ago), but I hope somebody lets me know if I got any of this wrong.

I withdraw previous comments as I finally accessed the link (it was my lousy ISP) and the info on Skalovski appears complete and notable. Admin: Please withdraw this nomination for deletion. Sorry. Thanks!! Watchingthevitalsigns 14:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just be bold and redirect this to Lee Carroll. If there is anything I can salvage I'll summarise it in his article. violet/riga (t) 09:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kryon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Not entirely sure how it was not removed 2+ years ago, but I can't see the notability of this. Tagged since December 2005 as OR/unreferenced this article contains far too much content that is not covered by reputable third party sources. Redirecting this to Lee Carroll would probably be the best option. violet/riga (t) 21:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To address the points of the Google test raised in the previous deletion discussion it is clear that "Kryon" returns a plethora of unrelated sites. Adding the word "channelling" does yield other sites that are related, however. I think there is some element of notability here but I don't think that the article in its current state should remain. violet/riga (t) 21:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge In the absence of reliable sources merge into articles on author and books (if they are notable) where appropriate then redirect. This article at the moment is unsupported OR. Nuttah68 08:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the article on the author first--the merge, though not in my opinion a bad idea, would change the nature of the article.DGG (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - I don't think the content is worthy of inclusion, but the concept is worth mentioning at the author's article and this article redirected there. violet/riga (t) 18:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article is the subject of the humor page Wikipedia:Huge message boxes, a parody of tag madness written in May 2005. I got here when I checked up on the article's current status, and I was amazed to find that not only does it still have about as many templates, it's under AFD yet again! szyslak 06:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. I took a look at merging the content, but the referencing is too weak. I'm open to discussion if someone else wants to pursue it.--Kubigula (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rizzo: Year One[edit]

No independent sources, non-notable. Of the five references we have, only one (the authors' website) mentions this book (and a second redirects to that one). Google gives twenty original hits, all of which are either Wikipedia and mirrors or online bookshops. We may take the bookshops as verifying existence, but unless Amazon is by now a reliable source, there are none for the article's content. Prodded, prod removed with comment "I think notability can be proven on this one. I'll tag it as unsourced, but I'm removing the prod. No objection to an AfD, though." So here we are. Huon 21:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any notability on this one, or on the Rizzo article. Some of the links are dead, and at least one bounces to the guy's own site - that's naughty! Assertion of publication, but no references. Google didn't help either. Unless someone can come up with some legitimate references, this is a definite delete. MarkBul 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rizzo. ~~It sounds like this isn't a self-published book.~~ I think we might need some time to look at both this and Rizzo altogether, and possibly come back to AfD if we still come up with zero. -- Ned Scott 06:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, shows up on amazon.com, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0979452406/ with "BookSurge Publishing" as the publisher (which is different than what the article claims). -- Ned Scott 06:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I couldn't find out anything about "KCU Comix & Boox", but books published by BookSurge Publishing clearly count as self-published: The author pays them for publishing, not the other way round. Ned Scott: AfD runs for 5 days. How long do you expect we need before we conclude there are no sources whatsoever? Please note that some of the article's assertions have been tagged as unreferenced for over a month without improvement. Huon 09:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I meant to look at sources for Rizzo. It seems pretty clear that, merge or delete, Rizzo: Year One won't stay as it's own article. If Rizzo overall is notable for it's own article, I could see a small section for this book at the parent article, but it could be that we need to bring Rizzo to AFD as well. -- Ned Scott 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rizzo. I'm the prod-remover here. Seeing as how the book has been shown to be self-published (which doesn't necessarily make it non-notable, mind), a merge into the parent seems appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UsaSatsui (talk • contribs) 21:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just doesn't have the notability, sorry. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 23:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete per nomination --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge reliably sourced material into Rizzo as per UsaSatsui. Noroton 20:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BookSurge is a self-publisher like lulu.com, and there are no reliable sources that comment on this book. So this one fails to meet any of criteria 1-5 in WP:BK. EdJohnston 22:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If the main article is notable, then this is an acceptable subpart. Mbisanz 07:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards 21:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Alabamaboy 00:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Suckley[edit]

Appears to be non-notable. She was the close friend of a president, nothing else. Aqwis 21:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per a lack of notability. A single feature in the Times does not meet the definition of significant coverage. VanTucky ^Talk 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Single feature in the Times? Please note the other nine references in the article, including an entire book: Closest Companion: The Unknown Story of the Intimate Friendship Between Franklin Roosevelt and Margaret Suckley by Geoffrey Ward ISBN 0395660807 (my emphasis). Thanks --TreeKittens 03:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Suckley-Roosevelt letters were published in a 1995 book that received considerable attention at the time (because it was a surprise to even close historians of FDR). The letters themselves were once in the collection of Conrad Black.[3] At worst merge and redirect to Wilderstein, the mansion she owned until her death. --Dhartung | Talk 23:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to me that all of her notability is inherited. She fails to be important when taken solely on her own history and sourcing. While there are notable and useful facts pertaining to her life, they seem to be more relevant for other subjects (such as the FDR, mansion, and book articles) rather than in a biography revolving around her. VanTucky ^Talk 23:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability per WP:N is clearly established by significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Many of these sources are references for the article. Content is clearly verifiable per WP:V by reference to the cited sources. There is absolutely no reason in policy to delete this well referenced and well written article. Notability is determined by the sources - not our opinion. --TreeKittens 01:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. —TreeKittens 02:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. —TreeKittens 02:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per User:Tree Kittens. Sarcasticidealist 03:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced and books have been written on her and her relationship with a president. This does not fall under a notability is not inherited banner, that is to cover trivial mentions. Suckley is a central character here. Nuttah68 08:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communicable Scale[edit]

Contested PROD. Dictionary Definition. TexasAndroid 20:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced violation of WP:NOT#DICDEF VanTucky ^Talk 22:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unreferenced neologism. 12 GHits including Wikipedia and mirrors, those independent have definitions totally different to that given here. Nuttah68 08:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, completely unreferenced, and, does not assert notability. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 20:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abbatial[edit]

Not a dictionary. Tyler Warren 20:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly a violation of WP:NOT#DICDEF. VanTucky ^Talk 22:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no transwiki needed; see wiktionary:abbatial. --Dhartung | Talk 23:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dicdef.--Danaman5 00:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Delete. I think no explanation is required! -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 07:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IDIFTL 12:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ben Germain[edit]

Nonsense, poorly written Tyler Warren 20:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy. Non-notable. A ecis^Brievenbus 21:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely not a notable producer.--JForget 22:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one documentary with school awards - fails notability. However, this will be an interesting subject to keep an eye on. Rklawton 03:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fag bangle[edit]

Non-notable slang term, and this couldn't be expanded beyond a dictionary definition anyway. Urban Dictionary can be edited by anyone and isn't a reliable source. No other references. Melsaran (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to post this both on your page and here however i wansnt sure where i was supposed to air my views....In what way does it differ from the term Fag Hag which has an article? Its a term that is used in popular culture and used on both shows that have been mentioned. It is also written about in the press. see [4] I realise it may not be your perticular cup of tea but i feel that it should be included. it is a new article which i created so that others could edit and add too etc. Is that not the point of wikipedia? — Fagbangle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The following comment was originally posted by me on my talk page, reposting it here for clarity:

Welcome to Wikipedia! I nominated your article for deletion because I don't think that the cultural significance of the term is big enough to warrant a separate encyclopedia article. It arguably couldn't be expanded much beyond a dictionary definition. Also, there were no reliable sources presented in the article that established the notability of the subject, and I couldn't find any of them on Google. Please read WP:NEO and consider whether this is really worth an article. Cheers, Melsaran 21:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the reasons are probably best explained by contrasting it to fag hag: That article has multiple sources discussing the term, at least some of which seem to be published in scientific journals, while this has Urban Dictionary and a few passing mentions in the press. There seem to be no further sources available; Google gives rather few hits, most of them forums, none (that I looked at) reliable sources. Google Scholar and Google Books both came up empty. For comparison, "fag hag" gets 138 and 600 hits, respectively. It's clearly a neologism that hasn't found wide use. Huon 22:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Beyond that, the Ugly Betty reference probably came from a writer who watched Ab Fab, with little or no use in between. I heard fag hag used in the mid-Seventies - I'm sure it goes back a lot longer than that. If and when this one catches on in the same way, it can be added. MarkBul 22:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious and trivial violation of WP:NOT#DICDEF. VanTucky ^Talk 22:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per VanTucky. Into The Fray ^T/C 23:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki or whatever it is they call it when something gets transferred to the Wiktionary part of this site. Author's explanation of the term makes for a good dictionary definition of this neologism, which kind of equates to a "token" gay man that a woman includes when she says "some of my best friends are gay". This actually may be an article somewhere, since it's not uncommon. Just as guys get along better with lesbians than most women do, a lot of women enjoy the company of gay men, and it's seen in film (as in Blast From the Past where Alicia Silverstone and Dave Foley share a house) or in TV (where Jack, Janet and Chrissy put on a charade in Three's Company) Mandsford 17:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think they would accept an entry like this at Wiktionary. See wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Protologisms. Melsaran (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violating WP:NEO, per nom by Melsaran. Bearian 17:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 08:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tomorrow[edit]

The article was originally prodded with the following note: "No proof of notability. Unless Spike Jonze's influence allows it." As the creator of the article, I respectfully disagree, but it's only fair to bring it to the community for discussion. In my eyes, the notability is readily apparent- this commercial was directed by an Oscar nominee and scored by a Grammy nominee, and it has won an incredible number of awards in the advertising industry (as stated in the article and external links)- and many of these awards are notable enough to have already had their own (uncontested) articles. So, obviously my !vote is strong keep, but as this was a contested prod, the AfD should hopefully determine consensus. Kicking222 20:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - winning multiple significant awards clearly is notable, though some additional sources might be desirable - those we have aren't quite what I'd call reliable (excepting Rolling Stone, of course, but that's not truly about the ad). Huon 22:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Huon. J Milburn 13:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Igero bus[edit]

This appears to be a non-notable bus. Even if third-party sources can be established (I can't find any:[5]), than we still have WP:V problems. The Evil Spartan 20:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep So, what it's a non-notable bus? The company started only 3 years ago this bus, let the people know about it. Does it so much heart to have an article about this bus? --Igero bus 06:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like an advertisement, and I was unable to find sources that could verify any notability. --Pekaje 16:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete first it has to become notable. Classic instance of COI. DGG (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons. My Nexis search yielded absolutely no hits, sorry. HG | Talk 22:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant advertising. Biruitorul 06:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted by Mushroom. J Milburn 13:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kealan kelly[edit]

Some highly dubious claims to fame (given virtually no hits on Google). Also some material that could be libelous if not sourced, plus some general nonsense. Pekaje 19:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Newyorkbrad 21:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys (song)[edit]

)

Wikipedia:Notability is about the availability of reliable source material for the article. It is not about importance or fame. The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the song itself or Traffic (band) to develop an attributable article on the topic. Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - User:Pigsonthewing, the top contributor to Traffic (band) per Stats, was banned by ArbCom from editing Wikipedia for a year. Hopefully, that has no bearing on this matter, but I am noting it just in case. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The title track from a very well known and notable album. There's enough information in the article to maintain a stub category that would bog down the main album article. ---- WebHamster 19:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also DRV request relating to prior PROD. --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, allmusic calls it "one of Traffic's greatest songs", presumably others have thought so as well. (As a separate issue, I'm unsure why we need a disambiguation page for two related items, and the DRV poster seemed to think the same way.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge backl to the album article. Just because we can have an article doesn't mean we should - this says very little about the song, and does not establish why we should care. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep per this guideline if (and only if) some sources can be found proving that Phish, Widespread Panic, et al have covered it. Though to be honest I think this should probably just be merged with the album whether it's notable or not. faithless (^speak) 21:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the WSP one. CitiCat^♫ 02:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well-known song. Corvus cornix 21:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The album article is tiny - there's plenty of room there. It wouldn't be possible to make the album page so big that you'd need to split out single songs. If someone searches, they'll find the song entry wherever it is. MarkBul 22:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable song from a notable album from a notable band. Alansohn 01:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As original proposer of this AfD obviously I have an interest but will try & keep NPOV. The original objection to for deleting page (perhaps I should have proposed a merge) mentioned 'popular on college radio'. My days on college radio are long gone, but I would regard that as a minority audience. The song has been covered by Phish & Widespread Panic; however, Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds being covered by William Shatner would not, in itself, be a reason for a separate article on LSWD. --Rodhullandemu 10:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cause I like the song ...but... Comment there are thousands of "XXXX (song)" articles on WP (eg. like this Yikes!!), could a guideline be made for future reference in these cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit2DOS2000 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia talk:Notability_(music)#Songs. No consensus has been reached. Corvus cornix 18:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AfD? --Rodhullandemu 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could I just ask here which part(s) of Wikipedia talk:Notability_(music)#Songs are being relied upon here? This, as I see it it, is not a "top-down" list of criteria for inclusion. Nor, to be fair, should it be; that would be unduly prescriptive. However, forgive me for being WP:NPOV here, but it would make better sense and logic to me that if there is only one track on an album that is important (and I won't multiply examples), and that track can be properly, and efficiently, addressed as a sub-heading of the parent album page, without clogging the page, then it belongs there. I know I'm fairly new to WP editing but, OTOH, there is little I've seen that makes this track out of the ordinary, good though it is. In fact, I'm listening to it right now. --Rodhullandemu 00:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't using the link as an argument in this discussion, but in answer to User:Exit2DOS2000's request for a guideline. Corvus cornix 01:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: the song itself has a separate review at AllMusic, which is not all that common, suggesting above-average notability. The song appears on two concert films. [6] [7] It didn't chart, but then pop songs over 10 minutes long rarely do. The information about bands that have covered it (a list which also includes Gov't Mule) can be verified from on-line setlist databases for several of the bands that have (IMO) enough fact-checking to count as marginally reliable sources. (I also personally own a legal-bootleg of a Gov't Mule cover, so I may have some bias here.) This is the title track of the most popular album by a very influential band for its time. Overall, I'd say a borderline case, but for a song of this vintage, not all sources are necessarily going to be readily available on-line, and I'd say that the evidence strongly suggests that more sources exist. (And I know that "otherstuffexists" isn't an valid argument, but if we have an article about a brief set of sound effects....) Xtifr _tälk 19:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable song from a notable band. Often covered by other bands (I have added references of this in the article). Brianga 00:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You would have done if you had added a "references" heading, but I have now done this for you --Rodhullandemu 01:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Traffic induction page says - "The brooding, jazzy “Low Spark of High Heeled Boys” - which ran for over 11 minutes - triggered Traffic’s greatest popularity." CitiCat^♫ 02:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result wasDelete ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early Balloons[edit]

I nomed for speedy delete twice, both times the tag was removed. Please delete. —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 18:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "The Early Balloons Website was created by two High School kids who update blog entries about various things, most often ranting about these things". No indication of notability, that's why. Mandsford 19:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like an attempt to publicise the website & therefore inadmissible as External link spamming. --Rodhullandemu 19:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:WEB. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Shadowwraith34 (talk · contribs) has been given a warning not to remove speedy deletion templates, but Ignatzmice ought to have given a more robust deletion rationale. --Dhartung | Talk 20:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just something made up in school one day. faithless (^speak) 21:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Obviously not suitable for WP. It is considered vandalism for the author to remove the speedy tag from the article like that. When that happens, just issue template warnings and restore the speedy tag - once they go past the final warning, report them to AIV. The Behnam 02:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've re-added the speedy tag with an explanation. The Behnam 02:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Buchter[edit]

Player has not appeared at top, major-league level Fbdave 18:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 04:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the rookie league a fully professional league? If so, he passes the notability guideline for athletes. faithless (^speak) 21:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. It's the lowest professional level of the minor league system, but it is "fully professional" per the guideline. If minor league players are considered notable, then he qualifies. --UsaSatsui 21:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per my comment above.--UsaSatsui 21:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing comment for now while I suss this one over.--UsaSatsui 23:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Playing in a fully professional league does not mean that he is notable. It is only a guideline. Is there anything else notable about him? Fbdave 22:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball#Players, most minor league players are not considered notable. Fbdave 22:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then the two pages are in conflict. Hmmm. I'll have to sort out which one I agree with more.--UsaSatsui 23:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the rookie leagues aren't even considered to be fully proffesional, it fails the proposed WP:SPORTS guidelines. Blahblahme 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um...you're either a professional, or you're not. They get paid to play, they're professional baseball players. --UsaSatsui 19:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah...I'm going to have to conclude that when you're this deep in the system, you need something else to make you stand out (such as a high draft number or whatnot)--UsaSatsui 19:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The rookie leagues are professional. While I applaud the Baseball project, it does not set standards for articles. That is done on a global basis by all editors. Of all the players who play at the highest amateur level (which is notable I think), only a small group make it to the minor leagues. I would keep. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 23:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Acually 50 rounds of players with over a thousand players drafted per year, easily anyone who started in college, or was very good in high school aren't a "small group". The rookie leagues are more semi-proffesional than anything, it tells if a player is good enough to go a higher league, or if they are just a fluke. It's too soon for creating articles on them. Blahblahme 15:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm gonna say have to say no on this guy, fails proposed WP:SPORTS guidelines.. No sources other than Baseball Cube. Wait till he at least makes AA. Spanneraol 16:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO and WP:BASEBALL. --Truest blue 04:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and nom --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of all known weapons used in hogs of war[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, or a game guide. Similar deletions are carried out for every other game. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarCraft units and structures and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of technologies in Civilization III for examples of the many related deletions. Wafulz 18:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOT. Article is not even well written, has no sources, is pure Cruft--Jac16888 18:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOT#DIR, WP:RS, and also as Jac16888 said it is pure WP:FANCRUFT. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isnt a place for indiscriminate infomation ForeverDEAD 21:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 01:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balabalagan Islands[edit]

Non-notable, but mainly, completely unsourced. Rambutan (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did some searching and couldnt find any information about the islands. -Icewedge 17:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The islands apparently do exist, though there seems to be little information about them. There's no article at all on the Indonesian Wikipedia site. However, since the people here vote to keep articles on every town with a road sign, as with State Line, Pennsylvania, on the grounds that "every town is notable", then an island is more notable than a collection of houses in the middle of nowhere. Mandsford 19:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, geographic features such as islands are generally treated as notable. I have added references, including to alternate names, which will help anyone trying to source it further. --Dhartung | Talk 20:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung Kepulauan Balabalagan generates more hits, but Little Paternoster brought up this account from Voyages in the Southern Hemisphere by John Hawkesworth ~~who was on James Cook's first voyage~~. A bit choppy, apparently. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction actually it was a report of a voyage by a Captain Carteret in 1776-77, but still choppy. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Creating a Gazetteer of places and features of the world is a valid part of trying to create an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia we can attempt a gazetter of the entire planet,actually I'm surprised there doesn't seem to be an official Wiki-project Gazetteer project.KTo288 21:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep Major geographical features are notable. Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary faithless (^speak) 21:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has sources now.
Keep Is now sourced and agree that geographical features are generally notable. Davewild 07:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and sourced. J Milburn 13:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per most of the above.--JForget 23:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Geographical features as islands are notable. This should've been a case of WP:SOFIXIT instead of AfD. --Oakshade 04:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. @pple complain 15:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Leet World[edit]

Recreated CSD A7. Non-Notable movies made from counterstrike. -Flubeca^Talk 17:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of machinima deletions. — TKD::Talk 17:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fancruft, delete under WP:WEB--Jac16888 18:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be deleted, seeing that it does meet the Notability Guidelines. I consulted the administrator that first deleted the article, and he has allowed it for creation. FightingRaven531 19:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— FightingRaven531 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . -Flubeca^Talk 19:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It can't be deleted under WP:WEB as it asserts notability. That's the problem though it only asserts it, it doesn't demonstrate it. It appears to be just another fancruft Machinima series that doesn't stand out from any other of its type. ---- WebHamster 19:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Leet World has been around for approximately 41 days and has gotten approximately 139 plus users in that amount of time. In addition large sums of unregistered users each day come to watch The Leet World. It is a recognized machinima along side other machinimas such as Red vs. Blue. The real bongoboy 22:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— The real bongoboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ---- WebHamster 22:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Inclusion on Wikipedia isn't about popularity; it's about having verifiable information from reliable sources. Red vs. Blue has an article because it has been widely discussed in third-party publications, such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and BBC News Online. — TKD::Talk 12:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Allow recreation ONLY if it can meet WP:V which it can not right now. If the editors can find multiple books with a chapter about this, magazine articles about nothing but this, or national news programs reporting on this, then I would change my mine. It all boils down to national news coverage or coverage in multiple national/international magazines. If we don't have at least 2-3 sources like that (minimum) the article has to go. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 04:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to current lack of multiple reliable sources. The only link given is an interview with the creators, a primary account. Being featured on machinima.com is well and good, but, without more information, that doesn't contribute more than a sentence to the article. — TKD::Talk 12:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete Acalamari 02:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Elemental Heroes[edit]

This page serves no purpose. It's nothing more than fancruft, which we strove to get rid of. Tempest115 15:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure listcruft, no real world info--Jac16888 18:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - serious listcruft, plenty original research and has no use what so ever. Kill it --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft! Kill listcruft! Kill! Kill! Noroton 20:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sid Arthur" and associated articles[edit]

There is a small walled garden of four articles: Sid Arthur; two of his supposed novels, Cats in the Attic and Covered in Bees; and his supposed biographer, Phillip Smith (journalist). All the works referenced are unknown to Google beyond Wikipedia and answers.com. Somebody by the name of Sid Arthur is listed on imdb.com, but there's no evidence for this set of articles. It looks and smells like a hoax to me. William Avery 15:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice it has also been used in vandalism here William Avery 16:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the whole set of associated articles unless some citations can be provided that demonstrate these novels/people exist; I couldn't find any confirmation at all. Accounting4Taste 16:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these manifest hoaxes. (The ISBN given for the supposed paperback edition of Cats in the Attic, for instance, is actually that for an edition of A Clockwork Orange.) Get rid of the images as well. Deor 16:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless proved otherwise this appears to be a hoax. Googling the individual "works" led back only to this article. Looking for the books on Amazon and ebay produced no hits. There were no obituaries for this individual on the websites of the UK broadsheets produced no hits, nor could an obit be found for a former "The Sun" columnist "Bustopher Jones" in that paper's website. Arthur can be found on both TV shows mentioned and the only tangible result was the IMDb entries and Sid Arthur (though IMDb can possibly be hoaxed too). An alternative spelling of Syd Arthur produced only hits for a Kent band. Checking the edit histories these articles appeared more or less in the final form the product of a single editor.KTo288 20:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)KTo288 20:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect the imdb entry is for a genuine, if minor, US TV scriptwriter with this name. There are three users: User:William_Golder, User:Sy234sn, and User:Rev Craig Gannon involved in inserting the actual hoax material. William Avery 21:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be a Sid Arthur that was a scriptwriter on Happy Days all right, from what I can find. But he has nothing to do with the subject of this article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a hoax, and takeoff of the name Siddhartha. Calgary 20:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. No reliable sources; none of the works mentioned seem to have made their way to Google. If there was a Sid Arthur that was so important in the history of "Kitchen Sink" drama, and got an OBE, there would be sources online. I think this article "jumped the shark" when the IMDB link to a real Sid Arthur was added. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. The London Gazette archive shows nobody of this name receiving an OBE in any relevant year. --Rodhullandemu 00:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I think there's an element of an Eddie Izzard-related joke going on here ("Sid Arthur" is a minor character in one of his routines and "I'm Covered In Bees" is one of Izzard's more famous catchphrases). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be made up. If you want a redirect target, consider Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen where SidArthur was the name of a fictional rock band. - fchd 07:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all evidence mentioned here. J Milburn 13:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odyssey Driving Around the World (TV Series)[edit]

Oft-deleted advert promoting a TV series yet to be. Newest attempt loses most of the ad-speak, but still not suuitable. Sourceless and non-notable, with no sign of actual real-world impact. Even spammier versions have already been speedy-deleted several times now: admins with access to deleted versions are invited to check to see for themselves to see exactly how full-blown spam buckets they were.

PROD tag added, but removed by User:C.Fred under the faith-based rationale that he "anticipate[s] that once the show starts airing, there will be reviews and other significant, independent coverage" and we should what until November to see if his faith is rewarded. To which I say: WP:CRYSTAL.

Spamming history
Users

Odyssey (tv series) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
ODYSSEY Driving Around the World? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - brief explanation
Burgieman30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Articles

Odyssey (TV Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Odyssey Driving Around the World (TV Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Throw in the "screenshot" Image:Australiagroup.jpg - odd for a video screenshot to have a resolution of 3072 × 2048 pixels and a non-standard aspect ratio of 1.5:1, no? Calton | Talk 15:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt this and similar name articles to prevent resurrection until the show is actually beyond the WP:CRYSTAL stage. I don't understand why this nomination didn't get more participation from editors. Perhaps it should be relisted. There must be a delsort link that can be added to this. Noroton 20:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Noroton 20:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and not yt existing. Plus the COI of the creator isn't the best thing. Mbisanz 07:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No notability whatsoever. I would recommend that the creator wait until the show airs or is covered in the media by reliable sources before attempting this again - repeatedly trying to push the article through without consensus only hurts your cause. Be Patient. Best, ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Rockaway-Calabreeze[edit]

Recreated deleted article. Article asserts some notability, but no sources to substantiate. Directs to movie database: no match. Google search is similar unhelpful. I can't find any verification of notability. Barring some kind of external evidence, it seems that either the individual may be non-notable or the article is a hoax. Moonriddengirl 14:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Considering the "accomplishments" you'd think this person would be on every gossip page in town (and on the highway). It's got to be a hoax, and not a very credible one. Sounds like a teeny-bopper's night time fantasies.---- WebHamster 15:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hoax. Antonrojo 15:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any verification of any of these claims; apparently wish-fulfillment fantasy. Accounting4Taste 15:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Mango juice^talk 16:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO, can't find any reliable sources.--Luis Augusto Peña ^(talk) 18:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notabilty and per doughnut Google results outside of Wiki.--JForget 23:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep/no consensus (non admin)(same result) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 11:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death threat[edit]

See Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In fact, even a dictionarywouldn't give this term its own entry. "Death threat" is a combination of two very common nouns to produce a term whose meaning is completely clear and unambiguous. -Eric ^(talk) 14:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move Your right that it is a definition and shouldn't be in Wikipedia. However, the page is decent enough that it could be moved to Wiktionary [8], by means of transwiki [9]. Icestorm815 16:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A dic def which, as the nom points out, is not required due to the unambiguous nature of the two nouns. Nuttah68 09:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is simply not true. Death threat has specific legal definitions in various jurisdictions. It is not unambiguous; when law enforcement receives a complaint, they have to determine whether the threat is valid, and what their response will be. --George100 16:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note re "unambiguous": Nuttah68 is merely pointing out that the meanings of the two component nouns are clear. -Eric ^(talk) 17:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And it is obvious that words and phrases have different meanings within different contexts. --George100 06:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Nuttah68, and/or redirect to Threat. Bearian 17:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this can be expanded far beyond a definition. Wouldn't object to a merge, though. --UsaSatsui 21:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, can imagine that there's stuff to talk about in terms of the history, the role in literature etc. Not the most important article, but I can imagine that someone could make something of it FlagSteward 11:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We can expound on any term if we want, but that does not demonstrate that the term merits an encyclopedia entry. I think Wikipedia would benefit from its editors pulling out an encyclopedia from time to time and noting what sort of entries it contains. I mean this sincerely--I'm not trying to be a wiseguy. -Eric ^(talk) 14:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - regular encyclopedias don't have hundreds of articles about Pokemon characters : p I think as far as deletions are concerned, there are other priorities. --George100 19:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thanks a bunch for alerting me to those--now my spirit is broken. No more trouble from me. -Eric ^(talk) 21:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article should be merged into the Threat article. Meateater 13:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Threat article is a stub consisting of a weak dictionary definition and a small section referring to international law. After unsuccessfully trying an AfD on it, I did some searching on the int'l law reference and have been thinking of renaming the article to "Threat of force (public international law)" (deleting the dicdef part). -Eric ^(talk) 13:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Improve or Merge into Threat (or Coercion). "Death threat" is a widely used phrase in the news. Google news for "Death Threat" brings up over 300 entries for today.; It is in no way an arbitrary combination of words. --George100 19:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I posted on the talk page for the "article":

I'm not sure that assigning "notability" to any frequently occurring combination of words is a good basis for generating encyclopedia articles, especially when there is no ambiguity to the resulting term. If the term "bicycle tire" started appearing frequently in the news, we wouldn't need to create an encyclopedia entry for it, since the meaning of the compound noun is completely clear.

And, this just in: I just did Google News for today on two combinations of words: "car door" got 581 hits; "eat lunch" got 544. Potential new articles?? -Eric ^(talk) 19:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle door and Bicycle wheel are articles. I'm sure there are plenty of articles about specialized machinery like this. Encyclopedias are not about words, they are about noteworthy objects and phenomena. At issue is whether a given topic has some educational significance. --George100 08:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stunning...I'm still tingling from mind-numbing educational experience I had reading the "Vehicle door" article. Who would have guessed that a vehicle door was a door on a vehicle?? This is great stuff! -Eric ^(talk) 12:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what is your point? It's a stub article. A vehicular door is obviously substantially different from a conventional door from an engineering standpoint. As I already stated, encyclopedias are about distinct objects and phenomena, not about words. Note that the article links to various styles of doors, such as Gull-wing door. Are you planning to delete the article as well? --George100 15:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! There are doors on vehicles now?! Benjiboi 00:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've already made my point. As for "Gull-wing door," that is a special term for a distinct object and it makes perfect sense to me that it has an article. No encyclopedia I've ever encountered would have an entry for the term "vehicle door." That is a simple combination of basic vocabulary words to make a very general term that anyone with an intermediate knowledge of English will understand immediately without even having encountered the term before. It describes a quite broad range of objects. The difference between the two terms' validity as encyclopedic entries is obvious to me. The Vehicle door article--which, by the way, discusses only car doors--looks to me to serve no purpose other than as a portal to articles on specific terms. -Eric ^(talk) 17:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia is not a dictionary - the guideline states plainly, "if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia." It is clear that this article can be expanded beyond a definition, therefore this reasoning is invalid. Comments have been made on the talk page about the article's potential improvement. Also I should add that quite a bit of material was removed in the revision of August 8, 2006. --George100 15:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my earlier comment above on expounding. -Eric ^(talk) 17:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You had no point on expounding. All you are saying is that wikipedia whould be the same as any encyclopedia, whereas it is obvious that wikipedia has a much broader scope than a static encyclopedia. Furthermore, the basis for inclusion is WP:Notability, not what you think should be in an encyc. --George100 06:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - I have to agree with some of the above, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I don't think it is necessary to have an article on a term that is self-explanitory. Also what reasoning is being used to define this term as notable??? Just because a term is used on a daily basis, whether in the news or not, does not make it notable. An article on this term can not possibly provide any more information that is already provided by the term itself.EMT1871 14:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other's --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If someone is interested enough to write an encyclopedic article on death threats (and I have deep, deep doubts that it could be done) then write it in user name space, get approval to resurrect the article name and show it to the world. Then we would have something that might be worth keeping. The idea that an encyclopedic article on this subject could actually be written in a non WP:OR way, with reliable sources, is speculation. Any reader who came upon this article expecting something encyclopedic on the subject would be disappointed. Noroton 20:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Article needs improving not deletion. "Death threat" could certainly be an exceptional article with 1400+ hits on Google Scholar[10], 270+ hits on Google News[11] and 790+ hits in Google Books[12]. Wikipedia is not a dictionary but it is a comprehensive encyclopedia and an encyclopedic entry about this term's origins, history and usage could benefit many. I had only linked another article here and was stunned that it had been nominated. I certainly hope that the article is improved rather than banishing it. Benjiboi 22:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it is currently not much more than a dictionary definition, but it could certainly be expanded beyond that. We could list the penalties on death threats in different countries, the statistics and percentages, the social consequences, etc. It could be sourced appropriately, see e.g. [13]. There's no compelling reason to delete this article. Melsaran (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's genuine and certainly significant. In the circumstances, we should base our decision on what the article can be, not what it is - it'll be done before the deadline, and all that - except when what it is is patent nonsense or the like, but wherever the line is drawn this should be comfortably past it. Anyone know if the Hashshashin used these? --Kizor 21:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the question is more what an encyclopedia is and is not rather than what an given article might or might not become. -Eric ^(talk) 12:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect WP not a Dictionary, but this could be typed in by a user. Mbisanz 07:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge Truffle shuffle to The Goonies and delete Sloth (The Goonies). @pple complain 15:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truffle shuffle[edit]

Although I confess that articles like this are what initially what drew me to Wikipedia, I now have hard time justifying their existence. Read the article and have one last laugh before it's gone. Oh, I guess I should probably give a policy-based reason for deletion... let's start with Wikipedia is not an indsicriminate collection of information. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article, because it has no significance outside the Goonies universe:

None of the other Goonies characters have articles, nor should they.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article concerns perhaps the most memorable scene from The Goonies, a movie that is now considered an 80's classic. The abundance of cultural references to the "truffle shuffle" (366000 google hits) make it notable and worthwhile to maintain the article. Keeping this page certainly does not harm wikipedia. Amazinglarry 14:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's popular but it's not notable by WP standards. Do you have a reliable source that speaks to the popularity of the shuffle in question? If so, by all means, add it to the article, and you just might save it. Ghits alone are not a substitute for reliable sources.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And many, many editors would disagree with your contention that "this page certainly does not harm wikipedia." It harms it by lowering the standards we've attempted to create for keeping nosense and pop culture/trivia fluff out of this project. I'm a big fan of the Dance of Joy, but creating an article about it would degrade the overall quality of the encylopedia.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Goonies Mandsford 14:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Goonies. I've seen the film several times, both when it was new and recently and I can't say that the dance is what I would call "memorable". Mildly amusing at best. ---- WebHamster 15:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WebHamster. See nom's comments above --Markdsgraham 20:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment There are plenty of Google News hits, and even a few Google Books hits. It seems that sources are out there to be had, if someone wants to do the work. faithless (^speak) 22:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Goonies. VanTucky ^Talk 22:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of defunct rugby league clubs as clear duplication of that article. non-admin closure.--JForget 23:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct Rugby League Teams[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Redundant with List of defunct rugby league clubs. All the relevant information has already been transferred from one article to the other. GordyB 14:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom after merging any relevant information that isn't in the other list Mandsford 14:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already moved all information.GordyB 22:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of defunct rugby league clubs so that people who used this article can go to the new one.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 02:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Capital. Twenty Years 14:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of defunct rugby league teams.--JForget 23:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep Album from Emerson, Lake & Palmer is notable, now page is not a mess, keep. --Stefan ^talk 13:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Bootleg Series from the Manticore Vaults: Volume One[edit]

Doesn't seem notable. Appears like a list. Phgao 13:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. The current content is so incomprehensible as to obscure what the subject in question really is. VanTucky ^Talk 22:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per VanTucky's explanation. Icestorm815 02:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, as per my own notice. Phgao 14:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: although poorly formatted, this is an official album release by a notable band. Bondegezou 19:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but what notable band? Per WP:BAND, this article fails notability criteria by lacking any significant coverage in reliable sources. Not only that, but it's totally incomprehensible. VanTucky ^Talk 20:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an album by Emerson, Lake & Palmer: I agree the page is a mess, but it's a real album. I think I even own it... unless I've got Volume Two. I'll try to do clean-up. Bondegezou 20:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me again. Probably the most sensible thing long term is to have a The Original Bootleg Series From The Manticore Vaults article that covers all the releases. Bondegezou 09:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me, yet again. I've done some work on this page: it certainly needs more work, but it's no longer incomprehensible gibberish. Might I suggest those who earlier proprosed speedy deletes take a look at the revised page...? Bondegezou 09:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salsabile[edit]

Non-encyclopedic religious text Andreas ^(T) 13:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a religious plug, starting with, "On this second day of the blessed month of Ramadan ..." It goes on into a list of tenets of Islam. It is most definitely NOT an encyclopedia article. Delete, though I don't think it's a candidate for speedy delete. (comment by User:Cbdorsett copied from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English#Salsabile Andreas ^(T) 13:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Partly because it's religious soapboxing and partly because it's non-English and isn't looking likely to be translated anytime soon. ---- WebHamster 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looking at a machine translation it seems to be a religious text and is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Hardly worth translating. Hut 8.5 15:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Send down fire on it. A bit of religious text, wrong place for this sort of thing. Delete it. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just prod it next time. The Evil Spartan 11:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not salvageable. -Yupik 19:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Schools at Somerhill[edit]

Primary (ages 3-13) schools, one for boys, one for girls. No mention of notability. SolidPlaid 13:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability criteria. Moreover, a quick google search shows up no reliable sources for this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability is asserted, and none was found by searching. Accounting4Taste 16:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above.--JForget 23:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was SPEEDY DELETE per unanimous decision. JIP | Talk 15:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriosis[edit]

Unsourced, possible hoax. Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 13:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is a hoax, no "possible." SolidPlaid 13:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Wonder if it's a misspelling of psoriasis?~~ Nevermind that coment, as soon as I read the word "Brittany", I glossed over the next phrase "causes one to be too serious all the time" :-/ In any event, just delete it. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most definitely a hoax. A quick google search shows up no reliable sources for this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Kondition[edit]

Band is looking for a fourth member, is currently unsigned, allegedly will have an album out in October. Especially delightful; record label is bluelinked, but only because it is piped to unsigned. No outside source for notability. SolidPlaid 13:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nicely constructed as the page is, there's not even a real assertion of notability. The closest it comes is by implication that it may contain "at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable", but there's no assertion of notability for DuNcE, either. Also, as SolidPlaid notes, there's no reliable verification. --Moonriddengirl 13:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible speedy per WP:CSD#A7? Good luck guys, but you're not notable yet. faithless (^speak) 22:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well written article but nowhere near meeting WP:BAND. Nuttah68 09:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IDIFTL 12:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kincade (band)[edit]

Disbanded band, was never signed. No outside source for notability. SolidPlaid 12:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not meet notability guidelines, and I can't find any evidence that the band does. The competition they won does not seem to qualify as "a major music competition" and certainly doesn't seem to have received much, if any, press coverage. The festival mentioned is major, but there are many performers there, and I can't find independent verification that Kincade was on the line-up or that their appearance there was notable if they were. All references to it seem to be drawn from the same PR source, given the idiosyncratic phrase "where they went down a storm." --Moonriddengirl 13:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a list of the performers at Glastonbury 1998 here, where they don't appear, so to speak. Although there is a possibility they were there, it doesn't seem they made it to any of the major stages.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC). Apologies.....really. I misread the year. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a list of the performers at Glastonbury 1999 here, where they don't appear, so to speak. Although there is a possibility they were there, it doesn't seem they made it to any of the major stages. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they seem to have gone remarkably unnoticed outside of MySpace. Nuttah68 09:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Their best claim would seem to be under WP:BAND #9, but it's not enough. Bondegezou 10:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Marc S. Ellenbogen. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. violet/riga (t) 09:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pushups as fitness levels in the US military[edit]

Article is only a list of statistics. Any necessary information can be found on U.S. Army and push up. Captain panda 12:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything but merge to press up. Until about 10 minutes ago, this information was part of press up. However, it is indeed rather specific data that was somewhat dominating the press up article, so I split it out. I wouldn't have any huge objections if we want to delete it outright, but it would be better if we didn't merge it back in. — Matt Crypto 13:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep 'Round here, we call 'em "pushups" not "press ups", so don't worry about a merger. Keep, because it's an article about a measure of fitness as defined by an official entity that requires its employees to meet standards of physical witness. It would be interesting to see what the levels are in the armed services elsewhere in the world Mandsford 14:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like the articles creator doesnt want it. Also looks like worthless trivia. Marcus22 15:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is currently not more than just some statistics and numbers. I believe this article should be deleted on the basis that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Icestorm815 18:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no need of this kind of detail in a Wikipedia article - this isn't a manual of physical fitness - it's an encyclopedia. A discussion of general military fitness requirements or training might make more sense. MarkBul 19:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MarkBul. This also very clearly violates WP:NOT#STATS. VanTucky ^Talk 22:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep how are you meant to tell readers how fit someone is, we could write in an article something like "US service men have to be fit" which could mean anything, awkward as it seems this article gives us a context for such a statement, fitness being something we can only relate here indirectly. Although WP:NOT#STATS, it would be something akin to writing Babe Ruth was a great baseball player, which could be someones opinion but with the stats section at the end of that article that statement is qualified.KTo288 22:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In the example of Babe Ruth, the statement that he was great would require the use of stats. However, in the article of Babe Ruth, the statistics does not outweigh the amount of text. It should also be noted that Babe Ruth is not a FA, possibly because there may be too much stats listed in the article itself. It would be much more benificial if you use the sources where you got the stats and use them as refrences for articles like fitness (As should the Babe Ruth article). Icestorm815 00:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment this is not really the place to discuss this, but its not unknown for encyclopedias and articles to have appendixes, tables and stats that illustrate ideas in the article, but which detract from the trajectory of ideas in the article. Having these stats and tables as part of the wikiproject itself rather than as external sources, allows these sources to be easily available to multiple articles and eases navigation. KTo288 23:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a services reference and not the place for minutae about fitness requirements etc. Nuttah68 10:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adastreia (band)[edit]

Band is unsigned, claims to have won "best unsigned" a couple of years ago in some magazine. No outside sources showing notability SolidPlaid 12:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It is possible to verify the information of this article. There is an entry for this band on metal archives. Moreover, a google search shows up quite a number of hits for this band. They have also released an album as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of whether sources can be provided there is nothing here indicating they meet the requirements of WP:BAND. This includes their joint fourth in a magazine's 'best unsigned band' poll, which by its nature is subjective, easily skewed by friends and implies non notability. Nuttah68 10:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean? If good sources can be provided, then the article should be kept. J Milburn 14:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it seems notable. Appropriate citation is required. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 07:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Closing admin, please relist for further comment. We should have more participation before this is decided. I'm adding it to the Music deletion-sorting page. Noroton 20:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. —Noroton 20:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet even a single one of the notability criteria for musicians and ensembles, as far as I can tell. Actually, it should have been speedily deleted as the article also fails to assert that the subject of the article is important or significant. Dlabtot 21:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "self-published" and no other notable activities. Mbisanz 07:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to pass WP:BAND notability requirements and remains unsourced. Noroton 14:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:Band clearly.Pharaoh of the Wizards 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Of those supporting keep, only Le Grand Roi directly addresses whether the subject is notable, and EEMeltonIV has a convincing response.--Kubigula (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sith Sword[edit]

Article makes no assertion of real-world notability, offers no substantiating reliable sources, and includes some nuggets of gold OR(e). EEMeltonIV 12:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Per nom.--Kerotan ^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 12:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete forthwith. SolidPlaid 12:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD shouldn't be used as a method of article improvement, put up the tags asking for references, written in an in universe style and possible OR etc. If after that and there are no takers than than that is the time for AfD. If the consensus is against this article, than useful information should be merged to List of Star Wars melee weapons and Sith Sword be redirected to that page.KTo288 21:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of melee weapons. A perfectly adequate home for it. I'd note though that it isn't actually OR - that's all straight from the source books, KOTR games and so on. --Gwern (contribs) 21:51 15 September 2007 (GMT)
Delete or weak redirect. This is so painfully minor and trivial, I'm not sure there's anything worth keeping. -- Ned Scott 06:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per notability of just about anything related to the unprecedently popular Star Wars or merge something like this in article on weapons as suggested above and redirect the article without deleting. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 13:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article talks about the extended Star Wars universe, which is basically all the non-movie/non-mainstreme stuff, so it doesn't actually fall under the same category as other elements of Star Wars that have achieved great popularity. -- Ned Scott 20:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even the stuff that isn't in the films can potentially appear in countless video games, graphic novels, etc., which can have millions of readers, players, etc. that it's hard to accurately estimate just how widespread the influence is. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment for the decades between the end of the first trilogy and the start of the second, it was the books, games and comics etc that sustained the Star Wars universe. KTo288 20:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notability is not inherited. The films and even the EU as a whole may be notable, but that doesn't mean that every element within them is, too. --EEMeltonIV 21:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article could easily be improved by adding sources, for notability and verifiability. No reason to delete something so easily fixed. Viperix 06:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and chop in half with a lightsaber Being theoretically noteable isn't good enough. Jtrainor 19:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable reference in a non-notable book series. Mbisanz 06:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards 21:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete - no sourced content to merge. WjBscribe 02:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peroxwhy?gen[edit]

Non-notable band which doesn't come close to meeting WP:BAND. CSD was denied on the grounds that it asserted notability (I have no idea how that assertion is interpreted) -- WebHamster 12:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC Into The Fray ^T/C 12:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is impossible to verify the contents of this article. A quick google search shows up no reliable sources for this article. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article has been deleted several times before for the same reason. Perhaps a salt is necessary. Nikki311 15:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One member is notable, but as a professional wrestler, not a musician. That's their best claim to notability. Also, it's unlikely that this article could be sourced. faithless (^speak) 22:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer (if not done) the contents to both Jeff Hardy and Shannon Moore as those two individuals were professional wrestlers with the WWE. Then delete per lack of notability of the band.--JForget 22:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 03:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this page has already been deleted. Darrenhusted 16:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as per JForget: merge content to Jeff Hardy and make this a re-direct, but otherwise delete. Bondegezou 09:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadful Dollface[edit]

Restored contested PROD. No independent sources. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, no assertion of notability of the band that I could find either. Borderline promotional for the group. WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Into The Fray ^T/C 12:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nomination, and as near as I can tell all the music is self-published, which doesn't confer any notability. Accounting4Taste 16:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous two. --Gwern (contribs) 22:10 15 September 2007 (GMT)
Delete. The band appears to a reasonable web presence, but none of it appears to be what called a reliable source. If that can be changed in the article I will reconsider. Nuttah68 10:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above comments; there might be some material worth salvaging and putting on Camilla Henemark. Bondegezou 10:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. WjBscribe 02:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bitterside[edit]

NB: The AfD has caused a fair bit of confusion, as a double listing was created on the same day. It was temporarily closed, and is now being relisted per DRV, speedily. The debate should not be closed until 20 September, as it is being relisted on the 15th, and it is unclear for how long it was ever open. Xoloz 11:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prior copyvio problems were cleared up to permit creation of the article. None of the information in the article is sourced. A reason for this seems to be that there is not enough reliable source material independent of Bitterside to create a attributable article. Google news brings up some information, but not enough for an article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changed again) It appears this article has now been changed enough to deal with the copyvio issues, though the POV could still use some work. --Mud4t 04:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, it's more of a keep. I can find a number of apparently independent reviews [14] [15] [16] publisher(?). Well, Malta's music scene is certainly not London's or New York's, but we shouldn't let the systemic bias prevail. I'm still not sure if copyvio issues are sufficiently addressed. Duja► 15:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I was the one that created the article. I found some information from different sites, and I managed to more or less change tha wording into my own way. So there is NO COPYVIO. Moreover the article satisfies the parameteres for the band being notable as you can see on the talk page
JEPAAB 12:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although the article still needs work to make it encyclopaedic, it does meet the requirements of WP:BAND---- WebHamster 12:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Brandt (disambiguation)[edit]

Unnecessary disambig, no page exists on the rock climber. Someone can simply add a hatnote to Paul Brandt after a page is made on the rock climber. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 11:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Into The Fray ^T/C 12:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with above. Scarian ^Talk 12:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unnecessary. Hut 8.5 15:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. Valerius Tygart 15:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Paul Brandt (that's what I do when I find such pages). That way, the dab page can easily be revived later if need be, but it's useless now. Possibly add a hatnote to Paul Brandt saying "For the rock climber, see Seneca Rocks". – sgeureka ^t•c 22:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, the other Paul Brandy doesn't seem to be notable.--JForget 22:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Sgeureka's idea is sensible; redirect. --Paul Erik 22:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS Space[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/GURPS Space (2nd nomination)

These gaming instructions have not received coverage from reliable independent secondary sources and so there is insufficient evidence of notability to warrant a stub. The article does not contain context or sourced analysis, or detail on a work's development. Fans of the GURPS series will argue that notability is inherited, or derived by a trade award, but this appears to have been a flash in the pan that does not satisfy WP:Fiction.--Gavin Collins 11:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I get 36,000 Google hits for the set and the GURPS system is definitely notable. The article in and of itself is well-written, though it does need to be sourced. Is notability inherited? I think in cases of major releases such as this it is. Into The Fray ^T/C 12:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Origins Award demonstrates its notability. (Origins Awards are "trade awards" as much as Ocars or Grammys are "trade awards".) "Notability inherited" arguments are irrelevant as this is an award-winning book in and of itself. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As already said (here and elsewhere), Origins Awards are the most important award in the sector. (As already said several times too, this and similar articles have nothing to do with WP:Fiction, as they do not discuss fictional topics, but a real-life ink-and-paper manual. WP:Fiction covers Prince Hamlet (the character), not Hamlet (the tragedy); Alyosha Karamazov (the character), not The Brothers Karamazov (the novel); World of Final Fantasy VIII (the fictional setting), not Final Fantasy VIII (a game you can buy in a shop). So, once more, one could be led to doubt whether Gavin has a firm grasp of what these articles are about.) --Goochelaar 17:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Origin Award winner. (Equivalent of an Oscar or Grammy). We have gone this circle before. Turlo Lomon 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment Also, nominating an article about an award winning book as an article about fiction shows a clear misunderstanding on the material. Turlo Lomon 19:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Award winner and notable, of all the GURPS books this is probably the second or third most notable.KTo288 20:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:POINT. I mean, honestly. By the way, what are they? Game instructions, or fiction? (for the record, neither) --UsaSatsui 03:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Web Warlock 03:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Nominator mischaractises notable industry award as a mere 'trade award', incorrectly states there are no independant sources. Nominator incorrecly refers to this as a 'book of gaming instructions', which is like refering to Monopoly as a book of gaming instructions. Nominator has been repeatedly corrected about these errors, yet continues to make them in their repeated nominations. Finally, WP:Fiction is about as releveant as WP:PORNBIO - this is not a work of fiction, this is a game. Edward321 05:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cripes, I don't know if I want to see the game where WP:PORNBIO applies, but it wouldn't shock me to find out SJG released it. --UsaSatsui 13:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be the Book of Erotic Fantasy by The Valar Project. Turlo Lomon 05:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep award winner, bad faith nom, etc, etc, again. Percy Snoodle 09:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delilah the dog

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things I Hate (Book)[edit]

Promotional of an apparently non-notable book. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 10:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like it was written by the author/publisher. No references, no assertion of notability... just some unattributed POV. /Blaxthos 10:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - completely non-notable. Potential hoax. Into The Fray ^T/C 12:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More Things I Hate... this article. Make this page 1,468 of the book. Mandsford 14:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this is a hoax. I didn't see anything in WorldCat under any similar name. --Gwern (contribs) 22:09 15 September 2007 (GMT)
Delete I also smell a hoax. noted German critic? Noted by whom? faithless (^speak) 22:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem notable and no sources to back up the facts.--JForget 23:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, apparently promotional and unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubjuggle (talk • contribs) 02:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedied as nonsense. Cbrown1023 talk 21:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew M Goforth[edit]

Suspected hoax; cannot find anything about this person on Google. Oopsadoodle 09:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hoax. /Blaxthos 10:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy if possible. Hoax/nonsense. Hut 8.5 12:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Agreed, hoax. Into The Fray ^T/C 12:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, please get rid of this as quickly as possible. One of the more obvious hoaxes you'll ever see. I know that this is not, technically, a speedy deletion criterion... but come on. -- Kicking222 14:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any sources!--Luis Augusto Peña ^(talk) 19:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And quick. No sources etc. etc. But if someone wants to copyedit the part about him living in the wilderness of Alaska for three years, after which "he ventured to the United States of America" first...? FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And I just noticed we don't have a Accidental death by shot-put fired out a cannon by friends category to put him in. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god why is this still here. I can't decide whether this should be burned with fire for being probable nonsense, BLP, nn, or what. --Gwern (contribs) 22:08 15 September 2007 (GMT)
Delete Unfortunately not a candidate for speedy. Obvious hoax. faithless (^speak) 22:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - G1 - tagged as such — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above and even then it might even be notable enough.--JForget 22:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a nonsense page - none of the versions are valid. So tagged.

The result was delete. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La bella figura[edit]

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola 09:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seemingly non-notable. /Blaxthos 10:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. Doesn't list why it's notable or how it's not a vanity project. Maybe when it does, !votes would have to be changed, but as the article stands, it should be removed. --Gwern (contribs) 22:07 15 September 2007 (GMT)

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Jaeger[edit]

I see no claim to notability and no sources that indicate any exists. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced self promotion of a non-notable individual. /Blaxthos 11:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 18:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. While I think it's appropriate to include articles about rock poster artists (I'm tempted now to start one for Bonnie MacLean) they should still satisfy the usual requirement for published third-party sources. Best I can find is a brief mention in this article of questionable reliability. —David Eppstein 18:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Blaxthos. NN. Bearian 17:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I tagged with CSD on creation, and removed it when the author tagged ((hangon)), with the understanding that it would be sourced. It has not been, so I wholeheartedly support this delete. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 01:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep (non admin) since there are now two blue links, a few of the arguments are invalid. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 11:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cenex (disambiguation)[edit]

This has been converted into a disambig page, but the only other reference is to a company that doesn't seem notable. Therefore, I'm suggesting the deletion of this disambig page. Ta bu shi da yu 08:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator (CSD?). /Blaxthos 11:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is already up for discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disambiguation pages are useful, and it could be expanded. David Q. Johnson 11:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is true, but not the way that this has been done. My suggestion to both David Q. and Bondegezou is to create an article about the UK Centre for Excellence, then create a disambig. Any other way is really adding an article by stealth. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Cenex that is the UK Centre for Excellence is not just any old company, but a UK government supported public-private initiative of what appears to me reasonable notability. Ergo, it could well have an article and this disambiguation page will be of value. Bondegezou 15:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, feel free to create the article :-) Ta bu shi da yu 02:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. just so everyone is aware, that Cenex website is positively evil. It obviously hasn't been debugged, as my script debugger keeps popping up asking me whether to break into the script. However, because it's in a loop, I had to kill Internet Explorer. You'd think that they'd be more careful... - Ta bu shi da yu 02:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete makes sense as there is not only one link. --Gavin Collins 07:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As requested, I have now created an article on the UK Centre of Excellence. Bondegezou 09:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are now two blue linked articles on the page Mbisanz 06:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there are other items that may refer or be referred to as Cenex. In cases with only two items to distinguish, each should have a reference to the other. "This article refers to the brand of petrol. For the Research initiative, see Centre of Excellence." or whatever. That way, each links to the other. Cenex itself would direct to the centre, with the disamb link going to the other item. Best, ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strike that, reverse it - the existing Cenex would remain as-is. I thought it linked to the parent company's article. A redirect of UK Cenex might be in order, if such a reference makes sense and could reasonably be expected as a search term. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visible Path[edit]

Contested speedy. Original author admits to being an employee of the subject company, violating WP:COI. Even though it's been toned down a bit, the article is still basically an advertisement for the company. Realkyhick 08:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like an advertisement. I don't see how this is notable. /Blaxthos 11:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. - With a little cleanup it won't be an advertisement anymore, and though the creator works for the company they were trying not to make this an ad, but rather, an acceptable article. Note the reliable sources linked at the bottom: New York Times, Business Week. Mango juice^talk 12:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whether or not she "used reliable sources", it is my understanding that the fact she works for the company, is a violation of of Wikipedia policies. See: WP:COI (particularly, "Financial") —Preceding unsigned comment added by IanLamberson (talk • contribs) 21:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Excise the offending material. There are many pages for companies in the same area of business; who cares who wrote it? Strip it down to the facts instead of removing the page. rone 01:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument to keep. And by your reasoning, we should let anyone write articles about their own businesses or those of their employers? This is why we have WP:COI guidelines. Realkyhick 02:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Call me crazy, but since anyone can edit Wikipedia, what's stopping you from throwing the self-promotional bits out and just keeping the plain facts in? Why waste time with bureaucratic nonsense? rone 18:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sometimes it's a close call, but we have so many problems with companies (large and small) posting articles about themselves, we have to clamp down on it. It also goes to the reliability of the information provided by the company. You can't expect an employee or owner to post information about a company that casts the company in a negative light, even if that information is pertinent. Spend some time on new-page patrol, as I do almost daily, and you'll see what I mean — assuming you can wade through all the article about garage bands that broke up eight years ago, "_____ is the coolest person ever!" articles and other assorted debris. Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising, non-notable website. Keb25 10:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Adveritsing, non-notable website, should be deleted per WP:SPAM (adverts masquerading as articles), WP:COI (vp of marketing the principle author), and WP:NOTE (notability is not temporary).

The VP of marketing of the company wrote this article (link to her job description) which is a violation of WP:COI.

A direct quote from "What is a conflict of interest?":

Financial:
If you fit either of these descriptions:
1. you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes);

The article offers no criticism or balanced perspective and we can't expect any from the Veep of marketing. Meanwhile the company is non-notable so we won't have anyone else coming by to criticise either.

It's my understanding of WP:NOTE that "notability is not temporary" and that wikinews is better suited to subjects noted by a short burst of press coverage.

In sum, the article epitomises the type of article that wikipedia is in danger of being swamped by. As we strive to create a neutral corpus of human encyclopedic knowledge, we cannot let advertisers or people with a profitable interest ruin the credibility of our work as a community.

A nice rule of thumb for editors to follow when considering beginning articles about themselves (which speaks to both notability, spam, and COI) would be: "Wait until someone else does it instead."

J Crow 17:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supermarkets in Canada[edit]

Unencyclopedic, unsourced and thus original research, non-notable, possibly POV... no point having it. Plus+ - I don't see how a list clearly based on the memory of one person could be entirely neutral: they could forget some or not consider some noteworthy. It becomes subjective. Plus - it's unsourced and thus original research. Plain and simple. Rambutan (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning? How can a list of supermarkets within a certain country be OR or POV? Enlighten me. Melsaran (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:RS. Not sure how POV fits into the picture. /Blaxthos 11:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We are also not a directory or collection of lists. This would be best served by a category, as we're never going to include all grocery stores in .ca. /Blaxthos 15:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page lists only chains of supermarkets. A list of individual supermarkets would indeed be stupid, but this is not it. Note that similar pages (Supermarkets in the United Kingdom for example) contain information that could not be satisfied by a category. The fact that Wikipedia is not a collection of lists is not a reason to delete lists on sight, unless there is something seriously (and usually inherently) wrong with the list. Hut 8.5 15:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand these concerns at all. The fact that something is unsourced does not automatically make it original research. There must be sources to back up the fact that these supermarkets operate in Canada. List of companies by industry are encyclopedic - just look at Category:Lists of companies by industry. I see no biased statements - what exactly makes it POV? Hut 8.5 11:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how this is original research or POV at all. It's unsourced, sure, but it can easily be verified simply by checking either the store's Wikipedia article, official website, or both (although sources would be nice). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong/speedy keep after seeing the "reason" for deletion. It is ridiculous if we delete an article because "one person wrote it, so they could forget to include some". And since when is everything that doesn't include sources by definition original research? This merely lists supermarkets in Canada. If we need to have multiple sources for simple lists like this, we could as well delete all categories, because none of them cite any sources. I'm sorry, but this looks like a frivolous nomination. Melsaran (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nothing wrong (Apart from sourcing) with this list at all. Scarian ^Talk 12:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Melsaran. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep When an article on a non-trivial subject is found, the first step should be improve it, not delete it. Hmains 20:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That doesn't really add really more to the category.--JForget 22:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve (by adding some text to go with the list). Why do people keep claiming OR on things like these? This is not new information and that's what OR is. Looking in a phone book does not constitute OR in any way. You do not need to source this sort of information. What you need to source are opinions or statements regarding said information that need to be verified. The fact there's a food store chain in Nova Scotia is self-evident; and besides, most of the links lead to articles with all the sources you want. 23skidoo 17:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve - See what JForget said? That can, and should, be changed, as the list is clearly notable and useful, and clearly isn't OR. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 04:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PIMBY[edit]

Non-notable -- Alan Liefting talk 07:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a dictionary (especially for stuff someone made up). /Blaxthos 11:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not made up, but not notable either. WP:NOT#DICT. Hut 8.5 12:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS, and even if there were, I would question how this is not a dictionary entry. --Gwern (contribs) 22:06 15 September 2007 (GMT)
Wikitionary as per all above - obviously only a dic-diff right now.--JForget 23:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably is suitable for Wiktionary. -- Alan Liefting talk 08:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitionary - I found this word on a newspaper and added it on Wikipedia. Probably Wiktionary is a better place. --Armando82 17:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mowatt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Apparently a photographer, but there's no assertion of notability. Googling brings up Wikipedia, commercial and other Wikipedia scrapes, genealogical stuff, and merely the most minor of references.

Prodded on 19 July; prod removed (with an indignant edit summary) three days later; nominated for first AfD on 28 July; debate started up; ended with the extraordinary non-explanation Temporary keep per OTRS Ticket # 2007072910013442 on 30 July. I'm not a party to the OTRS mumbo jumbo and have no idea of what happened.

I see two kinds of unconvincingly claimed notability here:

First, photographic. Actually the article claims nothing, and googling hasn't helped. Somebody describing herself as related to a gallery "in DC" claimed in my talk page that Mowatt was a noteworthy photographer, but hasn't responded to my invitation to provide evidence. (This person in/of/from DC uses bt.com and has an interesting contributions list.)

Second, genealogical. Mowatt may not be in WP for his own merits, but as the ex-husband and father of a total of three people in line for the British throne. But if anyone merits an article merely by paternity and/or marriage (an idea that I strongly oppose), surely those to whom they're related must themselves be notable. These three are not: the three articles about them were deleted as a result of this AfD.

So there seems to be nothing here. (Which is a pity, as I always like to read of new photographers.) -- Hoary 06:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Asked and answered; you can't keep coming back to AfD if you don't like the result! --AlisonW 09:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment puzzles me. The original proposal to delete was answered in various ways, a number of them variations on "delete". Had it ended in "Keep" it would indeed be odd to return to AfD. However, it didn't end in keep; it instead was cut short and plunged into mystery. (Moreover, "keep coming back to AfD" seems rather harsh a description for a second AfD.) -- Hoary 14:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hoary, Paul Mowatt notability rests on his photograhic merits but notability is not shown here. I'd like to see feature articles that have been written about his work which would demonstrate that he's notable enough for people to write about him but I can't find any. It's possible of course that he prefers to keep a low profile, which would be understandable, but the quid pro quo must be that nobody outside the people through who he sells his work know of him. So I lean to delete. The OTRS thing means there has been email correspondence presumably about the first AfD though it must be unusual that it ends in an article being kept! --Malcolmxl5 09:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The cryptic comment in the talk page says "temporary keep", whatever "temporary" might mean. -- Hoary 14:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's baffling. --Malcolmxl5 16:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that 'temporary' meant '7 days'.[17] --Malcolmxl5 18:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The royalty angle is a stretch... formerly married, quite a bit down the aristocratic lines anyway. The assertion of notability from photography work is sorely unconvincing. /Blaxthos 11:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being married to a magnificently minor royal is no claim to encyclopedic notability, and his photographic work does not appear important enough. Moreschi ^Talk 11:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence in the article or elsewhere on the 'net of notability. Marriage and paternity this far down the royal line may get a mention in the gossip pages of Hello! or OK! but not in an encyclopaedia.---- WebHamster 12:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN person (as per above) Marcus22 15:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable individual. Majorly (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Marriage doesn't confer notability, and none is claimed or cited for the photography. Accounting4Taste 16:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a considerable ammount of coverage of him [18] but every one I looked at seems to mention him just as the "photographer husband of Marina Ogilvy" or something to that effect. I'm not really sure this is non-trivial coverage. This does reveal a new tactic for if your pet article is nominated for AFD though... just e-mail OTRS to get it kept. --W.marsh 16:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently Messedrocker closed it only because Somitho (talk · contribs) told him to. That user hasn't edited in 1.5 months, and apparently isn't even OTRS anymore. --W.marsh 16:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I listened to him because I figured he knew something I didn't and that he really knew what he was talking about. MessedRocker (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely fails all notability tests. --Orange Mike 18:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 18:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either get credible photographic information up about him, as I think he qualifies but can't find any, or delete it. I did try finding him in print sources and asked photographers--one person is pretty sure he's a fashion photographer and has done some major shoots, but couldn't find any confirmation. "I think he qualifies" and "pretty sure" doesn't work for an article. If someone can source this information in print or on line and wishes this article kept for it, give me the references, and, as usual, I will be glad to write the article to sink Hoary's ship. KP Botany 18:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the fact that you can't actually find anything beyond "pretty sure" isn't an indicator in its own right? ---- WebHamster 19:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think it probably is. But I think I've seen a high fashion spread of his in W or Italian Vogue, which would put him in the big leagues without necessarily making it the case that small time American fashion photographers have heard of him or remember his name. I'm also busy with my professional life and haven't researched my fashion stacks. If I do find a spread by him in either I will restart the article myself, as both W and Italian Vogue will give a bio with other sources that can all be used. KP Botany 21:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The marriage does not make him notable and there appears to be a dearth of sources regarding his photographic career. If someone adds sources I will reconsider. Nuttah68 10:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to his ex-wife. Not notable as a photographer. He would have certainly been automatically notable under the rejected WP:ROYAL and is sufficiently covered in the wife's article. Johnbod 14:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the article about his ex-wife was deleted some weeks ago iirc. There's a closed AfD ~~somewhere~~ here.[19] --Malcolmxl5 20:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a photographer with high connections and no notable entries? Something doesn't look right. Modernist 02:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Maxim_(talk) 13:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Erskine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I am not the most serious of Wiki users, nor do I have a vast understanding of the rules. However, this is a clear glory page for a lonely 50 year old man, whether he wrote it himself or not. There are, in Australia alone, I suspect 100 different debating tournaments including IV's, internal comps and schools comps. Each of them has a different "founder" and each of them, each year, has a different "convenor" which is the same thing as a founder, and involves the same amount of work, just the "founder" did it first. Likewise, there are many debating Presidents, every year there is a different one for the dozens of Australian based organisations. Nor is world schools a particularly prestigious one, on the contrary it is panned as a ridiculous and standardless competition by serious debaters, and is smaller, less representative and of less import than many other debating tournaments. It is comical that this guy should have his own page. If we allowed everyone with like crednetials worldwide their own pages you'd have more debating figures than US political representatives. This appears a clear deletion. The fact that he, among thousands of others each year, mooted for his uni once is likewise unnoteworthy. I support a page for the organisation, or tournament, and he gets a mention on all those pages, but he has not done anything worthy of his own page. He is not even famous within the debating community, merely a small subset of the debating community (the middle aged people who run the national schools comp. 9/10ths of ACT debaters and adjudicators have no idea who he is, and couldn't care either) *Speedy Delete- Jembot

I believe wether it for the persons glory or not it is information about him which is what wikipedia is for, maybe there are people who are looking for peoples way of having or getting glory. To clarify, I don't care if it's a speedy delete, I just pasted that from what someone else below did, but I can't for the life of me, actually being a debater, work out why he is more noteworthy than a thousand other guys, or how he qualifies for fame. delete if that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.0.135 (talk • contribs)

Keep. This individual is the founder of a world championship (the World Schools Debating Championships) which over 60 countries have been involved in. In addition to that, he's a past president of the only national school-level debating organisation in Australia (the Australian Debating Federation), and of a major regional debating association (the Australian Capital Territory Debating Union). With respect, I therefore believe that he's considerably more notable than someone who founded any old debating competition, or someone who's been president of a small local debating society or event as Jembot is comparing him to. As a world championship founder and major national organisation past president, I think he meets WP:BIO. Purple Watermelon 07:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already voted and said my bit, but the titles given are pretty misleading. I could annoint myself world pokemon online card champion, based on how well I played an online game, but it would be a pretty absurd title. ADF is not a real body. It does not "run Australia wide debating", on the contrary it has no involvement in running those bodies beyond a small grant (given by the Govt), which the simply disburse to the affiliates. The Affiliates from different states who pay a token fee ($200 a year) run Australian debating. ADF is a body of almost zero significance to them. It meets once per year, for perhaps 3 hours, and has a council of perhaps half a dozen members (often excluding some states and territories), and is involved in 2 matters. Making rules for National Schools (a tournament other people from the state affiliates actually convene and organise), and providing a forum for affiliates to select the Aust team. As for world schools, it is not much of an IV compared to dozens and dozens of other IV's worldwide. Given a founder is no different to another convenor, it is easy to see how other people could claim the same level of qualification. There are about a dozen uni level IV's per year for Australian debating- Easters, Australs, Worlds, Womens, Melbourne Mini, sydney Mini, Sydney Pro-am, ADAM, Worlds Mini, ANU mini, etc. At least half these are better attended than World Schools, and taken more seriously. Then there are dozens of schools competitions Australia wide, many of which are significantly better attended. Each debating society has it's own internal comps, some of which would clearly be more participatory (like Sydney, Monash, etc), and every year these bodies and groups have their own presidents, convenors, etc. Consider then the World wide scope of these sorts of competitions, Asian debating, the US, all the different UK debating societies. There are probably hundreds of tournaments and bodies of more significance than World Schools, from the Mace to All-Asians, and hundreds and hundreds of debaters who have played as important a role. What distinguishes Chris from these people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jembot99 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The World Schools Debating Championships is not an IV (IVs - or inter-varsity competitions to use their full name - are university-level tournaments). WSDC is a competition which has, over the years, involved NATIONAL TEAMS of school-level debaters from over 60 countries. That gives the competition a level of significance that goes beyond local, national or regional tournaments where the teams represent individual institutions rather than their country. And even if the Australian Debating Federation's Executive comes together to meet only once a year, its role in setting the rules for national schools debating events and selecting the Australian national schools teams is still a very signifant one. Purple Watermelon 07:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - World Schools until recently was a very small affair, it by no means traditionally has 60 teams present. Why would an IV be less important? It features debaters from "all over the world" selected by their universities. If this tournament is so significant, no doubt every convenor should have their own page, along with every winning team. In 2005 it has 31 teams, in 2004 it had 29, in 2003 it had 25. Heck, in 2007 it only had 31 teams, I doubt it has ever had 60 participants, so this is all very deceptive. Most of these teams are extremely poor, and the competition actually occurs between a handful of teams, which is clearly shown in the results. Australia has won, what, 7/8 times in the last 8 years? I likewise don't understand why an IV, attended by people all over the world, with more people in attendance, all representing prestigious instititutions, would be less significant, purely because this falls under the brand of a National team. Would we add the NATIONAL pogo stick winner too? Australs, Asians and easters regularly have over 300 participants, Worlds for Uni regularly has 1000,there are dozens or like examples. Even the yr 7-8 Ford schools comp is would have about 200 kids in it, and is frankly a more credible competition. World schools has, what, 100 people attending each year? Would the founders of all those IV's, and all those convenors have pages? You don't explain why Chris has done something particularly special, or meriting the clearly irrelevant additional information he has put as a glory offering all over his page. He plays an organ? He once mooted? Who cares? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jembot99 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The number of teams who enter the World Schools Debating Championship is not the point (though given that WSDC has a one-team-per-country restriction, I do think the number is quite significant - IVs can involve dozens of teams from the same country). The fact is that Erskine founded (not just once-off convened) a world championship and has stayed involved in that event since. Two decades on, the event is still running, regularly has over 30 national teams involved, has had more than 60 countries send their national teams over the years, and has had around 15 different countries reach the semi-finals or further. All this indicates that it's not just a sham "world championship", but a genuine one which is viewed as significant around the world. Being the founder of this world championship event, coupled with being ADF president (and despite what you say, the ADF has a significant national role in Australian schools debating) and the president of major regional debating association, in my opinion makes Erskine significant enough for Wikipedia. Purple Watermelon 09:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)][reply]
        How is founding different to convening, except for chronology? If anything, founding is less impressive, because when he ran it there were a mere 8 teams, from organisations that were already established and independent. If anything subsequent hosts, especially recent convenors, have had a tougher job, having to organise for larger contingents, and having to expand to new areas without debating experience. If the tournament is so significant, then all the winners should have their own pages, as well as many other hosts. Otherwise it would be the same as having a page for the guy who founded the MCC, but none of the Cricketers who actually represented England, and won the MCC's trophies. Of course, that would be ridiculous, because you'd suddenly have thousands upon thousands of debaters at major IV's eligible for their own pages. As for ADF, you are flat out wrong. Sorry. As for his subsequent role in things, it has been largely minimal. I don't really thinks attempts to ride the gravy train further count as contributions. If you want to have a page for him, let's include how his incompetence led to the defrauding of ACTDU/debsoc on his watch. ASsumedly if we're going to reference trivial things about organ playing, that is equally welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.218.27 (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        How much effort it took Erskine to organise the inaugural WSDC is irrelevant. Wikipedia does not attempt to measure how much time and work it took the subjects of all its biographies to complete their achievements - the issue is the notability of those achievements. Erskine is known around the world as the founder of the World Schools Debating Championships. I've added a sampling (but by no means a complete list) of websites around the world the refer to him as the WSDC founder as references on the page. As for other info, if it's established that he's notable any other verifiable info about him (good or bad) can be added - provided that a reliable source can be found to verify that info and that source can be added as a link on the page for reference. Purple Watermelon 01:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So I guess the first winners should likewise be honoured? For being the first? And the first "founder" of all those other comps. I'm sorry, I'm just confused how WSDC is of more import than say Australs, or WUDC, or All-Asians... perhaps you can give me a run down of why he is more deserving than those people? You cite his establishment of WSDC, then concede that since other people might have done more work, the amount of work doesn't matter. You argue fame, yet it is patently obvious that he is among the least famous debating figures in australia. From Ivan Ah Sam to MatyK and Kim Little, there are debaters left right and center more well known than this obscure 52 year old, not even known by 9/10ths of ACT debaters where he hails from. So apparently fame isn't important either. He was the "first to do it", but I can only assume that is moot since you wouldn't support pages for all the other firsts for equally grand tournaments, and it can't be the title he held, because it is relatively obscure and unimportant compared to other debating titles. So, he is not worthy because of the work involved, fame, originality or rank. Why exactly does he deserve it again?Jembot99
        If sombody wanted to create a page about Clark McGinn, the founder of the World Universities Debating Championship (which I consider to be of equivalent stature to WSDC as it's also a world championship), then I would probably support that provided that suitable external references could be found to verify the info and the fact that people around the world consider him to be notable. (And by the way, the founder of the MCC, Thomas Lord, does have a Wikipedia page since you chose to make that comparison). Purple Watermelon 08:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The World University debating Championships have been going for longer, and feature so many more teams it's pretty comical to compare them. One is ten times larger, and has much more credibility in the debating community. As do IV's like All-Asians, or Australs, or Easters. The other is largely a junket, which contains a handful of serious teams, most of whome only debate each other once or twice in the prelims, and has less influence and effect on the structures and rules of debating worldwide, let alone development of it, than any major IV would. The MCC "come back" you give is also pretty comical, the point was that the cricketers who played for the MCC are listed too. Another good example would be listing the beauracrat who founded Wimbledon, but none of the tennis players involved in the tournament. You propose to list the founder of a tournament, which was extremely small and insiginificant when it was founded, but none of the competition winners. If WSDC is really such a huge thing, then assumedly the winners deserve a page, or certainly the founding winners and runners up, under your bizarre analysis. But you obviously don't want to put your name to such a suggestion. I believe I understand the logic underlying this convenient decision. But the heart of the needto delete this, is the fact that he is not notable, no moreso than the president of a student body would be, regardless of whether it was for a "worldwide representative body" like the australian National University for exmample. He has no fame, even within the debating community he is effectively a nonentity. A quick google search of his name and the word "debating" comes up with 375 references (many of them not about him), compared to 811 for Kim Little for eg using the exact same search term. A similar search for Tim Sonnereich comes up with 311 matches. Or 318 for Harry Greenwell. Pat Delaney and debating gets you to over 1000, and he only won a single tournament. 13,000 plus for former world champion Jeremy Brier (I'm sure there are more than 375 here about him). David Ham comes up with over 400, despite being a mere archivist for debating with no real substantive achievements compared with most serious international debaters. Colm Flynn has 660. The man is just not notable at all, most debaters and students don't know or care much about this junket, or the first man to convene it. Jembot99
        You are implying that you think I am Christopher Erskine. I can absolutely assure you I am not. WSDC has been around for only a slightly shorter time than WUDC, and in terms of the number of countries who participate, it's about the same size (the smaller number of teams is because of the one-team-per-country limit at WSDC). And you're wrong to say that it has little influence on the structures and rules of debating worldwide. Several countries (particularly in Asia and Eastern Europe) run national and regional tournaments using the WSDC format and rules, and view WSDC as major benchmark. I don't think it's at all comical to compare WSDC and WUDC. I don't believe that winning a school-level debating competition makes a debater notable enough for an individual Wikipedia page (unless there's something else notable about them too). But I do believe that founding a world school-level championship that's run for two decades and DOES have significant influnce on the way schools debating is run in several countries around the world (coupled with being president of two major debating organisations in Australia) makes someone notable enough. Purple Watermelon 09:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        given you obviously know the guy personally, I think it's moot if you are Erskine himself (who started the page) or his former mooting team mate. If your tournament is so significant, surely you will push for the people who win it to get a page. Somehow you want to have it both ways, even if the winner subsequently goes on to become a major debating committee figure like Liz (of course, she could debate too). Jembot99 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll reiterate my argument that founding a long-running world school-level world championship is more significant than being a one-off winner of it. But if a former winner was also notable for something else, I'd support them having a Wikipedia page. Erskine in my opinion is significant because he not only founded a world championship, but has also been president of major national and regional organisations (not just associations representing a single institution). There's nothing to indicate that Erskine created the page. As for me, I did not create the page and nor am I Christopher Erskine or his former mooting mate. Please avoid getting personal and stick to the arguments. Purple Watermelon 10:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just don't believe there are enough people who know Erskine for it to be credible that you don't know him personally, which I notice you have dodged answering one way of the other. He is not famous, even within debating, nor is his role in WSDC and ADF, two relatively insiginificant bodies, particularly important. He has hosted this relatively unimportant IV twice, when it was much smaller. There is no real importance with the fact he did it first, certainly not enough to justify the additional material on him, if the action of doing it first gave it significance, then all the "first" winners and so on should be important. If the significance is from hosting, then all convenors should be named. and from other like IV's too. His role in subsequent years is not significant either, each year it is hosted, the country in question takes all the responsibility basically, aside from a one off meeting per year by the relevant body. If ADF is so significant, you should have their founder too. Add the founders of all the national debating bodies worldwide, particularly if they have other stuff on their debating resume. By Erskines own admission, he did not found the tournament alone- "...the whole idea of a World Championship was dreamed up over drinks at a Canberra Pub by Chris Erskine, Russell Gesling and Desmond Manderson in 1986" says the ACTDU webpage. The man only convened it, and chronologically he is no different to any other convenor. When a founder is famous, it is almost always for one of two reasons: a) the event he founded is famous. WSDC hardly meets that definition, any more than the world spelling bee or pokemon contest. And b) when the act of founding or creating something involves an act that leaves a significant legacy for that event. Someone who creates a school, or a program, or an artwork would be famous, even if those things were altered or copied en masse later on. But Erskine just hosted it one year, then a different group of people hosted it the next year. Each year, the host country hosts effectively from scratch, Erskine plays no real role in any of that. They don't debate in the Erskine stadium, they don't all read the Erskine debating manual (though doubtless he has written some materials, along with thousands of others who have written materials)Jembot99 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I never said that I've never met Christopher Erskine. But I'm not a personal friend of his. The fact that I've had some very limited interaction with him is not the reason I think he's notable. It's not the case that Erskine convened WSDC twice and had nothing more to do with it. He's still the chairman of its governing body's executive committee today. And I'll reiterate again that I think what makes him notable is that he was the WSDC founder AND the ADF and ACTDU president. And I do not agree with you that WSDC and the ADF are insiginificant bodies (for reasons I've alreday stated). Since you keep making the comparison with debaters, I'd say that a debater who both wins a world championship and also becomes president of a major and genuinely-national debate organisation could also be a potential candidate for a Wikipedia article. (Erik Eastaugh seems to have a Wikipedia page for that reason - you'll probably say that it's different becuase his achievements were at university-level, but I think that the top international and national high school-level debates are as significant as the top international and national uni-level debates.) Purple Watermelon 11:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, if you're willing to concede that anyone who wins a major IV like worlds (uni or otherwise), and is also president of their society, gets a page, then there's no problem. It's just wikipedia better get ready for hundred or thousands of people with similar qualifications from winners of Australasians, Worlds, All-Asians at uni level all get their own profiles, since winners are almost always involved in debating at an administrative level anyway. I agree, Erskine is in the same level of importance as Erik for a page (though Erik's achievements have vastly more credibility and fame since they were personal achievements. But then, "those who can't do, teach"), it's just you are effectively opening the floodgates for thousands of similar pages. I think this is dumb, since they are note noteworthy enough, and so reiterate that this should be deleted.Jembot99 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I think the number of people who have either won or founded a world championship and also headed their national debate association is actually pretty small. Purple Watermelon 12:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, no, the number with like achievements is very large. It's just you invent a false premise to try and create that appearance. ADF is not a significant body in any way, shape or form. It is not a National body in any significant sense. Nor is AIDA, the university equivalent of ADF. But there are certainly a number of people who have won like sized tournaments or like significance, and have headed bodies of equal or greater significance to ADF. Go to the AIDA webpage. The ADF doesn't even have one. Do you want to know why? It's because they don't really do anything. 3 debating beauracrats run stuff, and why would they need a webpage when they just e-mail each other. Those involved with this "national" body are the same people every year, and are not really accountable or representative in any real sense. Most debaters in Australia have no association with them, or any idea who they are, or what ADF is or does. But if they declare themselves a national body, by golly they are, even if they meet for 3 hours a year. Nobody involved with debating could hope to be taken seriously by suggesting only the WUDC could equal WSDC, it's completely comical. WSDC has only a handful of serious teams, and is less representative in terms of the number of institutions, and the number of representatives present. All-Asians, Australasians, Easters, etc, are more famous and more serious. But hey, WSDC has the word "world" in it, so it's more important. Like the "world" pokemon championships is more important than the American poker championships... cos one has the word "world".... I've renominated Erik for deletion (asking someone who knows how to formalise this), and he is one of a handful of debaters who were not deleted. As the history of his deletion page notes most like pages were deleted, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Kevin_Massie, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Casey_Halladay, for just two examples of how the last discussion of this wentJembot99 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to have a some sort of prejudice against WSDC. But the fact is that it is a world championship (regardless of how uncredible you personally believe it to be), and is recognised as such by a significant number of countries who send their national school-level teams organised by their national school-level debate associations to compete in it (regardless of how uncredible you personally believe the set-up of those national associations to be). Of course it's less represetative in terms of institutions - becuase the teams don't represent institutions, they represent countries. But the number of countries involved in both events is similar. One could indeed argue that a competition involving national teams is in fact more credible than one involving multiple institutions (but that's a separate debate). Either way, someone who argues that WUDC and WSDC are the world's two most significant debate tournaments is not being comical. Of course some debaters will disagree (they're debaters after all), but a significant number of people around the world would agree and would have quite justifiable reasons for doing so (even if you personally don't feel that way). Purple Watermelon 12:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Why justify it when you can make bold assertions... as I said, what would be more credible, the American Poker championships, or the WORLD pokemon card tournament? By your logic there could be 1000 teams at the poker game, and only 1 team per country for the world pokemon game, and the pokemon one would win purely based on the fact that it's title includes the word "world". The fact that it is WORLDWIDE (which given it has about 25 teams a year isn't even true) doesn't then in turn confer notability. You haven't established at any stage why it is significant enough to not only have its own page, but to have a glory page for one of the guys who founded it.Jembot99
        Of course there's various factors that make a world championship credible beyond just its name. If you read through the various things I've said above, I think I have explained why I think WSDC is a credible world championship and not just a sham one. Purple Watermelon 13:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, I think you've been very eloquent in your defence of the significance of the World Schools comp. It is a competition SO significant, and so competetive, that it's winners are of no note, irrespective of whether they went on to win other debating comps, or to hold debating committee positions, nor are the dozens of different convenors over the years, no matter if they did more work than Erskine, because the work Erskine put in is "irrelevant" in comparison to his impressive titles. Nay, only one of the 3 initial proposers of this grand competition are worthy of a page. This makes it possibly the first international sporting event whose head beauracrat (assuming for a moment he really is) is more important than any of it's participants. I think your analysis speaks for itself. Only WUDC, with it's 1120 participants this year, from well over 100 institutions, can compare to the 25 or so teams at the WSDC, or say the 80 teams from around the world at other major IV's. Jembot99 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I've said it before and I'll say it again, what makes Erskine notable is his founding of WSDC and his heading of two other significant debate organisations. If any winners of WSDC also have another achievment of note, I'd support them having a page too. As for Russell Gesling and Desmond Manderson, the only thing it says about them on the web is that they once had a chat with Erskine in a pub. Purple Watermelon 06:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Looks like Erik's page is going, this one will be next hopefully.JJJ999 06:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the issue is less WP:N than it is WP:V. /Blaxthos 11:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What's not verified? Purple Watermelon 11:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that Blaxthos is referring to the lack of independent sources for him. I would support a keep if independent sources were found. Capitalistroadster 03:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the references on the page now, I think you'll see that several of them are from sources independent of WSDC or other organisations Erskine's been involved with. Purple Watermelon 08:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 03:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a clear glory page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.102.130 (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but remove the hagiography and get more WP:RS. It actually might pass on WP:MUSIC alone, as he is an acclaimed organist. Hang a tag for needing more sources - the "verify" tag. Bearian 17:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "acclaimed organist"! On what do you base this? He is the equivalent of a large bars piano man, or the local churches volunteer band for heavens sake. There is no notability in this, no prizes for music, he is just the guy who is willing to play the organ for what even the picture demonstrates is a tiny, insiginificant church, which one or two people of note once attended. A local bakery doesn't become famous if Prince Charles goes there once for a tart, nor does the bakeries head chef. If you added every "organist" with no other qualifications for every church, you could add probably 10,000 pages easily. Have you looked at the info on this "largest Anglican Chruch"? Here it is: http://www.stpaulsmanuka.org.au/photo_gallery.htm , even there god damn own picture only has 20-30 people in the church, and it doesn't look like it'd fit a whole lot more. Why not add the 2 kids next to his photo too? They are "head trumpeteers" of this incredible building. I think you should remove the keep on that basis. Jembot99 01:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think founding a world championship makes him pretty significant. Ilcewf 01:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment- you would Chris, or whoever you are, since you "founded" the page originally. One more reason to strike this, there is clear bad faith from the guy who started the page, by not disclosing that he did so, and from his comments implying that he is a free agent. There are probably 2 guys here who want this page, both know him personally at least, one is quite possibly Chris erskine. It should be scrappedJembot99 08:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that Ilcewf is Christopher Erskine. You've now accused both Ilcewf and me of being the subject of this article without any justification for doing so just because we've supported keeping this article. I could similarly accuse of being Erskine's worst enemy in real life with an irrational grude against him, but since I have no explanation to back-up such an accusation, I won't concoct such a story. I know you think that Erskine is unknown to almost anyone but his close friends, but the reality is that pretty much everyone who's been involved in WSDC over the years (and despite what you think, that is a pretty large number of people), not to mention many other people who've taken some sort of interest in WSDC even if they haven't been to it, know who Erskine is even if they've never been personally introduced to him. There loads of people around the world who could potentially have decided to create this article. Stick to the arguments and drop the unsubstantiated personal griping mate. Purple Watermelon 05:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "and one is quite possibly Erskine"- not that he is. But irrespective, even I know you're supposed to declare a conflict/vested interest if you created the page, and here is Ilcewf pretending he is new to the proceedings, and an objective outsider. This is bad faith, which is the accusation I did make, and is another reason why we should delete it.JJJ999 06:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you should read WP:AGF. Purple Watermelon 07:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N as the subject is not notable per the guidelines as there no significant independent secondary sources who have written about the subject. Assize 03:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the references on the page, I think you'll see that there are some independent secondary sources. Purple Watermelon 05:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment- PW has a different idea of what is a "significant" independent source.JJJ999 05:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I have re-read the references. All but two references are from "debating" websites and I don't consider that satisfies "independent". The other two references, one is from an independent source being a newspaper. It also mentions him in passing. The second is a caption to a photo in which he is one of four. The subject is still not the subject of significant independent coverage in secondary sources. Assize 03:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are sources from the English-Speaking Union, the German Debating Society and two Canadian debate websites. These may be debate related, but they're not organisations which Erskine is affiliated to. And there's also one from an Australian government website. I don't think you've looked very carefully. I count five sources that aren't debate related.Purple Watermelon 04:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        "Significant"- those debating pages are not significant independent sources, they are basically debating blogs. Nobody in the real world gives a damn about this man, his fame is miniscule, 9/10ths of the debaters in the ACT don't know who he is, which is the whole point. You could produce 500 debating blogs, and I still don't think you'd have much of a case to him being notable. I could easily find 500 references to heaps of debaters who have won tourneys, would that make them notable? Be serious.JJJ999 01:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Which reference is the significant reference which covers the subject in detail. Every reference seems to chant "Chris Erskine is the founder of". The onus is on the article to prove notability, not on the community to disprove notability. Assize 03:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I voted 'delete' in the Erik Eastaugh AfD, which appears to have come about following the discussions above. But I'm going for 'keep' here. In a schools competition, I think the founder can be more notable than the winners. The winners are undoubtedly good debaters, but they're still school children. However the founder has established a system that's allowed countries from all over the world to send their best school debaters to compete against each other in what these countries recognise as a world championship. And this bloke also seems to have a few other somewhat notable things about him. Dorange 13:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And you would support the founders of similar sized competitions? From EUDC to Australs to Easters, Mace, All-Asians and so on? Why should his act of convening initially be so much more significant than other convenors, who may have changed the format and rules considerably since he ran it? If we could find a "worldwide comp" with 25 pokemon countries/teams, would that be a notable event too?JJJ999 21:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment- now, I hate to harp on rules I am bad at myself, but you've made continual edits since I nominated this purple water. It's against the spirit of the nomination, especially the repeated assertion of footnotes which seem to serve little benefit, but force people to read them as well. Just cool it on the editing please, since you defended it in its initial state, you shouldn't need to keep fiddling it. One of the links for example is to "substantiate" his work as an "organist", but it tells us nothing new, it is simply an additional footnote to make it look more impressive. It mentions Howard visiting, but since nobody disputed that, and you never explained why that would make a volunteer organist notable, it's a waste of all of our time to read things like this. If anything, the article gives us another reason to delete this, because he didn't attend the church for any reason associated to Erskine, or even the church, but to attend the funeral of some random guy who happened to be given a service there.JJJ999 13:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not aware that making improvements to an article that's being considered for deletion is a violation of any Wikipedia policy (or the spirit of any Wikipedia policy for that matter). I've been arguing the principle that I think Erskine is notable enough for Wikipedia. I've never said that I thought the article was absolutely perfect and couldn't be improved. Purple Watermelon 23:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is no violation, it is very strongly encouraged by WP:AFD and deletion policy. The best possible outcome of an AfdD is an improved article that gets kept. DGG (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because article asserts notability and has numerous references. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It asserts it... it just doesn't justify it, indeed evidence points to the contrary.JJJ999 23:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would help if there were at least one reference to a conventional 3d party reliable published source. It really needs that to be convincing. DGG (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A source for verifiability or to ensure note? I am only arguing the latter really.JJJ999 15:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the article about World Schools, found to my considerable surprise that somebody had added a link to an article about me, and followed it to this. It's hard to describe my feelings as I read all this bizarre discussion about me by people I don't know, about a page I didn't write and knew nothing about until this afternoon. At one level it is flattering to find that somebody has written the article. At another, though, it's deeply embarrassing, because it is seriously insulting to read that somebody thinks I actually wrote the page and did so as an exercise in self aggrandisement. Like all people I have my faults, but those faults don't extend to anything quite so pathetic as to write a Wikipedia article about myself. I would like the article deleted, notwithstanding the generous comments from purple watermelon, because it leads to the misconceptions exemplified in the offensive comments about me from jembot99 and jjj. Thankyou to purple watermelon, whoever you are, for the thought: but I don't think Wikipedia needs an article about me. If somebody wants to find out about me, they can put my name into Wikipedia - or google for that matter - and find whatever comes up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cme35 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And on reflection this offensive discussion about me raises two related issues. First, if Wikipedia is going to propose an article about a living person, shouldn't they seek that person's consent first? Second, if Wikipedia is going to conduct a discussion about whether or not a person justifies an entry about them, shouldn't it be conducted civilly, with reference to the criteria rather than gratuitous insults? As to the first, if I had been asked about the article before it was put up by whoever wrote it, I would have refused consent. Perhaps that is not the touchstone of whether there should be an entry: but surely it's a powerful consideration. As to the second, I am actually very hurt by some of the offensive assumptions made by several anonymous writers in this discussion that I was the author of the article in the first place, let alone some of the other even more offensive comments about me which are quite gratuitous. If there were a central place in which to make complaints about this discussion, I would have done so. Instead, I guess I am stuck with the wonderful anarchy of the internet. If I want an uncensored internet, it is a small price to pay to put up with a few insults on a very obscure page of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cme35 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 22 September 2007

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Keep I have withdrawn the nomination --carelesshx _talk 03:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of synagogues in Omaha[edit]

Reads like a directory listing. See WP:NOT#DIR carelesshx _talk 05:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a premature AfD. I just posted the article one minute ago, and I'm still working on the introductory sections. Thanks for your concern, but check the article again in an hour. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 05:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I've looked at it again, and the prose section of the article certainly seems worth keeping. I still think that having the list of synagogues and cemeteries goes against WP:NOT#DIR though (the guidelines are pretty clear on 'list of thing x in place y' articles). I would suggest that the prose part of the article be moved to something like 'Jewish community in Omaha' and marked as a stub, and maybe find an external link for the actual contact details of each synagogue. --carelesshx _talk 12:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Change Title Yes, the guidline is clear: Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not usually considered sufficient basis to create an article,. But, that doesn't mean an article can't contain such lists, just that such lists are not usually considered sufficient basis to create an article. Obviously, this article is now more than just a "justification" for the list. I suggest the article be kept as is, but with the name changed. Yes, perhaps to something like "Jewish community in Omaha"? (And, of course, reword the very first sentence accordingly.) 11:24, 13:32, and Pdfpdf 16:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move (change title) to something else. Isn't the article really about more than a list of synagogues? I'm afraid that, on Wikipedia, saying "List of..." (pronounced "listuv") is like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Mandsford 14:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The content of the article is more like "Jews and their Synagogues and Cemeteries in Omaha". Which is not a good article topic. "Jewish Community in Omaha" is more like what's there. It certainly isn't a List page - it just has internal lists. MarkBul 15:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would it be apropos to move the article to the new name and delete the AfD, or does an editor have to await judgment? Do I move it and keep the AfD? I will be bold and do the latter. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article to Jewish community in Omaha and left the AfD. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 00:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article clearly provides adequate reliable and verifiable sources to meet the Wikipedia:Notability standard. The rename was wise, as the article is far more than a list, and the "List of..." in the title is a deletionist magnet. Alansohn 02:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks good to me, it appears the nom's issues have been resolved and I don't see any other issues. --UsaSatsui 21:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article looks no longer like a directory and has significant sources and historical elements - it is a pass.--JForget 23:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Has the nominator withdrawn? Because if so, we can close this. --UsaSatsui 23:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Doesn't look anything like a directory listing. A classic case of a nom choosing AfD of a notoable topic instead of WP:SOFIXIT, which would've been the more productive helpful thing to do. --Oakshade 01:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You're being a bit harsh. When the nom placed the AfD, it was deserved. However, if he'd given the article an hour rather than 5 minutes before he placed the AfD, I doubt he would have placed it. It's more a "classic case of over-eager-editor placing AfD without working out what was going on". In his defence, at least he didn't put it up for Speedy Deletion, and he did leave a message on the creator's talk page ... Pdfpdf 01:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The clarification is valid. But yes, an AfD only 4 minutes after the article was created was uncalled for and it should've had time to grow. --Oakshade 02:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with UsaSatsui. I have placed a message on the nom's talk page. Pdfpdf 02:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm happy to withdraw nomination, if that's what is required - the article is definitely better in its new home. I was perhaps hasty in nominating for deletion, but there were certainly problems with it at that time. Do I remove the tag now, or does an admin have to do it? --carelesshx _talk 03:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this a a speedy keep, since it's unanimous --carelesshx _talk 03:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Longo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete - Completely unreferenced, stands only on original research and has been marked for such (and for cleanup), with no attempt having been made at remedying the issue, since December 2006. Since original AfD nom ended in no consensus, no attempt has been made whatsoever to add sources or clean up the article. If there were any sourced material in the article, we could keep it and delete the rest, but there are no sources at all. Finally, the article fails to establish notability. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 05:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - I've changed my vote due to the improvements made since the nomination. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 04:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A list of external links to news stories at the bottom do not qualify as reliable sources. /Blaxthos 11:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject in cultural studies, in law enforcement and frequently occuring in newsreports (see Gov. page for City of Long Beach). Also, an important subject in schools where educators combat gang recruitment and gang violence. Inline citations can easily be collected from the the Los Angeles City Council report, by Advancement Project Los Angeles, if inline citations are a requirement for the article's existence. Needs attention, not deletion. Pia 19:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has needed "attention" for nine months now. Very little, if anything, has been done to fix it since the original research tag was placed on the page in December. How much longer should we wait for "attention"? If no one will put some effort into demonstrating reliable sources, then the article cannot stand solely on original research and must be deleted. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 19:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if Fullmetal has such energy to invest in trying to delete the article, it might be better if he channelled his energy in actually doing some research to improve the article.--Schonken 10:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination seems to be based on personal antipathy. Fullmetal could have mended the problems since the last time he nominated it.--Schonken 10:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My time and energy are my business, and I don't have to improve an article that I have no interest in editing and which I feel isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia. If you look at my edit history, you will see that I do not seek to delete articles out of dislike, but rather because that is what I feel is best for Wikipedia. Please be civil. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 15:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of course, editing is voluntary and people's personal preferences are irrelevant here. In addition, this discussion about a lack of effort has now become moot: the article appears to have been edited already since the nomination, and is now amply sourced (with footnotes), and thus currently satisfies the WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Pia 19:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Dragon Ball (anime)#Cast list. WjBscribe 02:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DBZ Characters[edit]

Redundant information, already covered in Dragon Ball (anime). NauticaShad e s 03:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All the characters are listed on the Dragon Ball (anime) page. They also all have their own subpages. - Hairchrm 03:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dragon Ball (anime)#Cast list, since it covers what this thing intended to do so.--Alasdair 04:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 04:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Kerotan ^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 08:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. /Blaxthos 11:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant article subject. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 11:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 16:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dragon Ball (anime)#Cast list, redundant article, article covered in the article listed. Hello32020 17:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 11:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No brainer. --Gwern (contribs) 22:05 15 September 2007 (GMT)

Redirect - a suitable redirect. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dragon Ball (anime)#Cast list as redundant. This does not provide any information not covered in the main article. Melsaran (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Tyson[edit]

As it stands, this article is a clear candidate for speedy deletion per criterion A7 (no assertion of notability). However, I was a fan of the guy's parents back in the day, and I'm not really familiar with the intricacies of WP:MUSIC; so I thought I'd bring it here to see whether he's actually notable. He appears to have released only the one album, and I'm having trouble finding any sources that clearly establish his notability. Deor 02:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, no notability asserted, so tagged. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, having notable parents doesn't make you notable as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, he's done some touring and some session work, and there is the single album, so I think I'd like to get some opinions on whether the article could be expanded rather than see it speedily deleted. Deor 02:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You said he's gone on tour. Is there any evidence that he has? If yes, he satisfies WP:MUSIC.--Alasdair 05:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bio on his label's site (yeah, not really a reliable source) says that he toured as a member of The Look People. Whether his membership in this apparently notable group contributes to his personal notability, I don't know. Frankly, I wouldn't have brought this here if I didn't think the article should be deleted; but I'm a bit leery of substubs like this, since they may just be indicative of lazy article creation. Deor 13:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of passing WP:MUSIC. Info on Allmusic, but no biography, generally a strong sign of not being widely covered or otherwise important/notable. I did find this review of a joint gig, which seems to have been his peak if output since then is any indicator. --Dhartung | Talk 03:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, an article that says "Clay Tyson is a Canadian musician" (with some information about his family) clearly does not assert notability. I couldn't find any reliable references, but that's not even relevant here. Melsaran (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi all. I'm the creator of the article, and I made it very early in my WP life in order to remove a redlink in the Sylvia Tyson article. He is a notable Canadian musician, and does meet requirements per his own career notwithstanding his relationship with his parents. I apologise for being 'lazy' - I didn't realise at the time that was what I was being, and I forgot about this article in the interim. I request a deferral of the speedy so that I can assert notability. Anchoress 19:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The speedy deletion tag was already removed. The AFD will be open for about four more days, so I suggest you find some reliable sources to buttress your assertion that Tyson fils is notable. --Dhartung | Talk 20:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I will reconsider when/if the article is improved and referenced. Nuttah68 10:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update Comment As the creator of the article, I just don't have the time to improve it at present. I really thought I would, but RL has been taking almost all of my Wiki time for the past couple of weeks and for the near future. So... if the AfD is closed as 'delete', I will put the subject on my 'to do' list and re-create it in the future with refs, and if it's closed as keep or no consensus, I'll improve it as soon as I have the time. Cheers, everyone, and happy editing! Anchoress 21:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete - Deleted by Anthony Appleyard. Discussion left open (accidently?) closed by me - Fosnez 04:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic timeline[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Information in article exists in Sonic the Hedgehog. Captain panda 01:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Beyond being poorly written, I can't really make sense out of what is trying to be said. The last sentence reads "now add things like grammer for me and i will be off", which says it all. Yngvarr (t) (c) 01:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G1 (patent nonsense), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G1, though it looks like it was meant as a blog post telling about his life as a Sonic fan from what I could decode. Nate 03:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per CSD G1. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete, nonsense. Moreschi ^Talk 12:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About neo-Buddhists[edit]

Information in article already exists in Neo-Buddhism. Redundant article. Captain panda 01:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV fork.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant anti-Dalit/Buddhist POV and original resarch. utcursch | talk 10:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original resarch. Keb25 11:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV, redundant, and smacks of OR. Hut 8.5 11:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep: per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion, "It is... inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution." The nominator explicitly admits that he has nominated this article for deletion because of a perceived inability to prevail in an editorial dispute: "An attempt to trim some of the offending material was immediately reverted by one of the article's regular editors... Since the main editors appear unwilling to allow article's problems to be corrected I believe it should be deleted." [20]. This misuse of the AFD process to gain an advantage in an editorial dispute is disruptive, and will not be tolerated. Users who believe that this article is being edited in contravention of WP:NOT#TRAVEL are welcome to file a request for comment on articles regarding this matter. John254 00:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in metropolitan Detroit[edit]

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

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

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

This 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.

This article is a travel guide, and violates WP:NOT#TRAVEL. It lists every conceivable attraction, including non-notable hotels and restaurants, gives advice to visitors ("Excellent attractions for first time visitors to metropolitan Detroit include...", "Ride the Model T...", "Baggage cannot be checked at this location; however, up to two suitcases...", and uses peacock terms ("Detroit's proximity to Windsor, Ontario, provides for spectacular views and nightlife...", "The metropolitan area boasts two of the top live music venues in the United States..."). Much of it is copied from and duplicates articles on individual attractions, such as the Detroit Institute of Arts. An attempt to trim some of the offending material was immediately reverted by one of the article's regular editors, who later said on the talk page that the article is about Detroit's tourism industry and is not a travel guide. However there is almost no coverage of the tourism as an industry. Since the main editors appear unwilling to allow article's problems to be corrected I believe it should be deleted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no prejudice against creation of an unbiased article. Its current form is mostly copy-and-paste from other articles, so not much would be lost with deletion of this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to Wikitravel. This is exactly the type of article WP:NOT#TRAVEL is intended to prevent, half of it is taken up with directories listing street addresses of selected tourism-related businesses. Crazysuit 02:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Great article, well written... but the policy against travel guides has always been a part of Wikipedia, and it's an excellent policy for which NO exceptions should be made. Otherwise, everyone would be doing their version of Montgomery Gentry's My Town song. Mandsford 15:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very good article... for wikitravel, which is dedicated to this type of information. What we have here is a misconception over what type of wiki wikipedia is. While we're on the topic, I'd like to point out similiar problems with Neighborhoods in Detroit, Michigan, Economy of metropolitan Detroit#Tourism, Detroit International Riverfront, and Metro Detroit#Tourism, which are all extraordinarily similiar in tone and suffer many of the same problems.--Loodog 15:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep We can take things like the addresses, if thats a big deal. (I wasn't aware that addresses for tourist attractions were a problem - the feature article List of landmarks in Chicago has addresses, so why can't a tourism article?). Other city's have tourism articles such as New York which mention hotels. The NYC tourism article asks to be expanded. I would be happy to expand it in time. But then would it nominated for deletion? So when the Detroit information gets more complete some are complaining? However, we are attempting to create better artcles. The Detroit tourism article discusses numbers of visitors to specific areas and events, for example. This is valuable encyclopedic information. Assertions that the DIA information was copied are also misplaced. The number of articles has been consolidated and reduced in several cases. The Riverfront articles as well as Cranbrook articles were consolitdated to make them more readable. The DIA is more significant and warrants its own for expansion. The DIA discussion within the tourism article can be reduced. The rush to delete simply shows an aggregated bias by some who don't seem to like Detroit in general for some reason. Much of the information objected to is good information. Other cities have similar information. Even the existing policy, which is probably too restrictive, allows for discussion of attractions. What's the big deal? What is a non-notable Hotel to some? Notable hotels and restaurants have been listed. I've noticed that the restaurant list grew, but I also concurred to a degree that the restaurants added were of a noteworthy type informing the region's culture. Some should try to keep a more open mind. Much of the criticism seems to reflect a lack of knowledge about the region. For example, the Tribute restaurant and Royal Park Hotel were designed by the current head of American Institute of Architects chapter in Detroit. Coney Island is a famous restaurant with historic significance. The Omni Riverplace is built on a historic site Stroh's Riverplace. The Sheraton Riverside is the site of the original French Fort Pontchartrain. The Elmwood bar and grille is also historically significant. Some were listed for their economic importance to particular locality. On spectacular views and nightlife, that's simply what it is. The City of Detroit Department of Recreation refers to it as "spectacular views." Though they are by no means every hotel or restaurant. The region has tens of thousands of hotel rooms. We can reduce the lists if you like, but the Detroit lists have carefully considered what is notable. The intent was simply to provide the accurate information about tourism in Metro Detroit. Tourism by nature lends itself to discussing important attractions. Some have interests in these types of topics. Readers may be interested to know the information. The comparison to travel guides is not really valid, the more prominent travel guides, some of which have become more historic in nature over time because they are copying encyclopedias, and not the other way around. The attractions for first time vistors doesn't have to be in the article, but it was included to display in general what typical tourist may do in Detroit. Some people may have no idea. A typical tourist in Paris, for example, may go to the Eiffel tower and the Louvre. The policy as interpreted seems to be too strict. All cities would do well to have this type information regarding the overall tourism and this article could be an example. Thomas Paine1776 19:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tourism in New York City probably violates WP:NOT as well. If this article were like Tourism in Cuba then it would be OK. That article discusses the economic, legal, political and cultural impacts of tourism. It does not describe tourist attractions or offer advice to tourists. The listing of restaurants appears to simply be restaurants of interest to the editors - there's no tourism industry-related criteria for inclusion, such as highest volume. The sections on musueusm describe the collections and things to see, not the number of visitors. The section on hotels doesn't mention the number of beds or their high vacancy rates, and the overall article never mentions the major downward trend in tourism over recent years. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can certainly add more regarding the legal, political, economic, and cultural aspects of Tourism in Detroit. It takes time too. We already have included some things. At the same time, we're not planning an all out advertisement for the social conflict theory. The Cuba article should inform people whether and what notable resorts/attractions exist there. Tourism in Cuba seems deficient in this respect, perhaps its because Cuba hasn't had much tourism since the US placed sanctions on it. The drinking age of 19 in Canada is one example we have included. It impacts the politics and the nightlife. The concept of the city as an entertainment hub for the region was meant to convey some of that. There is much to include about politics of adult entertainment for Detroit/Windsor. I have held off on that for the time being, but I can include it tactfully. Some of it we've actually been holding off on because the casinos are about to open and those issues are still developing other reasons are that we just need time to pull it together properly. There is discussion of economic impact and specifics, much more sourced facts and statistics than other similar articles, but that doesn't mean we're done with it. It seems you haven't given us any credit at all, simply on account of a few phrases here and there, and thats simply doesn't seem fair. Describing attractions briefly seems like valid encyclopedic information. Why not mention that the public can ride the Model T? "Ride the Model T" was simply a concise fit for a picture heading, it wasn't meant to be a promo lingo whether it came across that way or not. It seems if it were not mentioned that would be lacking significant factual information simply for the sake of denial. But if its a deal breaker for you, we don't have to inform people that the public actually can ride in a Model T. Important events exhibit regional culture, something often unnoticed in the US. We certainly haven't fully described every attraction like a guide. Some phrase about the "baggage checking which I removed, were probably added by someone simply to clarify what they felt was an unclear point and not to make it into a guide. We've merely informed about those attractsions that have significant rankings, size, or uniqueness. An article about tourism should describe what type of resorts or hotels the area has and display examples and mention what tourists do. We've included a healthy number of hotels, but it doesn't seem excessive. Its not like a guide. We purposefully did not make recommendations or rankings for restaurants as that is what seems like a guide to me. We didn't advise about prices for hotels, deals, or put stars or recommendations like a guide does. So we don't really feel its like a guide. Some of the criticisms you are making, we felt we were taking into consideration. A few words like "boast" were not mine originally, but we've removed them. Also we've changed sentences at others requests in the past. Its not like we haven't been courteous of inclusive of others ideas. I think we would appreciate it if you would withdrawl the nomination for deletion and let us add more information regarding legal and political aspects. Those of us who work on these projects, don't mind criticism, but we'd much rather spend our time writing and making the articles better than having to engage in these types of upheavals where we have to resolve these disputes. At the same time we've seen enough Detroit bashing from those who seem to have some axe to grind against Detroit because its the center of the auto industry, not to mention vandalism. Thomas Paine1776 00:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we remove all of the descriptions of the attractions, and find sources for the inclusion of restaurants and hotels, then we'd be heading in the right direction. For the purposes of an article like this, all we really need to know about the Henry Ford Museum is its attendance figure. Likewise the DIA, etc. The existence of several cruise lines is significant, their names are not. For restaurants and hotels we can't just assemble a list of non-notable places we think are interesting. We need an objective criteria related to their importance ot the tourist industry. So if we're willing to stub the article and begin from scratch, including only material related to the business of tourism, then I'd be willing to withdraw my "delete" !vote. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not sure who Thomas Paine1776 is referring to with the comment about editors "who seem to have some axe to grind against Detroit". If he has particular editors in mind it'd be better if he raises that issue with them directly. If he's not thinking of particular editors then it isn't a useful assertion. Personal comments don't have a place in AfD discussions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Talk about a double standard. You actually have the nerve to tell Tom that unmamed comments about contributors have no place in a AfD and all over this page you do the opposite. Have you no perspective? Your prime reason for deletion is the "substantial resistence" from other editors you refuse to name. plus, what outside source do you have to make the inclusions/exclusions about certain copy? What qualifications do you have to make these judgements beyond your own opinion. Is not number of hotel rooms in a city or region a very important economic statistic? I think it is, I mean you really have a horribly arrogant attitude, I trust Paine's references and insight more than yours. Stubbing an article why? Just add what you want to improve the thing. You act like a censor. Maybe you have no idea how to improve the article so you want it stubbed. Naming of places is not a crime, if you want a criteria for tourism industry articles then do some research and make suggestions before censoring current articles. Are you sure you really know what tourism is all about as an economic sector and thus what should be included? It seems like you have threatened Tom with deletion and then try to dictate to him what is suitable. Where are your sources for concluding attendence figures are all that should be included? I think Paine is being overly generous with you to be honest. Whatever the case- this is the sort of stuff that belongs on the article's Talk page not in a Afd page. --Mikerussell 21:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please stick to remarks about articles, not editors here. We will never get anywhere otherwise.--Loodog 01:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We feel descriptions of major attractions are appropriate material for an encyclopedia tourism article and are good content. We also feel tourism economic infrastructure is important. We are still open to criticisms and suggestions. We are relating the overall important tourism infrastructure. I have also removed many of the sentences you objected to or gave them a reference. Agree that the lists are not necessary. We can work to reduce or eliminate the boxes of lists, that's really not an issue (except for maybe the events list). We feel general descriptions of the area and cultural centers are appropriate for an encyclopedia tourism article. We can discuss your suggestions about sentences. We can also incorporate more attendance figures. Keep in mind we already have more factual information than most articles of this type. We can incorporate your suggestions for additions to content. We can add more information about the political, legal, and cultural aspects. The importance of noteworthy attractions is factual information. The cruise ship dock is a new facility, we felt it should be included. If your objection was to the list of names, then that is understandable, that wasn't clear. Keep in mind the photo editors work hard to try to meet our content needs. The thought was a representation of the economic tourism infrastructure (and not a guide). Tourism economic infrastructure is very important. And we were working with the layout since we have good photographers. I'll see what I can do to accomodate your concerns. Again, we request that you withdraw your nomination for deletion of the article and discuss the content with us rather than resorting to these sorts of tactics. Thomas Paine1776 23:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, regarding your comment that you may change your vote in favor, and respecting your question of whether you can withdraw the nomination to delege, I think you can withdraw your nomination for deletion, and simply refer people to the discussion page. We can add political, legal, cultural, and social aspects as you suggested from Tourism in Cuba, but be reasonable, Cuba is a Communist country under sanction, it isn't much for tourism, so its its deficient in many respects. Its seems a bit overboard to hold up Cuba, a country that has little tourism as a model for tourism articles. We also still feel that decriptions of major attractions tourism infrastructure is appropriate for an encycopedia tourism article. Appreciate it, if you would simply withdraw your nimination for deletion. Thomas Paine1776 21:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons listed your talk page, I will not engage in further discussion here. If you'd like, we can discuss this on my user talk page or by email. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I think that the nomination to delete is really motivated by personal feelings from the nominator and other voters, like User:Loodog, who’s own User page speaks to a kind of odd personalizing of every disagreement that doesn't go his way. The nominator has even foolishly decided to call me a "regular contributor" which is just plain false-I only add pictures when I get the urge; I defended the listing against a weak and inapplicable standard last week based on the nominator’s faulty interpretation of policy and blindness to the possibility the article describes a valid economic activity. TOURISM is not TRAVEL, to repeat. I think the point is lost in this idiotic push for censorship based on personal animosity. There is a very unreasonable punitive push applied here, especially when some of the above voters say it’s a good article! I have never witnessed a Delete nomination based on admitted high quality of the article. It is just too good, it must go! Delete! Delete! Delete! Somebody’s personal motivations here remind of an ashtray- they stink. User:Thomas Paine1776 wrote most of it I assume, and as I know from my days studying Political Philosophy at the University of Toronto, the real Thomas Paine was renowned as a pamphleteer. This wikipedian named Paine definitely follows his namesake at times, but to censor the entire thing, without even giving the contributor a chance to make improvements is just so low and spitful. Really shameful conduct for an administrator on wikipedia- such bullying from someone entrusted to welcome newcomers? I for one hope others recognize the merits of contributors like Paine who spend free time to make the encyclopedia better, even if their contributions require better expression and collective editing to improve quality. --User:Mikerussell 19:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would strongly advise all contributors to this discussion to stick to content, not contributors in their arguments. The above comments on motive are a clear assumption of bad faith bordering on personal attack. Comments like "they stink" are totally unacceptable in any context. VanTucky ^Talk 21:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Comment If you really want to demonstrate the sort of conduct you pretend to follow, as opposed to hyprocritically bringing to light my comments, you might want to note the nominators own introductory paragraph, which claims his motivation to delete is based on: "Since the main editors appear unwilling to allow article's problems to be corrected I believe it should be deleted. This is a direct reference about my conduct, claiming I am being such a destructive force in wikipedia that this article is beyond repair and should be deleted. When in fact I simply reverted one edit and gave vaild reasons. You really have to watch out when you begin to think you are the judge and jury buddy. Address the nomination- as is- and lay off the personal scolding, you ain't my mother, the facts tend to back it up, learn what "assuming" actually means too. -User:Mikerussell 22:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean anything personal by referring to Mikerussell as one of the article's "main editors". He is the third most active contributor to the article. He took it upon himself to restore the list of restaurants that I deleted, defended its inclusion, and then invited me to initiate a deletion discussion.[21] I did not nominate this article based on personal motivations against any editor or city. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can say what you will now, but your reason for Deletion is squarely aimed at contributors and not content. Your own words above and below are all directed at unnamed editors who you claim are so resistent to change, the entire article must be deleted. --Mikerussell 22:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs to be re-written to sound less like a travel guide. Articles in need of improvement should be improved, not deleted! There are a number of "Travel in X" articles that contributors could use as a guide for improving this one (Tourism in Cuba for example). Amazinglarry 20:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject, rather than simply the tone, is patently a violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL. Any possibly salvageable content should go into the main Detroit article. Even if the subject was a relevant one, there would be no real content if you deleted all the promotional and how-to language from the present article. This subject would be a fitting press release for tourist boards, but is not an encyclopedic topic. VanTucky ^Talk 21:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is not valid, there are several other tourism articles. Are you proposing to delete all tourism? Thomas Paine1776 22:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Arguing that this should be kept because other articles exist is not acceptable in AFD discussion. VanTucky ^Talk 22:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So this means that Tourism in Cuba needs to be deleted too? Suddenly we have a police state when it comes to what is included and not included.--User:Mikerussell 22:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, it is off-topic and unhelpful to discuss other articles. This is about whether policy and guideline support the deletion of this article, not any other. Anything else is arguing around the core issue. VanTucky ^Talk 22:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike is right. You brought up the "subject." The guideline needs to be rewritten too. Citing an illogical guideline with circular reasoning doesn't justify your reason for deletion. You said, the "subject." If you are going to delete one article because of the subject, then you are apparently saying all tourism should be deleted. Perhaps the present article should be used as a model for a new guideline. Thomas Paine1776 22:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When people refer to "the subject" in an AFD, they are speaking of the subject of the article specifically as defined by its title and intro. This means I think the specific subject of "tourism in metropolitan Detroit" is unfit for encyclopedic treatment per the policies and guidelines which outline what Wikipedia is and is not. This is not a comment on the subject of tourism as a whole. VanTucky ^Talk 22:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Mike is right.Thomas Paine1776 22:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For User:VanTucky's above comment- you think it violates the "the policies and guidelines" for inclusion. Guidelines are not just that, but your comment begs the question- would you delete Tourism in Cuba too? Or would you keep it because Cuba deserves "encyclopedic treatment" and Detroit does not? I honestly just don't understand the logic here.--User:Mikerussell 22:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed the point. Discussing other stuff that exists is not relevant in Wikipedia AFD discussions. This is about whether to delete the Tourism in metropolitan Detroit article and no other. VanTucky ^Talk 23:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Mike, this doesn't seem to be about logic or trying to make articles better at all. Its seems more like a collective brou ha ha of people who don't don't like Detroit and want to devise ways to disrupt the subject matter. I couldn't really understand why someone would want to delete information about a cruise ship dock in a tourism article which is what prompted this whole nomination. There were no suggestions of what to change, only threats. We've researched the subject and worked to make it more readable and better. Other cities and places have tourism articles, Detroit did not have one. So now that it does, its time to attack Detroit is that it? And we've been attacked and harrassed. Isn't there any wikipedia policy against that? User:Carptrash said it best, he said, "There seem to be two kinds of wikipedians, those who do and those who tell others what to do. I'd rather switch than fight" Of course, I asked him to stay. Thomas Paine1776 23:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, please assume good faith in what everyone's doing. There can be no constructive conversation here otherwise. We'd just bitterly attack each other and lose sight of the article. We're all adults; we can find agreement.--Loodog 00:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: I read the entire article twice and it seems more like a travel brochure to me than an encyclopedia article. --Moreau36 23:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show us a tourism article that you think is well written. Also, tell us whether you would want to delete Tourism in Cuba and Tourism in New York City. The point is the Metro Detroit tourism article could be a model for some of the others since most of them appear to need serious help. So instead of tearing down the researched model and leaving no good examples, why not have an input. Thomas Paine1776 23:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Cuba is actually pretty good and does discuss the tourism industry of Cuba rather than the tourist attractions of Cuba. It is nothing like Tourism in metropolitan Detroit. If that article was modelled on the Cuba article then there'd be no problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Everyone who is arguing for the deletion of this article needs to reread WP:PROBLEM. There are clearly problems with this article but they are obviously surmountable, since many other Tourism articles of high quality exist on wikipedia. Nominating a poorly written article for deletion is not the correct way to deal with the problem. Spend the time fixing it instead! Amazinglarry 00:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally I'd agree with you. However there is considerable resistance to changing the article substantially on the part of some involved editors. In the existing article I can only see two short sentences that refer to the tourism industry, the remainder being a guide to tourist attractions, etc. If the outcome from this discussion is to keep and stub the article that'd be acceptable too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What are talking about Mr/Ms Beback? What editors? What changes? When did you ever offer any changes? You only opened the debate two days ago. Where is this resistence to change? On what points? I am just bewildered with this reasoning. Delete the article immediately because you feel "substantial resistence" to change by editors who simply disagree with you? Have you lost all perspective? What is this substantial ressitence- my belief that Tourism is not the same thing as travel? I just don't get it. And you are an administrator? You are saying that editors that disagree with you have caused this article to be deleted. I am just dumbstruck. --Mikerussell 22:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NOT a travel guide. If the article is rewritten as an encyclopaedia article, with the requisite referencing, I will reconsider. Nuttah68 10:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT a travel guide. This is just a rehashing of content that should be elsewhere (individual monument pages etc) written in a rosier tone. The content that should be in this page is about two sentences' worth (the first couple), so they should be rewritten (to avoid GFDL issues) and included on the main Detroit article under economy or something, and this article deleted. Calliopejen1 18:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just stubbed the Tourism in New York City article for the same reason--the best part of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments is they let other problematic articles get noticed. Calliopejen1 18:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I find the information interesting, the article is not about the tourism industry of Detroit, it is about tourist attractions which is against Wikipedia Policy.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 21:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki most of the content to WikiTravel, although it might be already there (WP:is not a travel guide as several stated) and the most pertinent and sourced info only should be present in the article of the Motor City.--JForget 23:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was canvassed to this nomination. I suspect the canvasser is not going to get the hoped for outcome from canvassing. First, there are several people participating in this discussion that really need to tone it down Don't make me name names please... Second, my biases. I am strongly connected to Detroit. I was born there, way back when. I love Michigan, I chose to return 10 years ago and raise my family here. I come to Detroit for projects all the time, and love the things there are to do there. (in fact I sit in Dearborn as I speak, here for project work) I'm glad that Detroit seems to be turning things around, at long last, and that there IS a tourism industry there. That said... this article does not, in its present form, belong on Wikipedia, as it is a travel guide. Transwiki it to Wikitravel, then stub it out, and write an encyclopedic article similar to Tourism in Cuba that deals with the implications of tourism, not just what to do on a saturday nite. Or don't, have none at all. But this article should not stay here in its present form. That Tourism in New York City is similarly flawed is NOT an argument as to why this one should stay. I'm sorry that people put a lot of effort into this... but a lot of effort is not a keep reason. If WikiTravel won't have it, consider Great Lakes Wiki perhaps... but in its present form, it is my considered opinion that it must go. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad you agree that there is a tourism industry in the Detroit area. We agreed of course to add other aspects to the article regarding the cultural, political, legal, etc, and a more economic focus of the tourism industry and/or take suggestions from Tourism in Cuba. Thus we have asked the delete nomination be withdrawn. However, Cuba is a communist country under sanction and there just isn't much of a tourism industry there, so its a deficient article itself and non-comparable in that way. So certainly we can revise it. Also, we agreed to reduce or eliminate the boxes of information (except for perhaps events list), but this article is not a guide, and that was considered - it does not give advice like a guide and it does not give ratings, prices, or booking information. It does describe infrastructure and factual information of the impact of the tourism industry. We feel that descriptions of important places, attractions, and events are appropriate factual information that impacts the industry, but we can work with suggestions of others. We can also document more impact and revenues. We understand the point that there is a fine line between guide and encyclopedic information on tourism, thus we will endeavor to reign in that aspect so as to avoid it becoming a guide. We are simply asking for fairness. There don't seem to be examples of well done tourism articles, thus we were attempting to have a better one as an example. (Tourism in New York City seemed not so well done, and it has sat there for some time without being assailed), and it has an expansion request on it. These issues were better addressed in the article discussion page, rather than jumping to these kind of tactics. We were given little or no input or suggestions, simply threats. If other articles are flawed why are such tactics not being used there, again we view it as a lack of fairness. And we would appreciate it if the nomination for deletion were withdrawn. Thomas Paine1776 22:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No one argues that there is a tourism industry in Detroit, or that it has impact on many things. The issue here is the quality and focus of this article, the topic itself is notable and worthy of a properly written article. In some cases it is better to have no article than a poorly executed one, as a large poorly executed article can inhibit creation of a small, well executed one. We consider articles by themselves, without reference to other articles good or bad points, so that NYC's article has issues is irrelevant, as has been explained multiple times (and your re-raising it is frustrating) The point of introducing the Tourism in Cuba article was to show how an article ought to approach the topic, as has been explained multiple times (and your re-raising it is frustrating), not to say that there is any similarity in the places, so your comment about system of government isn't relevant and is no basis for asking that this AfD be withdrawn. Also, I have to question your use of "we"... (we considered, we will, we can work with, etc) who is "we" in this context? That raises concerns of ownership on your part, or whoever "we" are, and ownership should be avoided... it leads to hard feelings when work is criticised. As has happened, in my view, here, there are hard feelings in evidence. All that said... I re-reviewed the article after [[[User:John|John's]] latest trimming and it is better than it was. It still in my view reads too much like a travelog. But I've changed my view from delete to neutral, and if this article can lose another 10K of content, I'd support keeping it (and yes, I find it odd to argue for reducing the size of something but there you are). ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you kidding me here? Detroit is the eigth biggest city in the nation and it as well as it's metro area has quite a big tourism industry. I would like to point out the Casino's that just added tons of space and resorts. What drove you people to think this article should be deleted? Detroit IS going through rough economic times but that doesn't mean the city itself hasn't made progress? Have ever even been downtown? Please tell me what got in your head to delete this article. - TheCoolOne99 23:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You might want to review a bit more closely, because that the topic is worthy of an article is not seriously in dispute. What is in dispute is whether this article is worthy of the topic. Sometimes it is better to have no article than a really bad one, and sometimes a possible deletion focuses energy on fixing what needs fixing. Which appears to be happening here. ++Lar: t/c 00:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent[edit]

A recurring theme here seems to be precedent and WP:OTHERSTUFF. The issue of this article's being compliant with guidelines and appropriate to WP is completely independent of the existence of similiar articles which have not (yet) been scrutinized by us. Therefore: find out what makes this article right. From there we can begin to address the like cases that have been brought up.--Loodog 00:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What or whom is "us" when you say "scrutinized by us"? This deletion is the most bizarre I have ever seen on wikipedia. Beback has just stated that he would support the article's inclusion if it was a stub???? And then he has the nerve to say it was not a personal attack to nominate. Read: the article is fine to keep if certain editors do not get to contribute. If Beback and Loodog can decide who shall contribute then the article itself can be kept????? Someone should really re-think their suitability for adminship. I mean the lifeblood of wikipedia is reasoned discusssion, not lynch mob mentality against people who have other views. Anybody can read the nomination praragraph directed at me and my interchange with Beback yesterday on the article's Talk page. Did he tag the article? No. Has any discusssion about the article contents taken place over any reasonable period of time? No- read the talk page. Has he taken any time to contribute? No- he deleted material without any effort at improving the article. When I reinstated the material and explained my reasons, he rejected the claims and threatened that unless it was cleaned up, the only other option was deletion. One day later he nominated it for deletion- ONE DAY! If he actually thinks I wanted to start a nomination for deletion discussion, when I said "go for it" after he threatened one for voicing my opinion, he needs help. And if you think lynch mob is too strong a word just read User:Will Beback's Talk page at User_talk:Will_Beback#Advertising_of_cities. These two editors have some prejudice against the unnamed editors and instead of dealing with the article's merits and working to improve it over a couple of weeks, they end up three days later asking it be deleted because other editors are defending their opinions with reasons. This is just a horrible power trip, I mean the nonsensical assertion that you do not compare similar articles titled "Tousism in..." when considering whether to delete this one gives me a brain injury. I can barely believe what I am reading. According to the comment above the goal of the self-appointed wikipedia vigilantes is to delete this article first and then fix the other similar articles. What am I missing here? Is that not the definition of prejudice? --Mikerussell 21:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"us" is every person on this talk page. This discussion group can't hold up articles we haven't scrutized as flawless precedents. If they need to be addressed, we can always discuss them on their own talk pages, but this article is particular is the only consideration right now.--Loodog 15:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milkerussell, did you not write:

Whatever the case, the more attention it gets the better- so go for it- try a delete nom, I have nothing aginst such debates. [22]

Your present comments make it appear that you resent this AfD. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Comment: Just to treat User:Will Beback with "assumption of good faith", I want to stress that I give permission to the nominator to withdraw the AfD. It seems to me, if I read the above comment in an "assumption of good faith" that he is clearly claiming a major reason he initiated the Delete process was because he thought I wanted one. Hopefully, he will have no problem quickly reconsidering the nomination in light of this corrected misunderstanding. I apologize to him if my sarcastic remark was misunderstood. I also just discovered this [23] comment made by the nominator three days before the AfD initiated by him at User_talk:Loodog#Improving the project. It is clear, in assuming good faith, the nominator knew there were other means to review the article prior to any delete nomination, namely Wikipedia:Article review and Wikipedia:Good article and only went to the AfD because he was mislead by own statement. Thus I hope he can recind the nomination in good faith. Thanks in advance.-- 20:27, 2007 September 17Mikerussell.

You are really beyond all belief. Taking the comment out of context is so unfair. My words are in response to your threat. YOUR WORDS WERE: "If there's no agreement to clean this up the only other option is to delete it." (see this prior entry [[24]]) You are really pushing it, if you actually thought, I thought, my words would lead you to nominate the article for deletion a day later. I got better things to do than get entangled with power trippy wikipedia adminsitrators. Let me be clear: NO. I did not want you to nominate it for deletion. I always thought there was a long process of tagging and debate and mediation and these other processes before an article is nominated for deletion, especially an article that has existed for 9 months and is well sourced, linked to other articles, similar to other articles, generally well written (in the sense there are no errors of fact, clear paragraph structure, clear headings, usable pictures, and logical expression about the topic's significance) is uncontroversial and describes a valid econmic activity. If you have some courage, you will admit you made a rush to judgement and withdraw the nomination. --Mikerussell 23:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And THIS is why I hope that Wikipedia never changes its policy that it is not a place to include "travel guides". Whether you've lived in Detroit, Michigan or you live in Deland, Florida, you tend to be proud of "your" town, sometimes jealous of it. When there's an article about it, someone else's editing seems as outrageous as a person taking a piss in your backyard. Even the slightest things like arguing over what attractions, museums, hotels, etc. are "notable" can turn into a territory dispute. Even the debate becomes personal. I don't think anyone here hates Detroit or hates the nominator or hates anyone else, but it's easier to take offense when they're talking about you and your world. There are plenty of tourist websites on the internet, and Wikipedia doesn't need to play host to any of them. Mandsford 13:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't have a problem with an article about the tourism industry for Detroit. But the current content is EXACTLY a travel guide, and does not provide the foundation for a good article. -- 17:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs)

Weak keep; I took out the worst excesses and if the article can continue to be improved to meet our standards there is no pressing need to delete. --John 20:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If you can expand upon the actual tourism numbers (volume, dollars, information on sustainable tourism in the area, etc.) and not just make this a explanatory collection of tourist destinations I would support keeping it.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 20:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anubite[edit]

Apparently made up. As far as I can tell anubites do not exist outside of the game Age of Mythology. Alivemajor 00:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverified original research or redirect to List of units in the Age of Mythology series#Myth units 2, pending reliable sources to substantiate any of the article's contents. --Muchness 03:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article appears to be mostly a copy of this: link. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 04:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the other way around; that article is a copy of an earlier revision of this article: [25]. --Muchness 04:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Muchness. The "in popular culture" section is for Anubis rather than the Anubites--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. They're just an AoM unit, and the Mummy reference is purely generic. Like Anubis statues coming to life has never been done before... --Gwern (contribs) 22:04 15 September 2007 (GMT)
Redirect to List of units and wait for reliable sources to support article's statements. Carlosguitar 08:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability explained, no sources SyG 08:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete WP:SNOW. KrakatoaKatie 01:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geeban[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non notable dicdef/ promotion of non-notable band. Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOT and certainly not an urban dictionary, and it is not a place to promote non-notable bands. OfficeGirl 00:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICTDEF --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 00:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 00:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. I have never heard the term and it only manages a couple of relavant hits on Google. I think it is just an excuse to plug the band of the same name who are probably not notable either. --DanielRigal 00:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 04:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, urban dictionary is not a reliable source, and even if a reliable source were found, this would not warrant an article, but an inclusion in List of Internet slang phrases. Just as a side note though, no policy states sites such as urban dictionary are not reliable sources (WP:RS is not a policy). The closest you can get as far as I can see is WP:SPS: For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources, urban dictionary doesn't fall into that category. However there are strict guidelines on Talk:List_of_Internet_slang_phrases/Archive2#List of reliable sources, and this article should 1. not exist (but be considered for the list instead), and 2. the content relating to the band should be speedy deleted (CSD G4, CSD A7). Jackaranga 04:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only it is a non notable neologism, the creator of the article is User:Geeban. This suggests a conflict of interest related to the band mentioned in the article.--Alasdair 05:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, wikipedia is not a dictionary. Hello32020 16:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire. --Gwern (contribs) 22:02 15 September 2007 (GMT)

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 04:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do hydraulics work[edit]

Wikipedia is not a How-to guide. Bushcarrot ^Talk _{Please Sign!} ^{Let's go Lightning!} 00:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotboi (talk • contribs) 00:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. Someone seems to have been using the mainspace as a sandbox. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 00:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Alarob. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 00:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. We already have a good article about Hydraulics. --DanielRigal 00:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is redundant. J-ſtan!^Talk_Contribs 02:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So tagged. shoy 02:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - CSD G1 applies. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, per CSD G1. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 04:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge into the main Britney Spears article. Alabamaboy 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears performance at 2007 MTV Video Music Awards[edit]

Delete, a 3 minute performance does not need it's own page, plus lots of false info. MusicLover 02:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment -But no false notes, since it was all lip-synched. :-) Jeffpw 23:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, three days around the watercooler does not an article make. I think people stopped talking about this around Thursday, really. 2007_MTV_Video_Music_Awards#Britney_Spears_performance is actually better referenced and written, and I can't think of anything more that need be said about it. --Dhartung | Talk 03:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreeing with Dhartung. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 04:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Changing my vote to Merge and delete based on the arguments made by others. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 05:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability guidelines with multiple reliable sources. Notability does not expire, if it was being talked about on Thursday in the then it should be kept. Also, deletion is not the answer if the article is badly written, Fix it! . I am concerned that the above votes my reflect a sentiment of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (This is not a personal attack though). I can only see this topic expanding (effect on her "career", etc) so we should get the good stuff out of the parent article now. Fosnez 04:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC) changing my position to merge Fosnez 00:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suggest merging this with Britney Spears. Keithbrooks 06:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Spears' original page is already 64 kilobytes big. This event has taken on a life of its own.--The lorax 06:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very Strong Delete~~ Merge and Delete Merge with Britney Spears and then delete. Doesn't deserve an entry of its own as it's just another part of her career and should be reflected on her entry. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 06:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As trivial as the event might seem to some people, this event has received national media coverage from the majority of mainstream publications. Even if people stop talking about it, the fact that people talked about it in the first place validates its noteworthiness. RobbieNomi 08:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think that's the issue. Why does it deserve a page of its own rather than being merged with the Britney Spears article? That's the argument here. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 09:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if it is not already in Brittany Spears, else delete. WP:NOT#NEWS. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 09:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & delete - One or two sentences placed into Britney Spears is plenty. Certainly relevant there. /Blaxthos 11:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Wikipedia is far too fragmented. Xdenizen 12:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant info and redirect. I wanted some information about this event yesterday, so I read up on it on the 2007 VMA article and the Britney Spears article. This information, IMO, belongs as part of those articles and not as its own independent article. WP:NOT#NEWS, as has been previously stated. bwowen talk•contribs 14:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & delete. Various aspects of Britney Spears' life attract widespread media attention, but they don't all warrant their own article on Wikipedia. Should be covered in the Britney Spears and MTV articles, but no more. PC78 14:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that the GFDL prohibits deletion following a merge. --Dhartung | Talk 10:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick then. Merge or delete. PC78 23:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main Britney article. Surprisingly well-sourced and it is written well but I don't think it needs to be a stand-alone article. Would fit just fine in Britney's main page. - eo 16:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge This belongs in ~~Britney Spears's main page~~ 2007 MTV Video Music Awards, not the single. I think this post is problematic, and will continue to have vandalism. I definately dont think it needs its own page; it was only a 3 minute event.- Mojojojo69 16:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Britney Spears article, not-notable, WP:NOT#NEWS. Hello32020 17:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Britney Spears article. —tregoweth (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Britney Spears as per all previous arguments --carelesshx _talk 21:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had notice yesterday that a good chunk of this article is pretty much said in the 2007 MTV Awards article (I've considered of putting a merge tag but did not), so I guess redirect and Merge to the 2007 MTV Video Music Awards or Britney Spears.--JForget 22:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, who cares? Marlith ^T/C 22:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all previous comments. Every move of every pop princess doesn't need its own article and this can be covered adequately in her article and the VMA article. Otto4711 06:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentExactly, I don't see an article about Ashlee Simpson's SNL lip-synching incident which was as much or perhaps even more covered that the Spears neither her performance at the Orange Bowl in 2005. There's no individual articles also about Milli Vanilli's 1989 incident as well. So Britney's performance at MTV (and I remember that's not the first time it happen) doesn't need the article itself since several more as significant sub-par performances/or incidents as bad as this do not have other articles. JForget 17:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Britney Spears. This was no "wardrobe malfunction"-level event. 23skidoo 17:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Britney Spears, but not "Gimme More". The event doesn't have to do with the song, but it should be added in her biography article. Bull Borgnine 17:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Does not need it's own article, once the hype wears off, there is no need for this junk. Dannycali 17:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge due to widespread news coverage that definitely demonstrates notability and easy to find references. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2007 MTV Video Music Awards. 17Drew 18:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Britney Spears. If info is merged into that article, this one needs to stay as a redirect for the GFDL. --Phirazo 18:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Rationale for my !vote: This is rampant recentism, and any information could be easily covered at Britney Spears. I do not think this notable enough for a separate article, but could have a spot in Britney Spears. --Phirazo 18:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - There simply can't be enough articles about The Legendary miss Britney Spears on Wikipedia or any other publication. To quote the lady herself: Gimme More! :-)Jeffpw 21:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Liking Britney Spears has nothing to do with keeping, merging, or deleting this article. --Phirazo 17:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've checked the video on YouTube, and basically it's just Britney being virtually uninterested in the performance with low voice and little dancing - another reason why it is not so special and not so notable.--JForget 23:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2007 MTV Video Music Awards per above. Good article but does not need to be on its own. Epson291 01:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. Agree with Epson291, good article, but doesn't need to be on it's own. Quasy Boy 10:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, per nom. Thiste 15:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Gimme More. There could just be a small reference to this on the single page or her main page CRocka05 16:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We are not the daytime entertainment news, we are an encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 20:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2007 MTV Video Music Awards, with mention in the Britney Spears and Gimme More articles - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 00:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Bad Sings[edit]

This article is not notable. It doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. Infact, we already have an article about this thing here. Jc iindyysgvxc 01:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is not a matter of deserving to be in wikipedia, it is rather a matter of is the content notable. Notable according to WP:MUSIC and the inclusion of songs off the album in Guitar Hero II and Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s has been satisfied. Fosnez 06:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fosnez. Also, I'm not sure how an article at the Homestar Runner Wiki can be considered ours. Maxa megalon 2000 06:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient reference for the topic. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A non trivial mention by an Orlando newspaper is enough for notability.--Alasdair 06:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Korp!...err, Keep The notability is clearly met and it is a rare example of a self-distributed CD selling pretty well (for instance, I own it). Nate 10:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How is your ownership relevant? -- Mikeblas 15:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability under WP:MUSIC is established in criterion number one: non-trivial coverage by news sources. IMO, these constitute more than one non-trivial news source. bwowen talk•contribs 14:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Strong Bad. I am a fan but I don't think this deserves its own article. Antonrojo 15:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable under WP:MUSIC, covered by news sources, it is notable enough. Hello32020 17:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Alas, it seems to be popular enough. --Gwern (contribs) 22:02 15 September 2007 (GMT)
Keep the article, block the nominator (not for trolling, but the confusing and difficult to type username). Burntsauce 20:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. CaptHayfever 22:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Universe[edit]

Prod deleted without comment by an IP editor. The term, or at least way it's used in this article, is not in wide use. I know Google is no authority on these matters, but nothing on the first couple of pages seems applicable. I believe this article is substantially composed of material from the now-deleted Paraverse article. Lankiveil 10:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR /Blaxthos 11:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be a neologism used at best by a few people. --Gwern (contribs) 22:01 15 September 2007 (GMT)

Keep I created Stub 12 months ago. A Virtual Universe Community member notified me of "Prod". Started to update and add sources. Not that familiar with wikipedia process. I will ask the Virtual Universe community to participate in updating article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfinn (talk • contribs) 09:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - various other defintions for example "The term virtual universe denotes the database defining a static three-dimensional model", however none appear to support the article content. Delete unless sourced. Addhoc 21:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ hits
^ hits