< September 26	September 28 >

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

The result was speedy keep. Bad faith nomination by blocked user. W.marsh 01:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet murders[edit]

delete as non-notable.Gayunicorn 22:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC) — Gayunicorn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Keep per great deal of media coverage, Discovery Channel special, and movie in production. Appears to be bad faith nom, given nominating editor's talk page comments against including articles "glorifying crimes" and his/her previous abortive nomination attempt, in which the stated reason was that the page glorified a crime. Sarcasticidealist 23:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple references; one of the most famous cases ever (I've heard of it 4000 miles & 30 years away); subject of a movie for god's sake. What more do you need for it to be notable? — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good faith & all that but this recent post by the nominator makes me question their understanding of WP:N — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per sources [1], and especially because the story is being turned into a major film. Clearly this is something remembered 30+ years after the fact, and meets the "historical importance" clauses of WP:NOTNEWS. --W.marsh 01:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - clearly and verifiably notable topic, article includes references, and is wikified. No reason to suggest this should be deleted. Nihiltres^(t.l) 01:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the article for WP:AFC so I obviously think it's notable enough to keep. I just wanted to point out that this nomination is purposely disruptive editing by a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked Tweety21, who has a grudge against me. That's why the nomination argument is virtually non-existent. Precious Roy 01:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator is now indefinitely blocked, so I wouldn't worry about it. Chick Bowen 01:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G7 as author blanked page, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher J. Mack[edit]

Self-written bio, NN, just reads like a resume. Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn speedied as I was afd'ing! Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article is already tagged for G7 (author requests deletion), let the G7 run its course. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. Daniel 02:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blumpy[edit]

Fails WP:V criteria. No verifiable reliable sources given, the very few examples of this word used in this sense found by Googling were a couple of blogs and Urban Dictionary. Arthur Frayn 23:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Howard Stern Show same as Blumpkin where this term originated. Pocopocopocopoco 01:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn--JForget 23:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Action Research (charity)[edit]

~~This is a non-notable charity, and the whole article seems like just an advertisement for the company.~~ θnce θn this island ^Speak! 23:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawl The Article's tone has been changed so it no longer reads like an ad, and several references has been added proving its notability. --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 20:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll bet it's all copied right off their webpage. Article is totally different now. SolidPlaid 23:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Not copied from their site but very spammy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article reads much better now; all it needs is sources and it should be a decent stub. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. Keep. I'm not well up on the notability of charitable organisations, but this is a more than 50 year old charity, which is pretty widely known in the UK. Espresso Addict 00:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no prejudice against re-creation of the article if that's true, then. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be quicker to just stub the current article. Espresso Addict 01:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. Espresso Addict 02:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 02:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added citations to the article. Notability has been established. Fosnez 03:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. The article should probably be moved to Action Medical Research, as that is the current name of the charity. Espresso Addict 04:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved as requested Fosnez 05:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with income of less than £6m ($12m) in 2006, I would say this worthy but little known charity fails notability requirements of WP:ORG. --Gavin Collins 15:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it meets WP:ORG, which states for non-commercial organisations: "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization." & "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered." Espresso Addict 20:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The charity took a major roll in the development of Brittan's first polio vaccine, as you can read here and here and therefore is notable. Please reconsider your position. Fosnez 00:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the nomination for deletion has now been withdrawn.DGG (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 04:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diorionase[edit]

No hits from Google; Scientific Industries, Inc. manufactures laboratory equipment; lots of irrelevant material padding out the article; suspect a hoax. MightyWarrior 23:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite WP:GHITS, could be a hoax or OR. No real quick verify sources either. - Rjd0060 23:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Padded refs have no relevance to the material at hand, and the only other passing mention is regarding a future weight-loss product. Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 00:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional Fatigue Disorder[edit]

Almost certain hoax (0 ghits), and self-declared original research (and fairly blatant WP:BOLLOCKS). Hoax isn't a speedy criteria etc etc etc, bringing it here — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the last statement, "the writer believes this article to be the only online source referring to it", I'd say delete it... Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No supporting references - the user's only edit - highly likely to be a hoax. -- MightyWarrior 23:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 00:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Pete.Hurd 02:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial, nonsenseTiptopper 03:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 00:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Elf (Earthdawn)[edit]

Sub-race of fictional elves in a role playing game, no claim to notability in the real world, no citations. SolidPlaid 22:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not surprisingly, no references. MarkBul 23:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Kleinzach 01:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is a mention in the main Earthdawn article, which is all it needs. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 02:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kalonga Chaambwa[edit]

Non-notable amateur golfer AniMate 22:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom (NN amateur golfer). Also, article doesn't even provide any outside information as far as sources / references that would attribute any notability. - Rjd0060 23:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I would strongly suggest re-AfDing this if it hasn't been improved in the near future, but at this time there is no consensus to delete the article. Daniel 02:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universe Models[edit]

Not suitable for an encyclopedia. This is more like an essay than an encyclopedia article, with a fair amount of argumentation, opinion, and discourse. It substantially promotes the author's own views, including his own original cosmological model, so there is a conflict of interest. Note that at least part of User:Ranzan's research has been published in a conference proceeding, but if it's truly notable it should be described in its own page rather than an essay arguing for it. The subject matter of the page tends to duplicate cosmology, physical cosmology, timeline of cosmology, etc. I propose that any useful general material should be merged into one of these articles, and that Ranzan would be welcome to create a List of cosmological models without the essay-like material. Reuben 22:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR of the silliest kind, one of the silliest, most stupid thing I have ever read on Wikipedia, ever. -- Ekjon Lok 23:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you know how to read? What a surprise. Just because you dont understand the words in the article, doesn't mean it is the one that is stupid. And calling someones work "stupid" doesn't mean you'll become smarter. M.V.E.i. 20:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral It doesn't look silly or stupid to me, just overwrought. SolidPlaid 23:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it with the new name. SolidPlaid 00:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's certainly nothing wrong with a historical overview of universe models. It really doesn't fit in the cosmology pages, with their present-day emphasis. This page includes religious and philisophical models, which wouldn't appear on a strictly scientific article. And since truly scientific models would rule out pre-modern ideas, there's room for an article like this. If the writing on this page is original research, it needs to be edited, not deleted. There are many books on the history of science that discuss this very topic, and college courses teach it, so someone out there should be able to clean up the page where necessary. MarkBul 00:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 00:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, conditional for now. If someone especially versed can come in an clean it up--it reads as borderline OR as I read it, but ample sourcing--it could be fine. Otherwise, one of us can renominate in 2-4 months time. • Lawrence Cohen 00:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if reorganized--the table of models is useful--the essay on their fundamental significance is not appropriate for WP. DGG (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean the well written table. Some of the essay part needs to be trimmed and cleaned up and formatted properly. The cellular part looks like original research, and it isn't clearly explained. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see you are working on Models of the universe now. I suggest it should be at History of cosmology. Models of the universe should really be a redirect to cosmology, which does include religious and philosophical cosmologies as well as physical cosmology. --Reuben 23:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and clean as per MarkBul. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up, per MarkBul. Is interesting article which adds to the cosmology articles. --George100 15:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep salvageable. JJL 17:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I dont think that the fact that some people dont understand some of the material is a reason to vote delete. For every article youcould find a few people who are not interested in it's content. Now lets judge it according to the facts. Written very good. A real nice use of Wikitables by the way. Very, Very, Very serious references. Now notability. An important theme, and interesting theme, and a definitly must stay in Wikipedia. I also don't see any need for a cleanup. One of the most, not smart, nominations i have ever seen. M.V.E.i. 20:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I really cannot see what makes this article "Not suitable for an encyclopedia". I think it's a great piece of work. Bogdan 22:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability issues, also appears somewhat spammy. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stein Rogan + Partners[edit]

Little evidence of notability, appears to have been written as advertising, fails WP:CORP. TeaDrinker 22:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not fully developed. Also this page does not contain contact information, offers or any calls to action which would clearly make it advertising. It contains public information valuable in certain industries, including the press that cover small to mid size agencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxport (talk • contribs) 22:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this horrible advert. Ugh. Really horrible. Ugly. -- Ekjon Lok 23:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - significant media coverage exists. Addhoc 23:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the edits —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxport (talk • contribs) 00:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. Addhoc 00:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - from the web searches, the business appears to be sufficiently notable. Addhoc 00:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete if this isn't advertising, it needs a major rewrite. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate the feedback from the community. I welcome suggestions on items to include. Many thanks!

Delete despite the many good faith edits, the article doesn't really assert any unique or remarkable status that would equate to notability. SkerHawx 17:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if this discussion is heading towards a delete consensus, then possibly suggest the article could be userfied.--Addhoc 17:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is relevant to the advertising industry and for anyone who is researching agencies. It doesn't seem to be using any "call to action" to get people to use their services; it's just provides factual information which many people can find useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmyBear (talk • contribs) 21:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is small advertising agency without any notable feature. --McSly 21:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, it states ''"A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources" This article does contain such sources. Additionally, "...however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations."MaXpOrT 21:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC).
- Comment Agreed, and McSly's choice of words (small) should have no bearing on this debate. However, having some secondary sources is only part of notability. I've been featured in DM News, but I'm not notable (IMHO). The sources have to be independent, AND they have to prove notability. Your strongest claim to notability is probably the "agency of the year" awards. You could (again, in my opinion only) strengthen notability by showing (through outside secondary sources) that you are well known within the X community for Y, where X is any community (probably advertising) and Y is your niche or speciality. In short, you have to demonstrate that the company is notable as compared to other companies in your space. Cheers. SkerHawx 23:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Daniel 02:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adeem[edit]

The only assert of notability is that have won the Scribble Jam but it is not cited. Tasc0 22:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if this results deleted, the following articles should be deleted: Sweet Talking Your Brain, Transitions (Adeem album). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasco 0 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: absolutely non-notable, useless stuff. -- Ekjon Lok 23:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Issues with the notability of this particular party.

Adivasi Democratic Front[edit]

Two-sentence stub article, the only web references I can find are wiki-mirrors, no hits in a news archive search. Fails WP:ORG, WP:N, WP:V. Thomjakobsen 22:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I based this entry on an article in Red Star. I'll try to dig it up, and put a proper reference. --Soman 22:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could also not turn up any independent references to the group in English (it's always possible that there are more sources in Hindi). Nonetheless, I did find a few references that stated that the adivasi population lacks both political organization and clout, which would seem to reinforce that this party isn't notable. SkerHawx 17:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ? So if a particular group is socio-economically weak = non-notable people. If you'd apply the same standard for people in the US, then what would the result be? --Soman 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment He's not saying the adivasi are non-notable — they have their own article — but that this particular organization may be. A reference commenting on their lack of political organization supports the idea that this movement hasn't had much of an impact among the adivasi or wider society. As a counterexample, we have articles on the related Dalit movements, activists, incidents e.g. Dalit Buddhist movement, B. R. Ambedkar, Kherlanji Massacre. So it's not about socio-economic weakness, rather whether the organization has generated enough coverage in reliable sources to show their notability and form a balanced, neutral article. I'm not sure whether a single Red Star article would do that, as it would tend to be skewed towards exaggerating the importance of this organization. Thomjakobsen 19:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. That's exactly correct. I by no means intended to imply that the Adivasi are irrelevant, just the political party. If that were applied to America, there would be an article about the Navajo people, but not the United Navajo Party, which is exactly the case. (Although here's a link to the United Navajo Party mySpace page, if you care to browse. [2]) SkerHawx 23:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Issues with notability. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Rahm[edit]

This player is currently not playing professional hockey, he is signed by a professional team but assigned to a tier-3 team in Sweden. It is unlikely that he will play any professional hockey in the near future (this season). Therefor he does not meat the notability criteria for WP:HOCKEY. Krm500 22:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso 23:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has played for Södertälje SK, a fully professional team last year (granted only two games). From what I can tell, he is currently on the active roster for Frölunda HC, another fully professional team in the Elitserien (see thier web site and click on "A-laget".) I did a Google search, and I was able to get a large number of Swedish hits that appear to be for this player (see here. I can't really tell how much these site say, since I do not speak Swedish.) Also, being only 21 years old and already having limited playing time at the top level in Sweden as a goalie, seems that he is a strong prospect and will continue to get more professional ice time. -- JamesTeterenko 22:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He was dressed in two games for [[Södertälje SK] last season but did not play a single minute, according to the Swedish Ice Hockey Association's official statistic database stats.swehockey.se. And Södertäje did not play in Elitserien last season, they played in the tier-II HockeyAllsvenskan. Rahm is prospect, he had a good season and was "hunted" by both Frölunda HC and Färjestads BK before this season, but so far he has never played professional and I think it will take while before he does that. Currently he is behind Joel Gistedt (first goalie picked in the 2007 NHL Entry Draft) and Ari Ahonen in Frölunda's depth chart, and the team assigned him before the start of the season to his former tier-III club Sunne IK.[3]. I for one don't mind this article existing but it is hypocritical of me to vote delete in other AfD's without nominating this one. --Krm500 00:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, that makes him a top prospect for a team in the top league in Sweden. This alone make all the information in that article easily verifiable. How is that different that someone like Logan Couture or any other prospects? If this article was deleted, he would be the only player under contract to Frölunda that would not have an article. Is there substantially fewer reliable sources for Rahm than for a player such as Johan Andersson (ice hockey left wing)? The main reason that the notability guidelines exist is to identify people that would have enough coverage in reliable sources. If Rahm has enough coverage than other players that meet the notability guideline, then an article on Rahm can pass all of the policies on Wikipedia. -- JamesTeterenko 14:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't believe Logan Couture should have an article either since he has never played in a fully professional league. Only reason I don't afd it is that he was drafted 9th overall. Very few people in the entire world are ever drafted in the first round. So he is in a completely different class than this player. A top prospect for an NHL team is lightyears ahead of a top prospect for a SEL team (and thats not meant as a knock on the SEL). Not that he couldn't eventually be a top prospect for an NHL eventually. --Djsasso 16:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are several top prospects for SEL teams who play a season or two before crossing the pond, Bäckström for example. But, and this is just speculation from my part, Rahm's potential is probably SEL backup at best, and he is not there yet. --Krm500 16:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the argument shouldn't really about how good the player is. The argument should be on whether reliable sources can be found to ensure verifiability of the content. Do you believe that the information in this article is unverifiable? Do you feel that keeping this article would be contrary to any Wikipedia policy? The notability guideline exists to support these policies. Notability is not a policy for deletion in itself. -- JamesTeterenko 16:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that ability in a way comes into it but only because of notability. There has to be a line somewhere, this site is not hockeydb.com. Every player should not be on wikipedia. There are other sites for that. Only the notable ones should be, and to be that low down on the totem pole you are not really notable. Atleast not for hockey reasons. Verifiability is one thing and notability is another. --Djsasso 17:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. When he plays a game for Frölunda HC then he will be eligible. Until then its WP:Crystal. Södertälje SK is not in a fully professional league. --Djsasso 23:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They are now but they were not when he was dressed for them. Although saying HockeyAllsvenskan is not a fully professional league is wrong. Look at some forums and you'll see that the league is ranked above many counties top leagues. Heck, Kenny Jönsson, Ed Belfour, many former national team players and many high ranking prospect plays in the league. The top 4-5 teams in Allsvenskan holds the same class as the bottom 3 teams in Elitserien. But that is not of any importance since he never played there anyway, so far the highest level of play for him has been tier-III hockey in Division 1. --Krm500 00:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah no thats what I was getting at. I meant when he was playing for them. --Djsasso 00:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. GoodDay 13:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOCKEY guidelines, WP:CRYSTAL. If and when this fellow plays in the Elitserien, or if the substantial media coverage WP:BIO requires actually surfaces, he'll merit an article. Until then, he doesn't. RGTraynor 07:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable per WP:HOCKEY -Pparazorback 03:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tosan MBT[edit]

Stub about an Iranian (prototype?) tank about which practically nothing seems to be known and which was "intended" to be mass-produced in 1997. According to Equipment of the Iranian Army#Tanks 50 of these tanks exist, although that is unsourced. The only source cited in the article mentions the tank once in passing, and Google does not yield anything more useful either. Fails WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL. Sandstein 21:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable. This looks like an abandoned project that never got anywhere. EyeSerene^TALK 17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, patent nonsense, little or no context. Sandstein 22:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superluminal particle accelerator[edit]

Sub-stub article, asserting ... um ... what exactly? I'm not sure. Any non-crackpot content I can possibly imagine is already covered by Special relativity and/or particle accelerator. Bm gub 21:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete faster than the speed of light. Barely coherent balderdash. Clarityfiend 21:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and relist. I note that this article has been expanded quite substantially. Due to this and the procedural, advise relisting. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Craig[edit]

Procedural error This is AFD #2 for this article. Prior discussion is in the history of this AFD; see the closed original AFD here. GRBerry 02:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A local councillor, which is not a claim to notability, who once said something pithy about the Bishop of Southwark. And that appears to be about it. I'm not convinced this has any purpose other than to disparage the Bishop of Southwark, since the author's only other contribution is to the Christian Peoples Alliance article. Cruftbane 21:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, falls far short of WP:BIO, in addition to WP:COATRACK problems. --Dhartung | Talk 21:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, local politician with no coverage, no other features of note. Sandstein 22:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. -- Kleinzach 01:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Keeper | 76 16:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally nn. Tiptopper 20:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have just performed a complete rewrite of the article. This shows that he is a former leader of his party and has easily received significant press coverage in national publications such as the BBC, The Guardian and The Telegraph. I would ask that those who have made their opinions above have another look at the article which now easily meets WP:BIO. Davewild 20:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:BIO as newly demonstrated by the improvements made by Davwild. Is the subject of secondary reliable sources, head of a notable political party and a councilor in a major London borough. --Oakshade 01:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of a party anyone has ever heard of might be better :o) Cruftbane 08:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not a reason to delete an article. The BBC, The Guardian and The Telegraph have heard of the party which by all accounts translates to all the people who read/watch those media outlets (millions) have heard of it. --Oakshade 03:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Local politician - Fails WP:BIO for Politicians. Identifying him in the CPA article is completely appropriate, however, IMHO. --Sc straker 03:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being the subject of multiple secondary reliable sources fails WP:BIO? That's the core criteria of both WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. --Oakshade 03:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is when in the conversation the procedural error was noted. GRBerry 02:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The combination of being unsourced, WP:BLP, and having at least one controversial assertion in the article did it in. No prejudice against a sourced recreation. GRBerry 20:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Bober[edit]

This article was written by a member of the subject's family. It's about a local politician who did all the usual local politician things, but it quite fails to show how this local politician differs from the thousands of other local politicians in Britain. He was once mayor of Colchester. That's not big deal - every town has a mayor, only one of them is Clint Eastwood. My son's teacher in year 5 at junior school was mayor of Reading; he did not give up the day job.

This article is about one of the very many worthy people who make up local politics. Worthy, but as far as an encyclopaedia is concerned, not notable. Cruftbane 21:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:BIO, we only keep "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". No indication of that, here. Sandstein 22:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Colchester is a large enough city pop. 105,000 that we assume the mayor to be notable. Better referencing is however needed. DGG (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mayors of cities as large as Colchester are notable enough for me. --Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is simply false. Mayors of British towns of this size are not even full-time politicians, the role is pretty much purely ceremonial. The position of mayor rotates annually through the council pretty much on a "Buggins' turn" basis, the people who do the job are worthy but absolutely not notable. Can you find substantial non-trivial coverage of, say, Richard Stainthorpe or Chris Maskell? They've both been mayor of a town significantly larger than Colchester. Mayors are not, as a rule, even directly elected, they are appointed by their colleagues on the council. Here's Google's results for Graham Bober: [4]. 55 unique hits, and many of them not for this Graham Bober. Google News has nothing, Factiva has nothing, Wikipedia is the top hit, in fact. I can't find a single provably independent source for this, and none are cited in the article. Mayors of places the size of Colchester are generic local politicians and not distinguishable from any other councillor. This is not the mayor of London or some other metropolis. This is an interestign biography written by a member of his family, who also created Mayor of Colchester. Take a look at that and see how many of them are linked. Now look at the few that are, and see if they are "notable enough". Terry Sutton, John Bouckley, Chris Hall, Nigel Chapman, Mike Hogg, Christopher Garnett (politician). Mayors of Colchester. Notable enough? Cruftbane 06:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you have found some dubious articles without much in the way of content. this one is better than most of them. that otherarticlesarejunk does not make this one junk as well. DGG (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO for politicians. --Sc straker 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails much more than WP:BIO, try WP:BLP due to a complete and utter lack of reliable third party sources cited within the article about the subject. Burntsauce 17:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 02:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Donque Song[edit]

Almost the entire page appears to be nothing more than crystal-ballism: the article speculates that the song will be released as a single due to it's popularity on iTunes, and because it features an artist. Even the release date is pure speculation: late November or early December, apparently. This song is no more notable than any other song from Songs About Girls, and certainly not as notable as the current single. Acalamari 21:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced speculations. Sandstein 22:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a crystal ball. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 02:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed jazz[edit]

Sounds like industry jargon that was referenced in a local newspaper, the article for which this user also created. Ioeth 21:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unattributed and non-notable. Carlosguitar 22:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 00:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acquiring and Managing Financial Capital[edit]

Unsourced essay. Not an encyclopedia article. I couldn't come up with a speedy deletion category. It's already been speedy deleted once today. Corvus cornix 21:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. It's either a copyvio or OR. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - maybe salt? Artw 22:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Confused OR. Sandstein 22:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook (WP:NOT#GUIDE). -- Cosmo0 20:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
we are working on this for a school project... we have sources but have not had time to put them up yet. We will oput them up soon please don't delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uphamassociates (talk • contribs) 19:28, September 28, 2007 (UTC)
Delete - decenty written, but too much like an essay. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 00:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Burley[edit]

This is to a very high degree of probability an autobiography. The creator has made a couple of essentially null edits to Nicholas Soames, and apart from that, this article and linking it to his former school and college as "notable alumni" are the sum total of the user's contributions.

Apart from being an autobiography, it also resoundingly fails to establish notability per the biographical notability guideline. The subject is a local councillor, not even leader of his local council. He has twice tried - and failed - to secure a nomination as a parliamentary candidate. He is not even a losing candidate in a parliamentary election, he has never got that far. There is no evidence of non-trivial independent coverage of this person, and nor is there likely to be since local councillors are ten a penny.

The article was tagged for speedy deletion but that was declined as there is some assertion of notability. I am not sure that the claims cited actually count as a credible assertion of notability, I am sure that they fall well sure of establishing notability.

There being no reliable non-trivial independent sources from which we can draw a verifiably neutral biography compliant with our strict policies on living individuals, this article as it stands must be deleted. Cruftbane 20:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know nothing about British town government. How notable is a borough councillor? Corvus cornix 21:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not very. Slightly less than a County board of supervisors type person, I'd guess. There are 20 or so local authorities in London (and one over-arching authority). He's a member of one of the 20. There does not seem to be consensus on the issue, according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Local politicians, though the article talk page notes the Wikipedia guidelines on Biographies: Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have only a couple of dozen articles on people who are or were borough councillors, and as far as I can tell almost all of them are either tagged for notability or are known for something else, usually as having gone on to much higher office. Borough councillors are part time local politicians. Cruftbane 21:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On searching, we have way more than that. Here's the list of those categorised for Greater London - Category:Councillors in Greater London. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greater London is different, many of them go on to something notable. I looked for "borough councillor", which is what you asked, and that is a lower level again than a London assembly (GLA, former GLC) member. But London assembly members with no other claim to notability should be deleted as well; local councillors are well below the bar of WP:BIO. Cruftbane 21:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at the edit history of user:Conserve1, I come to the conclusion that what we have here is Mr. Burley himself seeking to assert his own notability. He is, now, one of the Notable alumni of St John's College, Oxford‎, by his own admission... --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, way short of WP:BIO. The behavior of Conserve1 (talk · contribs) is out of bounds, but only underscores why WP:COI is a good guideline. --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've put a ((coi)) tag on the page. Corvus cornix 22:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article provides no reliable independent sources to indicate notability, despite being tagged for months as needing them (he's been interviewed by the BBC, but the subject of the report was presumably the rallies rather than Mr. Burley himself). Apparently written to publicise Mr. Burley's political career; note that the article's creator Conserve1 described some legitimate alterations as "socialist vandalism". EALacey 11:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Local politician - Fails WP:BIO for Politicians. --Sc straker 03:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to the album's article.--JForget 23:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Ice[edit]

Non notable song. Prod was removed without comment. J Milburn 20:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album article, no claim to notability. Punkmorten 20:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This single is only notable within the context of the album. --Stormbay 20:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Yeah, only makes sense when you relate it with the album. - Rjd0060 23:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The song's lyrical content could be mentioned in a "Lyrical themes" section in the album article. LuciferMorgan 15:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to the album's article--JForget 23:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blessed Are the Dead[edit]

Non notable song. Prod was removed without comment. J Milburn 20:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album article, no claim to notability. Punkmorten 20:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This single is only notable within the context of the album. --Stormbay 20:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The song's lyrical content could be mentioned in a "Lyrical themes" section in the album article. LuciferMorgan 15:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 02:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation (Exalted)[edit]

"Let there be fancruft; and there was. And the fancruft was non-notable; and the fancruft was separated from the verifiable sources and mixed with original research" --Gavin Collins 20:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 20:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And verily I say unto thee, delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. Sandstein 22:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about an uncondescending Delete for a change? Seriously, you guys are so full of your own self-righteousness it's sickening. Sure, this isn't a Wikipedia article, but why be smug about it? --Agamemnon2 06:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy. JJL 17:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, attack page. Sandstein 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schroedering[edit]

Nominated for speedy deletion as an attack page, but the speedy deletion is contested. A second reason for deleting it (though possibly not speedily) is that it seems to be a neologism. See also [5]. The very model of a minor general 20:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism, does WP:Canvassing apply? Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably not. The messages in the forum that I linked to are dated February 2007. The Schroedering that they mention may have been completely different neologism.--The very model of a minor general 20:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pathetic use of Wikipedia for an inside joke that only a couple of people would understand. Mandsford 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis L. Goeckel[edit]

Completing unfinished nom by User:Sean D Martin; I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, founder of a laboratory is not a WP:PROFTEST criterion but I wonder if it should be. Also winner of an NSF CAREER award, specifically for "outstanding" promising academics (though that was 1999 and his CV shows more quotidian honors since). Dozens of papers, some with dozens of citations.[6] --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment it seems the lab he founded is, well, his lab... every tenure-track faculty member of a science or engineering faculty does that, that alone is far below the bar set by WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd 23:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 23:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Assistant professor with PhD 1996; CV [7] lists only 25 peer-reviewed publications, though there's a lot of conference presentations in addition; no textbooks. Seems to publish under DL Goeckel, so this Google Scholar search [8] is perhaps more relevant than Dhartung's above, which shows one paper [9] with high citations (112), but only 4 others with over 20 citations. Only significant research award seems to be the National Science Foundation CAREER Award, which is for promising work early in career and so doesn't seem sufficient alone. Also on the editorial board of a couple of IEEE Transactions, currently [10], but not Editor-in-Chief in either case. Not my area, so willing to change my mind if further evidence brought, but I don't think the subject quite meets WP:PROF at this time. Espresso Addict 23:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. That one paper found by Espresso Addict looks good but (apart from a small amount of trade press attention) I don't see anything else to match. The article as written clearly fails to assert any notability. —David Eppstein 05:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable. --Crusio 10:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Crusio, David Eppstein. Pete.Hurd 05:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been told that it is not right to go entirely by peer-reviewed journal articles for people in computer science, where most of the key work is likely to be in conference papers and technical reports. DGG (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conference papers, yes; tech reports, not so much except as a preliminary announcement of something that will later be in a conference or journal. Google scholar usually picks up both of those kinds of papers and their citations, though. I would view the Google scholar citation counts as more likely to be accurate for this sort of field than for some others. As for the quality of the conference papers, you have to know something about how selective the individual conferences are, but as a first approximation the ACM and IEEE sponsored ones are good, the others less so. —David Eppstein 00:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF. Eusebeus 23:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Great academic with good work but fails WP:PROF. --Kudret abi^Talk 07:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Daniel 02:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antec[edit]

Although this article is marked as a stub, there are still guidelines that should be followed. This company does not seem to meet WP:CORP and its only references come from the company's own website. Rjd0060 19:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would also like to add that since the AFD nomination, the creator of the page has changed at least two references to an outside source, however, those don't seem to be very reputable.- Rjd0060 20:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may be a stub but it can be improved a bit more. (Woggy 20:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

(UTC)

Keep This article clearly states that Antec is a market leader, a fact which is reflected on both the Antec page and two 3rd party reviews that are linked. Charles 20:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Antec is a large supplier of power products. Those who are involved in the PC industry should be able to easily recognize their name (those meaning those who build PCs for hobby, computer suppliers, etc). In terms of equating to other companies, I'd put them on the same bar as Asus and the like. I know there will be people who will be highly legalistic about my arguing this, but there are plenty of reliable blogs [11] [12] and other online sources. The article was created less than 24 hours prior to AfD nomination, and the article's creator has made a number of edits since. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails notability guideline WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins 20:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 20:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a good company that is non notable within the guidelines of thi forum. --Stormbay 20:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you people truly feel that this article should be deleted, then please feel free to delete the article of every major computer hardware supplier in existence. Charles 20:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - Rjd0060 23:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I refuse to accept an obviously flawed guideline in this case. Antec is as notable as about any computer hardware manufacturer. If you want to delete the Antec page, you must delete every page linked in the See also section of the Antec page, as they are all (in my opinion) far less notable than Antec is. Also, you must then delete probably half of the various motherboard companies that exist, because many of them are simply not as well known as Antec is. This is a terrible path to go down, and it really only ends with either keeping the article, or deleting useful information from Wikipedia. Charles 23:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this page does get deleted, then you are more than welcome to start the AfD process on any page you wish (in fact you don't have to wait, you could do it now). I personally haven't looked at the other pages, but I take your word for it that they are less notable, however we should keep the focus on the Antec article here. Everybody knows there are hundreds or thousands of pages on Wikipedia that really do not belong. As far as this one, I don't care if it stays or goes because I know that IMO, it should be deleted for the reasons I listed. There is nothing I can do if it stays, because there are always going to be disagreements. - Rjd0060 23:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no desire to delete perfectly good pages. That's your job. I was just trying to make a point that you can't going around deleting pages just because you haven't heard of them, when in fact they are perfectly legitimate articles. Trying to create a limit of notability is just the most absurd thing I've ever heard of. Charles 00:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I haven't deleted any pages. The admin does that IF they deem appropriate. I am not going to obsess over this. Perhaps you shouldn't either. At this point, I am just going to let the AfD play out because like I said before, I don't care if it gets deleted or not. I did my part by opening a deletion discussion for the reasons that I have said. If you'll notice, I am not the only one who believes that this article does not meet guidelines. It doesn't really matter to me if you chose not to follow these guidelines, but they are there for a reason. I (along with 2 other editors) realize this article doesn't meet at least one guideline. - Rjd0060 02:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of outright prevalence of Antec branded products when you buy any custom computer. 132.205.44.5 22:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Antec generates 9770 Google News Archive results including 36 in PC World alone. There is no reason this article cannot be reliably sourced with a little effort (and no reason the nom couldn't have grokked this from a brief google). Nom, please consider whether other tags such as ((primary sources)) would have been more appropriate. --Dhartung | Talk 22:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While you may have a point as far as adding a sources tag (however I see nothing wrong with the AfD nom), as far as google goes, WP:GHITS.- Rjd0060 23:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not the number of "hits", it is a pathway to reliable sources which may be used to improve the article, and a basic bit of research that a nominator should do before opening an AFD and wasting all our time. --Dhartung | Talk 04:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well if this is a waste of your time, then you shouldn't have involved yourself in this AfD. If you will note, I am not the only editor who believes this article does not meet WP:CORP. So, if this is still a "waste of time" for you, then just go away. - Rjd0060 13:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find this whole conversation ludicrous, and as my original vote states, I think argument is basically being legal. This is not Joe's Power Supplies and Breakfast Sandwiches, where such policy would apply; rather, this is a wide-known, well-established company who just so happens doesn't fit the exact letter of the law for WP, yet their existence does fit the spirit of WP. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - rather than getting into a sophisticated version of "Is not!", "Is too!", the way to establish notability for the article to be kept is to show that with reliable sources. For example, digging up coverage from the Wall Street Journal showing that the company meets WP:CORP because a leading business newspaper thinks they are notable enough for coverage. -- Whpq 16:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:CORP with coverage from independent reliable sources. For example, PC World is a reputable PC magazine with coverage such as this. -- Whpq 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely known and covered company. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think what Rjd0060 is suggesting is that everyone who wants to keep the article should just go away. Obviously the two people who agreed with him are far more important than the seven or so who want to keep it. Charles 19:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When did I say that? Show me (and everybody else) where I said that. You cant because I never said that. Apparently I need clarify myself: If you think this is a waste of time [Dhartung] then do not contribute to this AfD and go away. That is what I said. I cannot be any more clear. I am not going to argue about this. That is not what AFD's are for. Like I said before, I am just going to let this AFD play out. I dont care if the page stays or gets deleted, but I am not going to leave these false allegations or insults without reply. - Rjd0060 21:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Everyone who thinks this is a waste of time thinks so because it's so obvious that this page should not be deleted. Telling them to leave is just telling the people who want to keep the page to leave. Charles 13:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Okay. If you insist. I am no longer going to comment on your (and to clarify when I say "your" I mean only "your") delusional thoughts. - Rjd0060 14:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ... Charles 15:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wants to redirect it, they can do so editorially. Daniel 02:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube Player[edit]

Unnotable mini application, could have an expanded reference in the actual YouTube article, but it is not notable enough for it's own page. ViperSnake151 19:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom; nn application. (possibly merge to YouTube) OSborn^arf 19:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — and do not merge. The article has no third-party, reliable sources. If sources are found, then I think it's acceptable to have it merged with YouTube, as the subject by itself is not notable enough to have its own article. --Ag ü eybaná 22:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to iGoogle as component of that site and already mentioned in iGoogle article. Nate 00:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly nn. JJL 17:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 02:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ggmud[edit]

Non-notable software product The Evil Spartan 19:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. Carlosguitar 22:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like someone advertising their own non-notable product (it includes statements written in the 1st person) -- MightyWarrior 23:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep there are only two mud clients that do what this product does: work in the same way on osx/linux/windows, the program is totally free and opensource, it's referenced in other wikipedia pages, I've fixed the "1st person statements" -- Gabry74 15:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC) 16:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:RS. Gabry74's defences don't address the problems that still exist - Just because it does something unique doesn't mean it's WP:Notable and being FOSS and cross-platform is of absolutely no merit whatsoever. Also seems to be violate WP:COI -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 18:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Daniel 02:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Wilkinson[edit]

Player has made no appearances in a professional league, therefore failing notability requirements, He has also as of yet not been allocated a squad number at Elland Road for this season so is at the moment unlikely to make a professional appearance soon. Chappy ^T_C 18:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason as above:

Both soccerbase.com and leedsfans.org.uk either list these players as 0 appearances in all competitions or do not list the players whatsoever. Chappy ^T_C 19:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Chappy ^T_C 19:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of them have played in a fully professional league and therefore all fail WP:BIO. In the case of Rothery, England appearences at youth level do not make someone notable. Number 5 7 19:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAs per Number57. King of the North East (T/C) 19:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all five. None of them have played at the necessary level - yet. Recreation possible if or when they "make the grade". Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 14:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no merge because it isn't sourced and there's no consensus to merge at the moment due to this. If someone wants to create that list with sources, leave me a note on my talk and I'll undelete/redirect so you can merge the content. Daniel 03:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rotten Stench of Early Days When We Raped Dead Angels[edit]

Non-notable bootleg (Originally posted by J Milburn)

~~Keep~~ Create article List of Cradle of Filth bootlegs, and merge this into there - A Bootleg yes, but I move that it is notable as it is a collection of their earlier demos, pre-stutio album era. Many of the other bootlegs Cradle of I'd say are non-notable, but this one I'd say is acceptable as it combines older demos that do not appear on any studio albums and the like. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the precedent set by the ad nauseam debates regarding the ROIOs of Pink Floyd. If there's a List of Cradle of Filth bootlegs I'd support a merge to that. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am seeing no evidence of sources- what makes this bootleg notable? J Milburn 20:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable bootleg, and I in no way endorse articles on bootlegs. LuciferMorgan 15:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no sources at time of close. Daniel 03:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bombjacks[edit]

Delete. Fails WP:Band Endless Dan 18:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep Providing this can be sourced, the tour of Japan does meet #4 of WP:BAND. I think this shows that WP:BAND desperately needs rewriting, but rules is rules. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, I don't see any sources. No website or even MySpace. All I come up with is a video game. --Endless Dan 19:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any reference to the band; and they've only released a single album. Remove unreferenced material and there's nothing left. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My instinct would be to say delete but this article shows a tiny glimmer of possibility that would ordinarily save it. I second the thought that WP:BAND desperately needs rewriting. --Stormbay 20:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I took another look and can't find sources and the band appears non notable. --Stormbay 22:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claiming to meet WP:BAND is one thing, actually meeting it verifiably is another. WP:BAND does not trump policy. Nothing on this band in Google News Archive except a trivial mention in an article on a charity gig. --Dhartung | Talk 22:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, leaning to keep with the nominator's withdrawal (but that's irrelevant, the result is still that the article remains). Daniel 03:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adverse inference[edit]

Simple legal dicdef. I could copy all of my Blacks Law dictionary into wiki and see what sticks, but there's nothing particularly notable or unusual about adverse inference (it's exactly what it sounds like) to warrant an article on the phrase. superβεεcat 18:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was planning on adding more as I study the topic. I don't agree that it's just a definition to the layperson (no doubt it is to someone versed in the law). I'm a layperson interested in this topic and I am interested in discussion, history, interpretation, application, and context of it. I do NOT, however, recommend that you copy in the contents of a dictionary. That would violate copyright law and also be a sure way to add many trivial articles. I'm sure you agree that there are some concepts or phrases that appear in a legal dictionary and also properly appear in Wikipedia. NuclearWinner 19:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would never copy a copyright text, I was making an analogy. My point was that any legal phrase found in (as an example) Black's is still a dicdef (or jargon), and unless the concept has particular notability, I doubt it is appropriate for an article. Adverse inference is a fairly straightforward concept. I'd like to see how this AfD pans out. If others agree with me and it is deleted, I'm perfectly open to recreation with notability established. - superβεεcat 19:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, possibly merge into a larger article on legal inference. -- The Anome 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep. What's the notability of this topic? It's just a definition of a legal term. put it in wiktionary. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 19:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for curiousity's sake. Give it a chance to breathe (it was just created today). Are there notable cases where "adverse inference" won or lost the case? I'm also "lay" in this area, but the concept, although straightforward to someone with a law background, seems fascinating to me. Research quickly NuclearWinner! Be bold! If you add nothing, that would be an ironic instance of adverse inference...we need evidence! Keeper | 76 19:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure such an overbroad concept as "legal inference" exists. The word "inference" bears the same definition in the legal context as the lay context, that is, logic applied to prove something indirectly. There are a variety of presumptions (such as that of innocence) which may be appropriate for an article, but inference is fairly straightforward. Particular rules of construction which lead to inferences may be noteworthy, but that's yet another topic. I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong! - superβεεcat 19:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would information such as how this concept was established + notable court cases that hinged around this topic be encyclopedic? I am not sure how crucial this is the the concept of law but I could see it expanded using those two guidelines as a basis. Spryde 20:16, 27 September 2007 (UT

Comment I suppose it's not impossible, but it's difficult if not impossible to determine the effect of an adverse inference after a trial. An adverse inference occurs when one party fails to produce some evidence or a witness and the fact-finder is either allowed or not allowed to take into consideration that fact. The inference drawn would be akin to "Oh Joe didn't produce the gun... he must have KNOWN his fingerprints were on it. GUILTY!" Because we usually don't see into the minds of the deliberating jury (or judge), we don't really know what effect an adverse inference has / doesn't have. Whew. All of that said - I suppose if some appropriate notable material were produced as well as a history, not the dicdef as it stands, I would... (gasp) change my mind! - superβεεcat 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can think of lots of cases where we are told whether an adverse inference is drawn; where a judge sits alone he acts as trier of fact and states his inferences in his reasons. Legal terms are not like definitions because notable cases often turn on their application and they can be compared across jurisdictions (i.e. can you draw an adverse inference from the failure of an accused to take the stand in New Zealand? In France? In Canada?). I think until we see how it turns out it's probably safest to keep.--Markdsgraham 21:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW I'm going to withdraw this as nominator and watch it for improvement / notability. I'm still not totally convinced, but enough people seem to find this interesting, and as a JD myself, I wouldn't want to keep interested persons from learning about this (apparently) interesting legal concept. Cheers! - superβεεcat 22:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyright violation. GRBerry 02:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Smedley[edit]

Non notable person Rapido 18:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. article seems to have been written by the subject. -Icewedge 18:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable. Feels very self-promotional, as in Michael Scott self-promotional. Keeper | 76 18:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice as he could be significant enough in the banking world that a valid article could be written - but it would take someone with specialist expertise to do it, which I don't have — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, the article is an almost word-for-word copy of [13]. No prejudice to recreation/rewriting if reliable sources can be found to establish notability.--Sethacus 05:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. --Sc straker 14:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN - Sorry Charlie. Tiptopper 16:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilaristurbing[edit]

No reliable sources. Non-notable neologism. Google returns 18 hits including this article, a few blogs, and a few forums. Prod removed by anon. Onorem♠Dil 18:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilariously Delete Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbingly Delete WP:NEO Keeper | 76 18:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It's a story, not even an article about the word. -- Kl4m ^{T C} 19:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endophrastically delete per nom. shoy 19:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:N, WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. Carlosguitar 22:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pull the other one. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 22:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as keep due to nominator withdrawal. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hasland Junior School[edit]

~~Yet another unsourced article on a non-notable elementary school. Contested prod. --Finngall ^talk 18:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nomination withdrawn due to addition of plentiful sources and improvement in quality. --Finngall ^talk 20:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep per ~~nom~~ new sources. Looks much better now. Keeper | 76 18:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC) vote changed by Keeper | 76 18:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save I am currently collecting images on the school and in the process of writing the article based on my own knowledge. How do you class the school as non-notable? Other primary schools, for example Dale Community Primary School, have even less information about them but are not marked for deletion. The idea of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopaedia, so surely an addition of a primary school is good, even if it is 'non-notable'? Thanks, Schumi555 18:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an article "based on your own knowledge" is Original research, and (don't take this personally) not a reliable source. Also, pointing out other schools is an example of OTHER STUFF EXISTS, which generally doesn't make a good argument for your case. Actually, it may lead someone to proposing deletion to the "other stuff" more frequently than saving your own. My opinions only. Keeper | 76 19:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comments, I won't go into arguments about OTHER STUFF EXISTS. I will go out and find other sources from local library, the school etc. Will try and add before the discussion ends. Thanks, Schumi555 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting here that you are being very gracious. Thank you for being a good faith editor! Glad you're here, good luck with your search. Some advice: look for things that have been written ABOUT the school from independent sources, things that were not wrtten BY the school. Look for things written about the HISTORY of the school and it's contributions to the local scene there - when was it founded? Who built it? Are there any notable people that attended? Any notable controversies involving the school?. Attack this with the mindset that this "junior school" article could one day be a Featured Article, as all articles should be striving for! Happy searching -- Keeper | 76 19:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can usefy it if you'd like to keep up the work. --Haemo 19:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a presently unsourced article on an elementary school. I feel that this school is non-notable until proven otherwise. I will watch the major edits going on and amend my comments, if necessary. --Stormbay 21:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save Hang on... Isn't the whole point of Wikipedia that non-notable articles are expanded by users, not just deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted Ted (talk • contribs) 12:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a result of recent improvements to the article, I believe this now satisfies WP:N standards for schools. Even in worse case situations we should be redirecting these schools to a district page per WP:R guidelines, but this is no longer one of these cases. Burntsauce 17:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 03:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dane Christensen[edit]

Delete minimally sourced BLP of an actor who played a minor role in a relatively minor movie. Carlossuarez46 18:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Added classification as a stub. Seems to meet general stub criteria. - Rjd0060 23:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMO not nearly enough work to be notable. Tiptopper 23:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. GregorB 16:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not YET notable (unlike his sister). --Sc straker 02:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Some opinions labeled "delete" in fact advocate "merge" (and hence "keep" for AfD purposes), while others have no serious rationale ("pathetic trash"). Yet more note that WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, although it is unclear how that policy applies to an article that mentions no names. On the whole, a clear consensus to delete does not exist. Whether this content should be merged is an editorial matter. Sandstein 06:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-American casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

Although some of this is considered notable, it might not be considered notable enough to appear in a encyclopedia. If it is not deleted, at the very least, it should be merged into the main 9/11 page. Davnel03 18:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete First, I'm surprised no one's gotten upset about the use of the word "American" here (see e.g. Talk:American and Talk:American (word)). Secondly, whatever happened to "We Are All Americans"? Thirdly, these people don't have names? In any case, someone's done a lot of research to put these numbers together so I don't think it should be deleted, but unless this can be expanded to be a real article (cf. List of tornado-related deaths at schools) it should be merged into another article. The only question is where? Note that Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks redirects to September 11, 2001 attacks#Fatalities. Maybe that section could be broken out into a real article and merged with this? Ewlyahoocom 19:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was voted on before in 2005: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-American casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks (the capitalization has changed). Ewlyahoocom 19:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and put into a table in another article - it doesn't need its own. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 9/11 article, and then Delete I don't think anyone did a lot of research to put these numbers together. There are lots of 9/11 articles that *:mention where the victims came from. "Argentina 4, Australia 11, Bangladesh 6..." Just some cold statistics here. I remember that one of the five guys contained in "Peru - 5" was a kitchen worker who had his 19th birthday on September 11, 2001. And what is he now? He's a "Peru 5". A similar article called "List of American casualties by state" would be just as pointless (Alabama-17, Alaska-3, etc.)... Mandsford 20:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the "9/11 article" (I assume you mean September 11, 2001 attacks?) is already really, really long (112 kilobytes). Ewlyahoocom 20:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but it's just a table, and would be rather informative in there. We can always split that one a bit. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge per above, it is only just numbers which can be easily added, maybe arrenged the organisation of that new section so it would not increase significantly more the length of the article.--JForget 23:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per JForget. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the WP is not for lists of information or for memorials. Tarc 13:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wow a list of numbers... gimme a break... this is pathetic trash. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - useful list. For once, we actually have a list that's useful, encyclopedic, and presents pertinent information. At the risk of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS links being thrown at me, I can't imagine for the life of me how a list of national casualties in one of the most historic events in modern history can't be encyclopedic, while List of Naruto characters that carry a sword... blah blah blah is considered notable. If necessary, change it to Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks, and add Americans to the top. The Evil Spartan 01:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't that interesting, it's a blue link... The Evil Spartan 01:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proving my point, I didn't have to even search for this one. Found it on vandal patrol: List of Naruto story arcs. Are we saying as a community this is more encyclopedic than the nationality of the 9-11 victims? The Evil Spartan 01:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" can and should be thrown at you. If you object to the Naruto thing then go file an AfD. It has no bearing as to whether or not this page should be kept or deleted. Tarc 02:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not, if I'm pointing out that if we have any lists at all, this is a proper one. I could just as easily point to IDONTLIKEIT for other people. As for your argument, WP might not be a list of information, but it has some information, and the onus is on your to prove that this list is not worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. The Evil Spartan 02:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, there is no "onus" on the keep or the merge or the delete people here. Each is equally obligated to present their arguments, based on established Wiki policy and guidelines. So far, you have cited "it is useful" and "other lists which I think are trivial also exist" as reasons to keep, both of which are generally cited as flawed/faulty reasonings in an AfD discussion. Tarc 14:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Strong Keep- this list is useful and important, the political implications are the only thing I can see driving this call for deletion, rather than "trash". This is worthy of a page of its own, and I support it.JJJ999 13:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are an encyclopedia, not a memorial, or list of non notable memorials. Burntsauce 16:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as encyclopedias are repositories of information and this attack is historically significance; thus, information about it is something that researchers will look into. Casualty statistics and lists are handy for researchers. Sinceerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a table into September 11, 2001 attacks. This information isn't purely trivial (this data, for instance, could help illustrate the motivations for varied reactions and military support from other countries after the 9/11 attacks), yet it doesn't warrant it's own article (this list is no more important than any host of other lists). SkerHawx 17:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge. I'm with Alkivar here. This article is really just a list, and not a particulary necessary list. There isn't any use for this information in any of the other 9/11 articles. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a memorial. Dannycali 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was that delete seems to be the consensus. Daniel 03:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dane Kusić[edit]

nn professor; fails WP:PROF Carlossuarez46 17:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to multiple publications listed on her CV. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - any third party sources? If not, delete. Davnel03 18:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 20:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF. Eusebeus 20:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CV claims to have been a "Professor of music", but exact rank not stated and not verifiable. PhD not until 1996, so not likely to have risen to full professor by 2001, after which moved into Java programming. Almost no significant peer-reviewed papers, no books. the CV includes teaching positions "cancelled because of lack of enrollment". GRC, which are the publications that impressed you?DGG (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've read the CV, Resume and website, and see no evidence of notability, no evidence of having a notable impact on academic research or thinking in the area of ethnomusicology. Pete.Hurd 23:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above--Crusio 10:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Although it appears that subject has removed all content anyway. --Sc straker 02:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smokers Rights[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 article has mainly been developed by User:Naacats who has been blocked due to his repeated violations of NPOV (see: community sanction noticeboard). This article has few sources, and contains POV statements esp. using weasel words. The sections on the anti-smoking movement read like the speech of a soapboxer rather than a balanced, factual article. I feel that this topic should be covered on Wikipedia and is of at least mid-importance (maybe under a different title, like "Smokers' rights movement" or something), but as it has been created here I think it better to hit the "reset" button as this is a misleading and poorly-constructed article. TeamZissou 17:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepVoteyMcVoter 17:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)— VoteyMcVoter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User has been indefblocked for vandalism. MastCell ^Talk 18:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we've run out of soapboxes, we just can't spare any more for this article.--UsaSatsui 17:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but I would accept formation of a new "Smokers' rights movement" or the equivalent. There is no doubt that smokers have some claims on rights like the rest of us (just that our rights to health take priority) and that there is no doubt that some have opposed smoking restrictions (not just the tobacco industry fronting organisations). I've made limited edits or fact tag insertion to the article previously, whilst waiting/hoping that Naacats would start fleshing out the article rather than having it as "Work under construction" that was way-off POV pushing and uncited - but for now the article remains fatally flawed in its approach and adherence to WP:N, WP:Cite, WP:V, WP:RS and of course WP:NPOV and the suggested alternative naming is more precise. David Ruben ^Talk 18:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone involved in this discussion may want to have a read of this. I don't think any rules are being completely broken here, but off-wiki attempts to recruit meatpuppets for POV-pushing is certainly bending them. Expect a flood of SPA votes here, too. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That website has just been revamped and the link, whilst still that given on the homepage, is broken - I'm not sure if this means he has deliberately taken down the meatpuppet recruitment (credit to him if so), or just that the site's upgrade corrupted the links.David Ruben ^Talk 00:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Naacats had commented that the off-wiki canvassing link was supposed to be private and not visible to us (only to members of his organization), so chances are that he's just corrected the oversight which allowed us to view the canvassing. MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#SOAP. NN org. meshach 04:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Soapbox guidelines. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SOAP. bogdan 12:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is little more than a soapbox for the now banned User:Naacats.Yilloslime (t) 16:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsalvageable POV fork. The Smokers' Rights movement is potentially notable enough for its own article (though first, we should try to cover it in parent articles unless we accumulate too much well-sourced material) - but this article would require a complete tear-down and rewrite to be anything near encyclopedic. Therefore, I'd suggest deletion, with possible recreation in the future if sources accumulate and the topic gets too big for parent articles. MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Star Fleet Universe. This was a difficult AfD to close. First, let me note that the claim that the article was original research does not hold water since the article does not make any new synthesis from the source material (aside from a few sentences in the introduction that may be problematic). Second, the claim that there is a copyright problem is also not persuasive. While some sentences are very similar to that of the source material to the point where it might be considered plagiarism in an academic setting, the vast majority of the article appears to be substantially paraphrased to the point where it is not an issue. However, overall there is no reason to consider this notable. We have no reliable secondary sources about the matter and as it stands fails WP:FICT. Furthermore, this isn't even from the main Star Trek universe but from a side-universe constructed for a series of games. Notability is not generally inherited and it is certainly not inherited from things that are only barely notable themselves. The main reason is this not a decision of delete is that some of the material might make sense as being incorporated into the main Star Fleet Universe article and leaving a redirect makes it easier for the material be used there or at some other project. JoshuaZ 00:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Fleet Universe timeline[edit]

This history of the future is, of course, unfinished, but also non-notable and just too in universe to be classed as anything other than original research based on original research. --Gavin Collins 16:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is not original research but is based upon the published sources which the article cites. Colonel Warden 16:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction deletions.--Gavin Collins 16:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the History section of the Star Fleet Universe article, with some appropriate paring down/cleaning up/sourcing. As with all the other articles, this isn't original research, as it's information from the books. Pinball22 17:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - Per Colonel Warden, this is not original research. Rray 18:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No citations to independent secondary sources - that means it's original research, folks. MarkBul 18:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. It may mean that it's not notable by our standards, since primary sources don't count for notability, but use of primary sources is not original research, as long as they're used in a way that doesn't involve synthesis or interpretation. Pinball22 18:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Star Fleet Universe as above. Web Warlock 19:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this article to make sure that the main SFU article to keep it from gaining an ungainly amount of weight in the history section (that is, a preemptive content fork). Merging any significant portion into the article would create the situation I was trying to avoid.

Non-notable - that is more a question of is SFU notable enough for this content fork. Recent AfDs seem to show that SFU is notable enough for a main article and a few off-branches.

OR - This page is derived from fictional works. It therefore proceeds from original sources, but does not consist of original thought, promote a point of view, nor comprise of new syntheses of that material.

Some previous AfDs of Fictional timeline articles, for those interested:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EverQuest_timeline - No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dragonlance_timeline - Keep
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dates_in_Harry_Potter (1st) - Delete
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dates_in_Harry_Potter_(second_nomination) - Keep
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Back_to_the_Future_timeline - Keep

Please note that (other than the 1st HP nom) AfDs that resulted in a Delete are not listed here, as my Wiki-fu isn't up to finding them. --Rindis 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some delete outcomes (my Google search string was "timeline site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wikipedia:articles_for_deletion):

I'm inclined to allow for timelines, myself (but not timeline comparisons). But there's big inconsistency in how these votes go. --Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. — RJH (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COPYVIO. Follow the link to the site that begins "THE STAR FLEET UNIVERSE TIMELINE Copyright (c) 1985-2007 Amarillo Design Bureau, Inc. Revised 12 April 2007". Changing a few words here or there doesn't make it less of a violation. People pay the U.S. Copyright office good money for that "c" with the circle in it. Mandsford 20:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a copyvio. Have you written a research paper? One takes info from sources (almost always copy written) and uses it to write about the subject (of course changing info so its not a direct copy and paste). From WP:copyvio "almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material" Viperix 02:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. Don't be naive. I had to go to school before there were word processors, so we couldn't do the "cut-paste-alter" maneuver, and it was easier to put something in your own words than to copy it verbatim and change a little here and there. For example "Y21 The Federation encounters the Orions, a smaller star-faring culture on their border. The Orions quickly set up trade relations." This is brilliantly rearranged to "Y21 The Federation encounters the Orions. Trade relations are quickly established." We all "link" to copyrighted material, but we don't all copy and pass an alteration off as our own work. Big difference between the two. Mandsford 18:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, please don't make assumptions, I had to go to school before computers as well. The example you give would hold up as not a copyvio. Especially since there is not that much info in the first place, the ways to re-write that sentence are limited. Also, Naive would be thinking copy write infringement didn't happen when there was not computers. Now days they have computer programs that check for that. Viperix 20:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing (that I thought of later, silly me) is that there's a difference between republishing copyrighted material in a research paper for class, and doing the same thing in an article on Wikipedia. For schoolwork, it's simply laziness. On Wikipedia, it's something that the service wishes to be avoided. Mandsford 23:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per WP:N and WP:V, and WP:HEY. A ~~very notable work of fiction, highly documented with many reference sources available.~~ A notable fictional game that has sources available, The article needs improvement and better footnotes, but it easily meets Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion and will certainly be improved over time. --Parsifal _Hello 08:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I'm striking out my entire comment because on further review I realized I don't have time to do the needed research, so I withdraw my !vote rather than enter an arbitrary opinion. --Parsifal _Hello 18:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this debate echoes the guideline WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL which features the specific Star Trek example. Note that there is a similar situation here: there already exists an article called Chronological list of Star Trek stories based on the television and film series, from which it draws its primary sources. However, there is no rationale for keeping Star Fleet Universe timeline, as the timeline was made up for the game, and as such, belongs at Future Wikia, where original research is allowed to some extent and fact-based speculations are welcome.--Gavin Collins 09:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once again, Star Fleet Universe and Star Trek are not the same thing. One is inspired by the other but they are not equal. Web Warlock 10:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am glad we agree on this point. --Gavin Collins 11:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But you don't agree... Gavin, you're still totally missing the point. Yes, the timeline was made up for the game. But that doesn't mean it's made up or original research for the purposes of the Wikipedia, since this article is about the game, which, as a long-running setting of commercially-released products, is a valid topic in and of itself. Does that make sense? We've been arguing this particular point for weeks, and I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer. Pinball22 13:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I would have to disagree with you there. The point is that that Chronological list of Star Trek stories has got a large body of primary and secondary sources for most of the individual dates, whereas the Star Fleet Universe timeline came from a PDF of dates created for the one instance of this game. I would suggest that one primary source (which possibly make this article a copyright violation - see above) is insufficient to establish notabiliy.I would even go further and say that this PDF does not count as a primary source for this article at all; I would say this is WP:OR once removed. --Gavin Collins 14:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question of notability is a separate one from the question of whether this is original research. No, a single primary source is probably not sufficient to establish notability. But that still doesn't mean it's original research: obviously, the material in the article came from that primary source, and thus is not original research. Saying that the PDF that's referenced doesn't count as a primary source makes no sense -- it was created by the publisher of the Star Fleet Universe games, so why wouldn't it be a perfectly reasonable primary source for an article about those games? You keep trying to call the articles original research based on the fact that the universe depicted in them is not the same one as that of the Star Trek TV shows/movies. But that doesn't make sense, since these aren't articles about the Star Trek universe, they're articles about the Star Fleet Universe, which isn't something being made up for the Wikipedia, as your arguments seem to indicate that you believe, but rather something that has been created by a game company for the series of games that these articles are about. Pinball22 14:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main Star Fleet Universe article RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main SFU article without prejudice for later re-splitting if size of section warrants it. SFU as a whole is notable, not least because of the range of notable products relating to it. If timeline(s) get too large to fit handily into the main article for a topic, it's worth splitting them for this consideration only, as is a common practice. Content forks for size don't require independent notability. SamBC(talk) 15:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the articles in question? I would consider the current timeline article way to big to merge into the main article as is. If you are thinking that the current content needs to be trimmed down, feel free to give suggestions, I'm going to need them if this goes to 'merge'. --Rindis 17:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the only aspect in which the current article is "too long" to merge is that it might end up a little disproportionate. The main article is by no means too long to accept that much more material. I would suggest consulting on the talk page for the main article to see if there is consensus in either direction (should/shouldn't be forked). I personally think that the verdict of this AfD ought to be "keep or merge based on consensus at main article talk page" along these lines. SamBC(talk) 17:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This raises an important point about the potential for this article to be extended or amended over and over. If, say, the existing timeline is expanded, or a new timeline is written for a new edition of SFU, this article could run and run. The answer must be that it is unverifiable speculation: that is original research by the way. --Gavin Collins 17:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, if new published material alters the actual information that the article tries to provide, then the article will be altered. What it currently contains is all justified by current published material, so there's no WP:CRYSTAL-ball gazing going on. The article doesn't contain speculation as to how the timeline is going to develop with new source material. The timeline doesn't contain analytical (etc) material, so primary sources are sufficient and don't mean that there's any OR. I'm slightly confused by these allegations. SamBC(talk) 17:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this timeline is extended by a further, say by 1,000 years, then at some point you would have to agree its a pointless article. --Gavin Collins 18:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense... why should we stop having an article just because it's going to grow in the future? Many articles are going to grow and change in the future as new things happen to their subjects; that doesn't mean we shouldn't have articles about what they're currently like. Pinball22 19:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only if they are sourced from independent sources. This is just original research, one step removed. --Gavin Collins 21:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to get into semantics, but the important point of "original research" is the "original" part, and if it's one step removed, it can't really be "original". SamBC(talk) 21:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent reliable sources. This is all sourced to primary sources (which seems to be role-playing game manuals). Articles must be able to stand on thier own, this one does not. --Phirazo 17:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of reliable third party sources. Burntsauce 17:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, is the argument of the delete !votes (from Phirazo and Burntsauce) based on notability? First-party and/or primary sources are a perfectly good source of direct "factual" (ie non-analytical) content, but they don't establish notability. If so, I would point out that, as a content fork for size concerns, notability is not an issue for this article provided that the article it is spun off from is appropriate under notability. SamBC(talk) 17:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - First off, notability is not inherited. Secondly, any article on fiction that does not have secondary sourcing will inevitability be a plot summary, since this is all that can be derived from primary sources without being original research. --Phirazo 18:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your second statement is very far off from the truth. Suggesting that you can only summarize the plot with primary sources is irresponsible, inane, and senseless. From WP:OR regarding Primary sources, "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Also from WP:OR "Examples of primary sources include... ...scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." Finally also from WP:OR Secondary sources are only required when interpretation of the primary source was required. Viperix 20:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - All that can "collected and organized" is the plot of a role playing game. If this article does not have secondary sources, it fails WP:NOT#PLOT, which requires "real-world context and sourced analysis". In the case of articles on fiction, "interpretation of the primary source" is required. --Phirazo 00:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Not true, Watch the matrix. Can you collect the fact that Neo wears sun glasses in a particular scene? Yes. Does it require interpretation? No. Could it be added to WP? Yes. Another example this time using another role playing game. Look at D&D Can you collect from the primary source that a certain dragon is red? Yes. Does it require interpretation? No. Could it be added to WP? Yes. You see? One can collect and organize more than just the plot using primary sources and without interpretation. The problem which I have stated before is that WP editors don't understand OR is supposed to block original thought or idea's, not source based research from a primary source.Viperix 06:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        None of the examples you give are "real-world context and sourced analysis", but are instead plot points and trivia. (I would argue whether or not Neo is wearing sunglasses in a particular scene of "The Matrix" can not be added to WP, since it is the worst kind of fancruft and trivia.) How can you give real-world context and sourced analysis in the absence of secondary sources without it being OR? --Phirazo 01:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Your seem to be missing my point, It is sourced, and if content passes all the other WP:THISORTHAT rules it would be addable. All the examples are "sourced based research". For example say the glasses did fit with notability for whatever reason. There would inevitably be sources that proved notability, then you could add information about the glasses directly from the movie. In the context of this discussion, we know the game is notable, if the time line is notable, then one can use primary sources for reference. My whole point above was that no, interpretation is not always required for fiction.Viperix 11:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that the argument is that any coverage of fiction without interpretation and analysis can only be a plot summary. I'm not actually sure that I agree with it in all cases, but your arguments don't really counter it. My main problem with it in this case is that a fictional history isn't really a "plot". Yes, it's a summary, but it's not a summary of a plot, it's a summary of fictional history. That's what I think, anyway... SamBC(talk) 14:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        A plot "is the rendering and ordering of the events and actions of a story" (from Plot (narrative)). I'd say a fictional history is a plot. --Phirazo 16:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I think your argument would be better served by saying that a fictional history is a story, and thus a timeline is a summary of the events and actions of that story, thus a plot summary. From that argument, the precise definition of story becomes important. From the argument you actually make, you would be claiming that an entire setting (in this case a game setting) is a "story", which is probably rather tenuous. From the argument I suggest, I would say that a fictional history isn't a story, but can't think of cogent arguments for that off the top of my head right now. SamBC(talk) 17:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You are wikilawyering this to death. You are trying to skirt the spirit of WP:NOT#PLOT by narrowly interpreting the letter of the policy. Lists of events in a fictional work have long been considered unencylopedic, and you can't get around that by declaring your particular work of fiction is not a "story" per se. --Phirazo 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I resent that accusation. I actually have no fondness for Star Fleet Universe. I also have no dislike for it. I just disagree that fictional histories for a broad setting are stories, and I doubt that was the intent of those drafting or discerning consensus for the guidelines and policies. SamBC(talk) 20:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You (Phirazo) need to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) where it says this: "Examples of information available in primary sources include: the birth and death dates of fictional characters; performance statistics or characteristics for fictional vehicles or devices; history of fictional locations or organizations; background information on fictional creatures; and, of course, the plot itself." Seems fairly evident to me what can be included using primary sources without interpretation. And I know what he is saying (SamBC) , I disagree completley, there is plenty of information in fiction that without interpretation and analysis is not a plot summary. Viperix 08:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not saying that you can't extract plot points and characters from primary sources (you can), I'm saying that articles on fiction require interpretation, and you can not do that with only primary sources. Besides, this article doesn't follow WP:WAF in the slightest, since it fails most of the conclusions in that guideline. --Phirazo 17:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I disagree with that. Not all information from fiction requires interpretation. One could gather plenty of information without any interpretation. Viperix 22:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a fairly long-standing principle that notability of an article's subject is unnecessary when it's a content fork due to the size of the section. It can be argued that this article would be excessively long if it were a section of the main article, hence it gets spun off as a seperate article without needing seperate notability. SamBC(talk) 22:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The idea that sub-articles are immune to notability, or that they inherit the notability of a parent article is not a "long standing principle". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Akatsuki members, which was upheld in DRV. --Phirazo 00:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I was referring to the process described by WP:SPINOUT and WP:SS. Whether it's a valid case of that is another matter, but generally a valid spinout doesn't need independent notability. SamBC(talk) 01:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I have to agree with Sam here in that, in my experience, that has been a fairly long-standing principle. --Kizor 21:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep useful resource, pathetic referencing. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am going to restate my case here, since the debate above has gotten long, and I want to make myself clear. This article is little more than a plot summary, and even if we belabor the definition of "wikt:story" and "wikt:plot", this article is still a summary of a fictional work. The intent I read in WP:NOT#PLOT would say that Wikipedia is not the place for a simple summary of a work of fiction. WP:NOT#PLOT says articles on fiction must have real world context and sourced analysis, and this article has neither. The only place to find real world context and sourced analysis is secondary sources, which this article does not have. I also have concerns that a timeline like this is a derivative work of Star Fleet Universe, since it does not have the critical commentary that would make it allowable as a fair use of copyrighted material. This article also has big problems with the WP:WAF guidelines, particularly because the article is derived entirely from primary sources and is almost completely in-universe. This article fails even the lower standards of an article section, and has no place anywhere in Wikipedia. Therefore, it should be deleted. --Phirazo 17:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 03:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Sterling Scholar Awards[edit]

I'm not sure what notability requirements this falls under. Regardless, I don't think it satisfies said criteria; despite having two sources in the online newspaper Deseret News. It may also be a text dump; parts of it read suspiciously similar to the news articles. Comments? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, despite being state-level these are more a scholarship than a lifetime honor. Many, many scholarships are competitive and listing them all would simply be pointless. --Dhartung | Talk 22:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable scholarship. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 03:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kazaa platinum[edit]

Delete nn product. Carlossuarez46 16:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks to be Kazaa - the original client. Perhaps it doesn't come with all the spyware and this is why its called 'Platinum'. At best this is a redirect or merge with the kazaa article.Operating 17:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RedirectVoteyMcVoter 17:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User blocked indef. Gakusha 20:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From what I can tell this is an unofficial client that you pay somebody else to use. This may or may not add up to a scam. Regardless, there are no reliable sources writing about it, just download sites and forums. --Dhartung | Talk 22:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Dhartung. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 03:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agape Flights[edit]

A small one-aircraft company for which no third-party non-trivial sources can be found to establish notability, thereby failing WP:V Russavia 16:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 20:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins 12:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 03:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private Wings[edit]

A single biz-jet operator for which no third-party, non-trivial sources can be found which would establish notability, thereby failing WP:V. Russavia 16:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 20:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins 12:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 03:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic pulse in fiction[edit]

Delete - directory of unassociated items. The things on this laundry list are not related to each other by virtue of sharing to a greater or lesser degree of importance a particular plot device. "It has an EMP in it" is not a theme. Otto4711 16:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This fails the first test of this list. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a non-notable, original research magnet. Non-notable because there can never be in-depth reliable sources that discuss each of these dot points in detail, only the movie/book/game itself, so it's an indiscriminate collection of trivia. And not to mention the original research ("oh look, I saw this EMP missile in some game I played"). I oppose merging any information in the main article because the list will just grow again. This kind of stuff is not front page material. Spellcast 17:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, its not front page material. nobody is suggesting it for our main page. Not all WP content is of that 1% level. DGG (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is unfortunate that only a fraction of the articles here are of decent standard. Spellcast 11:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only is this an original research magnet, trivia magnet, cruft magnet, et cetera, it also violates the very basics of our WP:FIVE pillars as well. Burntsauce 17:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because the article indicates the degree or extent of EMPs in fiction. Merging would be fine with me as well and if I have a moment, I may give a search of references, too, if that will help. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although it probably could be merged back into the Electromagnetic pulse article. As used in fiction, it's a plot device where a nuclear weapon shuts down all the machines without directly harming anybody. It's not often used, since there's not much drama in a power outage, permanent or not. Mandsford 20:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate list of loosely associated films, TV shows, etc, that aren't any more notable for featuring EMPs in them. Crazysuit 01:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Having a similar theme or plot motive is not indiscriminate. indiscriminate means having no plausible connection--a list of every move every made is indiscriminate, as is a list of every fifth movie alphabetically. A list of every movie with a protagonist wearing a blue shirt is not exactly indiscriminate, but unimportant. thats the sort of thing which would be trivia. A device to bring about the crisis is not indiscriminate, irrelevant, or trivial. If for some of these the use was purely decorative, remove them. apparently used so much that it would be better as a separate article. DGG (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "What the hell are they talking about in, like every science fiction movie and TV show, when they talk about 'using the EMP'?" "Well, don't check Wikipedia!" Chubbles 08:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To expand a bit: I actually found this AfD not because I was looking at the AfD's for the day (I had been doing that earlier, and I must have missed this one), but because I was wondering what EMP meant, since I had heard of it in The Matrix and Firefly. This is a theme so prevalent in science fiction that it had to be split off from the parent article, there were so many instances. Here, again, relevant, encyclopedic information is being nominated for deletion - about a central plot device in many works of popular culture. And as long as "popular culture" continues to equal "trivia" in the minds of most editors, this will continue. Matthew Arnold smiles in his grave. Chubbles 08:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this is trivia. Let's take an example from the article: "In the 1999 computer game FreeSpace 2, one of the weapons available to the player is an EMP missile." No-one writes about points like this anywhere and is pure original research. If this isn't trivia, I don't know what is. Something being common is no excuse to have a rogue gallery of every non-notable EMP mention ever made. Spellcast 11:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chubbles does have a point. But citations from secondary sources would help a lot. Fosnez 10:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone wants to make it an article rather than a list. JJL 17:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well! Another of those listcruft-trivia filled articles without significant sources.--JForget 00:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of every non-notable EMP reference ever made. We are not trying to include everything that can be said about anything. The references don't have anything to do with the article info. This fails WP:ATRIV, WP:IINFO, and WP:OR horribly. Spellcast 11:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. On head-counting alone this is no consensus, but the delete arguments asked for multiple reliable sources asserting notability, and the keep argument never really addressed this. Daniel 03:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double Double Pizza[edit]

Repeating my PROD rationale: "Fails WP:CORP; no independent sources cited, none added since January." PROD was contested per comment on talk page. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject does not seem notable ff m 16:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources sited and thus fails notability test. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Double double delete~~ per the nominator. Burntsauce 17:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to KEEP there appears to be some minor evidence of notability here, much more so than a South African restaurant favored by someone here. Burntsauce 17:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs improvement, but just the quickest of Google searches brings up a number of independent sources, and a 70+ member franchise is reasonably notable.Kww 17:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like it would be a tasty pizza topping. That'd be more notable than the food chain in fact.Operating 17:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Adding -com to a Google search took it down to 84 hits, most of which are directory listings. There were also a couple of health violations, but I'll assume they don't want to be notable for that. MarkBul 18:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I suppose the health violations here would make it NPOV? Just kidding. Too bad this is taking double double the efforts to get rid of an obviously unfixable, unsourceable stub. I have a favorite pizza place too. It's double double good. It's not in Wikipedia. Keeper | 76 18:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A restaurant chain that has more than 50 franchises and is growing is notable. This is not just a neighborhood pizza joint. Mandsford 21:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But where are substantial independent sources? Google give mainly business-directory entries and the like. --B. Wolterding 17:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonable size chain. JJL 17:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has a website and 50 resturants Chandlerjoeyross 22:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also just did a News Canada archive search and got all of three hits for the chain: two listings in another company's PR and one where an employee fought off a would-be robber. I don't see verifiable notability there. —C.Fred (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V Secret 21:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 03:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oskar Kron[edit]

Graphic designer who has won some "Scottish Design Awards". No indication that those awards are enough to confer notability. Almost no information in article. No sources. NawlinWiki 15:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No independent sourcing to establish notability. The Scottish Design Awards may be notable, but, again, there are no independent/substantial sources about Kron and these awards.--Sethacus 16:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability test for people. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 17:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Sethacus. Freshacconci | Talk 17:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Modernist 11:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Tiptopper 13:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 03:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Mitchell[edit]

Personal lacks notability Spanneraol 15:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable "family spokesman" Spanneraol 15:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the McCanns' spokesman doesn't confer notability. NawlinWiki 15:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above.--Sethacus 16:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable for being national BBC news reporter as per [14] and [15]GrahamHardy 19:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to have been a minor BBC figure at best.. in fact the article you quote says he "never quite made it"... Still not notable. Spanneraol 19:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most people in the UK will know his name from his days as on national BBC news where he appeared daily. Can we have some input from UK based Wikipedians ? GrahamHardy 19:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much of a BBC pressence was he? We don't have articles on everyone who ever appeared on CNN. Also the article as it currently exists mentions his being on BBC as an afterthought, and is almost all about his involvment in the McCanns storyline. Spanneraol 21:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article amended to concentrate on BBC which is of more import. Please can we have some UK based input to this dicscussion ! GrahamHardy 21:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO for creative professionals. --Sc straker 15:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Tiptopper 16:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Star Fleet Universe ))

Seltorian Tribunal (Star Fleet Universe)[edit]

This fictional race is non-notable, whilst the article itself provides no context or analysis, and has no independent sources to verify its in universe plot summary. --Gavin Collins 15:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction deletions.--Gavin Collins 15:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a more concise description to a new article on races of the Star Fleet Universe. Pinball22 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. This article was originally redirected to Minor Powers of the Star Fleet Universe article. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Unfortunately, that article was AfD'd last week. Right now I am trying to determain if it is worth the effort to create the page that Pinball22 is suggesting, but I'm afraid it will be nuked immediately in the current climate.--Donovan Ravenhull 17:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And blast into the Knumbskullinan Parallel Galaxy. There are no secondary source references on this page for a reason. MarkBul 18:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a brief summary. — RJH (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per above. • Lawrence Cohen 21:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no third party sources documented ANYWHERE within the article. End of story. Burntsauce 17:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel 03:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Delano Clark[edit]

Just does not appear notable to me. Using AFD instead of Speedy just in case I'm missing something here. TexasAndroid 15:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears this person received some awards but the awards do not appear to be substantial. Being a prof. at Cornell does make you notable. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand [16]. You don't get an obit in the NY Times if you're not notable.--Sethacus 16:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NYT article. 96T 17:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn academic. Eusebeus 17:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, probably notable from looks of things so I'm willing to give it some time. Burntsauce 17:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the NY Times article cited above: "Dr. Clark's research and his role in training many nuclear-power professionals earned him recognition in 1996 as a fellow of the American Nuclear Society, its highest honor." I'd say that sews it up. MarkBul 18:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Full professor, director of laboratory & head of department at prestigious university; elected fellow of national society; award named after him; NY Times obituary. Seems to meet WP:PROF. Espresso Addict 20:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Espresso Addict's rationale. Clearly notable. TrevorPearce 23:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Tiptoppertiptop —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all of this material was in when the AfD was placed, but the important honors were already in the article from the start. DGG (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NYT obit --Crusio 10:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coment Thank you editors and administrators for your consideration. A quick check off SciFinder, probably not exhaustive:

Mcguire, Stephen C.; Clark, David D.; Holcomb, Donald F. Modern physics concepts taught via a neutron activation analysis laboratory. American Journal of Physics (1996), 64(11), 1384-1388.

Clark, David. Intermarket relationships in the front end of the fuel cycle. Uranium and Nuclear Energy (1993), 18th 156-63.

Clark, David D.; Hossain, Tim Z. An improved method for prompt gamma-ray neutron activation analysis with moderated isotopic neutron sources. Proc. Int. Symp. Capture Gamma-Ray Spectrosc. Relat. Top., 8th (1994), Meeting Date 1993, 977-9.

Lindstrom, R. M.; Zeisler, R.; Vincent, D. H.; Greenberg, R. R.; Stone, C. A.; Mackey, E. A.; Anderson, D. L.; Clark, D. D.. Neutron capture prompt gamma-ray activation analysis at the NIST cold neutron research facility. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry (1992), 167(1), 121-6.

Clark, David D.; Emoto, Takashi; Oueliet, Carol G.; Pekrul, Elissa; Berg, J. Scott. The Cornell University cold neutron beam facility: design features. Los Alamos Natl. Lab., [Rep.] LA (U. S.) (1991), (LA--12146-C, Int. Workshop Cold Neutron Sources, 1990), 559-63.

Clark, David D.; Ouellet, Carol G.; Berg, J. Scott. On the design of a cold neutron source. Nuclear Science and Engineering (1992), 110(4), 445-54.

Clark, David D.. Considerations in upgrading intermediate flux reactors by the addition of cold neutron beams. AIP Conference Proceedings (1991), 238(Capture Gamma-Ray Spectrosc.), 936-42.

McElroy, R. D.; Clark, David D.; Yeh, T. R. Level parameters deduced from experimental beta-delayed neutron spectra. Institute of Physics Conference Series (1988), 88(Capture Gamma-Ray Spectrosc. 1987), S646-S648.

Clark, D. D.; Emoto, T. Low-background, neutron-capture gamma-ray facility. Institute of Physics Conference Series (1988), 88(Capture Gamma-Ray Spectrosc. 1987), S596-S598.

Clark, David D.; McElroy, Robert D.; Gill, R. L.; Piotrowski, A. Level densities near the neutron separation energy in strontium-93 to -97. ACS Symposium Series (1986), 324(Nucl. Off Line Stab.), 177-82.

Clark, D. D.; Yeh, T. R.; Lee, C. H.; Yuan, L. J.; Shmid, M.; Gill, R. L.; Chrien, R. E. Beta-delayed neutron spectra from rubidium-93 to -97 and cesium-143 to -146. Brookhaven Natl. Lab., [Rep.] BNL (1983), (BNL-51778, NEANDC Spec. Meet. Yields Decay Data Fission Prod. Nuclides), 455-8.

Clark, D. D.; McElroy, R. D.; Yeh, T. R.; Chrien, R. E. Neutron resonances in nuclides far from stability via energy spectra of beta-delayed neutrons. Brookhaven Natl. Lab., [Rep.] BNL (1983), (BNL-51778, NEANDC Spec. Meet. Yields Decay Data Fission Prod. Nuclides), 449-54.

McElroy, Robert D.; Clark, David D.; Gill, R. L.; Piotrowski, A. Direct measurement of natural line widths in delayed-neutron energy spectra. AIP Conference Proceedings (1985), 125(Capture Gamma-Ray Spectrosc. Relat. Top.), 912-15.

Yeh, T. R.; Clark, D. D.; Scharff-Goldhaber, G.; Chrien, R. E.; Yuan, L. J.; Shmid, M.; Gill, R. L.; Evans, A. E.; Dautet, H.; Lee, J. High resolution measurements of delayed neutron emission spectra from fission products. Comm. Eur. Communities, [Rep.] EUR (1983), (EUR 8355, Nucl. Data Sci. Technol.), 261-4.

Clark, D. D.; Goldhaber, G. S. Experimental studies of nuclides far from stability with the TRISTAN II fission-product separator at the Brookhaven National Laboratory (Yrast bands; delayed-neutron spectra). Final report, January 1, 1980-November 30, 1982. Report (1983), (DOE/ER/10576-10; Order No. DE83008663), 13 pp. CAN 99:77965 AN 1983:477965

Clark, D. D.; Boyce, J. R.; Cassel, E. T.; McGuire, S. C. Low-lying levels of uranium-236 from investigation of the Kp = 4- two-quasineutron isomer in (n,g ) and (n,e) experiments. Neutron Capture Gamma-Ray Spectrosc., [Proc. Int. Symp.], 3rd (1979), Meeting Date 1978, 585-7.

Clark, David D.; Kostroun, V. O.; Siems, Norman E. Identification of an isomer in silver-110 at 1-keV excitation energy. Physical Review C: Nuclear Physics (1975), 12(2), 595-608.

Clark, D. D.. Experimental study of nuclear isomers. Report (1973), (COO-3160-4), 22 pp. CAN 80:76955 AN 1974:76955

Clark, David D.. Shape isomers and double-humped barrier. Physics Today (1971), 24(12), 23-31.

Clark, David D.; Stabenau, Walter F. Determination of the multipolarity of the 0.3-sec. tantalum-182 isomeric transition by its L x-ray pattern alone. Physical Review Letters (1968), 21(13), 925-8.

Chamberlain, Owen; Clark, David D.. Elastic scattering of 340-m.e.v. protons by deuterons. Physical Review (1956), 102 473-85.

Clark, D. D.. Elastic scattering of 340-m.e.v. protons by deuterons. U.S. Atomic Energy Comm. (1953), UCRL-2255 69 pp. CAN 48:21083 AN 1954:21083

Igo, G. J.; Clark, D. D.; Eisberg, R. M. Statistical fluctuations in ionization by 31.5-m.e.v. protons. Physical Review (1953), 89 879-80. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiptopper (talk • contribs) 19:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (sorry, I forgot to sign) Tiptopper 19:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC) 28-Sept-2007[reply]

Comment Tiptopper, I appreciate your work, but it is not really relevant that this person published (a lot of) articles. That's what academics are supposed to do and it does not necessarily make them notable in an encyclopedic sense. Something like an NYT obit does make them notable. --Crusio 08:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I, too, appreciate the gesture and wish there were more like you, Tiptopper, willing to do the research. In the case of published articles, these are assessed by how widely cited they are. For instance, the article Clark wrote with Owen Chamberlain in the '50's is only cited by three, per Google Scholar. That's no to take anything away from his notability. After all, I was the one who dug up his obit.--Sethacus 02:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Daniel 03:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Layus[edit]

Fails WP:BAND and WP:V. Ward3001 15:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Augustana (band) which appears, on the face of it, passably notable. This article (Dan Layus) appears to have BLP issues, as well.--Sethacus 16:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Good call. MarkBul 19:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. --Sc straker 02:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Yep. Tiptopper 10:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Carlossuarez46 16:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

İsmet Güney[edit]

~~Possibly non-notable~~. east.718 at 15:28, September 27, 2007 15:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say designing a nation's flag is notable enough--Sethacus 15:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original article had no context... the author's expanded on it since. Nom withdrawn. east.718 at 15:51, September 27, 2007

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 03:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadistic Torture[edit]

Unsigned band, fails WP:BAND, haven't updated their website since 2006. Has had prod removed before, so listing here. Thomjakobsen 14:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ff m 16:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to North Penn School District--JForget 00:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pennbrook Middle School[edit]

Non-notable middle school with no in-depth sources independent of the school. Was previously deleted through a PROD. Spellcast 14:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per notability --Tom 15:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Well what do you know, we have an article about North Penn School District, so redirect it there per our well established and widely accepted WP:REDIRECT guidelines. Burntsauce 17:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district per Burntsauce unless sufficient sourced content is added to justify an article. Addhoc 19:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. --Myles Long 22:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to North Penn School District as stated above.--JForget 22:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above and per WP:LOCAL guideline suggestions as well. Yamaguchi先生 04:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaguchi先生 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Redirect per the masses above. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Alkivar. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 12:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. bbx 15:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Role of the Paramour[edit]

Essay that was speedied at least once already. Strong Delete Improbcat 14:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Failed to mention, author removed ((prod)) tag with no significant change to article. Improbcat 14:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not relevant. Anyone can remove a prod at any time for any reason. --UsaSatsui 15:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic essay. --Finngall ^talk 15:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if there's any non-OR stuff, merge it into paramour --UsaSatsui 15:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research/essay; all the famous paramours discussed in the article have their own articles already. NawlinWiki 15:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research ff m 16:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are WP:NOT a repository for personal essays and the like. Burntsauce 17:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 12:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was This is being closed merge/redirect against the public opinion here so bear with me. Subject is a minor variant of a linux distribution. Subject inherits all of its notability from Ubuntu itself (read WP:NOTINHERITED to understand the problem with this). Subject has no significant reason for an independent article. Majority of article content is a link farm to external sources, giving reviews. Once you strip the link farm out, and remove content that is duplicated from the article on Ubuntu itself, your left with approximately 2 sentances of material. The comments below from keep side leans more towards WP:ILIKEIT or WP:NOTAGAIN. The comments below from delete side are no better. Until this distribution has collected a much larger following, this content rates only a mention in the Variants section of Ubuntu. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu Christian Edition[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Few to no reliable sources (Google hits point to blogs or forums), the OS seems to merely be a version of Ubuntu (Linux distribution) with a few freely avaliable, non-individually notable applications bundled as default, so not different enough to justify its own page - the author of the distribution himself admits "I know that this could all be accomplished with a meta-package or a bash script".[17] -Halo 14:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a minor variation on the Ubuntu distro. The author's comment that much the same could be accomplished with a meta-package weighs against it, even if he has rolled it all into an iso. No prejudice against recreation if the project takes off (which I'd actually love to see). -- BPMullins | Talk 18:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is the third time in the last six months that this article has been an AfD subject. Notability requirements are met. Part of that criteria is listing reliable sources. (I'll also point out that every distribution can be created as a metapackage.) jonathon 18:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Third time? I count two, including this one. Is there a nomination missed? To be transparent, it should be linked to here. -Halo 10:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of the first AfD proposal can be found at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Automatix_%28software%29 jonathon 00:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It would be helpful if you could mention what reliable sources you are referring to, because they sure as hell aren't listed in the article. Burntsauce 17:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Comment It has one possibly reliable source (U.S. Catholic) which is excerpted on the last reference. I can't see if the coverage is trivial or extensive. Distrowatch does not have a review (nor links to any major publications that have reviewed it). The other references are blogs and/or forums which fail WP:RS. I love to see the distros on here but it doesn't look good for this one. The talk page has a to do list that has been there for a bit. It doesn't look like it is progressing much. Spryde 20:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DistroWatch page on Ubuntu Christian Edition links to 2 reviews of 1.x, and two reviews of 2.x, in addition to support forums, download mirrors, and everything else that Distrowatch provides when it lists a distribution.(Somebody else can explain why it doesn't list the applications that are unique to Ubuntu Christian Edition.)jonathon 21:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support forums, download mirrors and most likely DistroWatch don't meet WP:RS. -Halo 10:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Here we are again. This is just about as ridiculous as it can get. Ubuntu CE has maintained a popularity ranking in the top 30 or so distros almost since its first release. The official Ubuntu Forums have allowed us to have our own sub-forum. There have been mentions of Ubuntu CE in Linux Format magazine on two separate occasions. It has also been featured in the U.S. Catholic magazine as well as the Perspective parenting magazine from Australia. The fact is, Ubuntu CE EXISTS and is POPULAR within a specific community. The only reason there is so many attempts to remove it from Wikipedia is because of its Christian content. I agree that there needs to be some notability guidelines, but I believe that we should err of the side of inclusion rather than exclusion. Well, if Ubuntu CE is going to be removed from Wikipedia, let's get on with it. If not then let's move on with more important issues. Ubuntu CE Developer: Jereme Hancock --Mhancoc7 23:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much of a drama queen? Add the sources and this will never happen again. Like I said, I can't find them online doing some quick searchs. You know where they are so post them! I will guarantee no article ever got AfD'ed for too many reliable sources! Spryde 00:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is DistroWatch a reliable source? It bases its rankings on click-throughs, so someone could easily bias the results. Forums aren't reliable sources. Whatsmore, the question is if it's individually notable enough to have a separate page, when it's primarily just Ubuntu with a few extra packages. Worth adding that user only has 7 contributions to Wikipedia, all outside of userspace, all referring to the deletion of the article. -Halo 10:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the developer of Ubuntu CE. I have been criticized in the past for editing the Ubuntu CE entry because of my bias. It just feels like there are many here that feel a sense of superiority. I do not like the elitist nature of some groups. I may have this all wrong, but that is the impression that I get. I will try to take the time to add the sources. --Mhancoc7 15:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 12:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that it's absolutly notable , as I have had a member of a church I live near ask me about it. Mattva01 16:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, this is just a minor variation on the Ubuntu distribution. PLEASE NOTE: WP:ILIKEIT is explicitly listed as an argument to avoid during deletion debates, and such !votes are quickly discounted. This article has NO RELIABLE THIRD PARTY SOURCES. Period. Burntsauce 17:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE ONE QUESTION. WHY IS THIS ARTICLE BEING CONSIDERED FOR DELETION? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britguyinus1995 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest you scroll up? MrZaius^talk 08:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Most of these arguments are invalid, delete and keep alike. As has already been pointed out, WP:ILIKEIT doesn't cut the mustard, but neither does "This product shouldn't exist"/aka - I don't like it. What matters is that the page is flagged with multiple borderline WP:RS sources and one patently obvious WP:RS, the print Catholic magazine. As stated above, we don't have a clear/good way to verify that source over teh intertubes, but that's true of most books and many magazines and does not invalidate the source. The relatively weaker sources, given their number, and the RS source are adequate. There is so much overlap between this and other similar projects that I believe it poor writing to deal with them separately, but this second AfD was probably not called for and the nom's rationale is partially inappropriate. MrZaius^talk 08:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but what part of my rationale was inappropriate? I said there seems to be few reliable sources (which seems to be true - 3 or 4 at best) and that it just seems like Ubuntu with a few non-notable freely avaliable applications which isn't different enough to justify its own page (and hence should be merged with Ubuntu), which is exactly what you said. Please WP:AGF. -Halo 12:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything after "Few to no reliable sources (Google hits point to blogs or forums)." Assumed good faith doesn't mean don't shoot down invalid arguments in *fD. Notability is built on sources et al, not the merits of the product. MrZaius^talk 12:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I searched and Google did point towards blogs and forums rather than reliable sources[18]. I was cited WP:AGF as I was assuming you were calling me a liar, when I was addressing the disproportionately high Google count. I'm glad we agree it'd probably be more appropriate as a simple paragraph in List of Ubuntu-based distributions#Ubuntu_Christian_Edition, as little more could be said since it doesn't seem especially individually notable, as ultimately it's just a simple variant of Ubuntu without any major changes. -Halo 12:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Decent arguments for a merge, and not dissimilar to those I voiced myself on the talk page. Just kinda iffy foundations for a NN-claim leading to an AfD. Just as notability is not transient, notability is also not based on merit, but attention. MrZaius^talk 12:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just thought that I would point out that even Ubuntu itself recognizes Ubuntu CE as having its own identity. See: http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/derivatives When I first began developing it I also received their permission to use the Ubuntu name in my distro. --Mhancoc7 13:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The key argument for a merge wasn't a merge to Ubuntu, but a merge to a list of distributions, given the considerable overlap in the goals and functionality of this and similar religious distributions. This has already been done for the spoof-religious ones. MrZaius^talk 14:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is just an attempt to marginalize the efforts of religiously oriented distributions. The current list of religiously oriented distros are not one in the same. They are all individual projects that have their own identity, user group, and development teams. Lumping them all into a simple list is an insult to each of these distros development teams efforts. I understand that maintaining the quality of Wikipedia is important. However, I believe that Wikipedia should err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion. --Mhancoc7 01:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to merge religiously oriented distros, then something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pseudo_daoist/Religious_Distros would be more suitable than a generic list that includes secular distros. jonathon 15:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As far as I can tell nothing's changed from the previous AfDs, so this should be speedy-closed. Resubmitting AfDs that went a way you disagree with until you get your way isn't the way this process works. --Delirium 18:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, NO, this should not have been kept the first time around. The only sources cited are trivial blogs, there is no indication that this is a notable variation of the Ubuntu distribution. Burntsauce 22:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The assertion that it should not have been kept the first time around supports Jeremy's contention the current AfD is yet another attempt to remove all religious content from Wikipedia.jonathon 04:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No it doesn't. It seems like a good faith nomination to me. I can't see any evidence that anybody is trying to remove content from wikipedia purely on the basis that it is 'religious'. Vl'hurg ^talk 13:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep at least one prior nom a couple of months ago resolved as "keep". Agree with Delirium. R. Baley 21:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the only part of this AFD that is a valid argument is the lack of reliable sources. This seems to have been met now with the addition of the ExtremeTech, linux.com and U.S. Catholic articles. Vl'hurg ^talk 13:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What isn't "valid" about saying it's a minor distribution which is a variation of Ubuntu, and that it isn't notable nor different enough to justify its own page? Ignoring it doesn't make it any less valid. -Halo 13:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As MrZaius said above, notability is not based upon merit but attention. The fact that it is only a minor variation of Ubuntu does not have any impact upon its notability. For example, imagine I released a distro - let's call it Vl'buntu - which is exactly the same as Ubuntu, and (for some bizarre reason) it attracted significant coverage in multiple reliable sources - it would still merit its own article because of said coverage. Vl'hurg ^talk 15:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see very little reason to delete this article. It has about the same amount of information as the articles for other distros (e.g. Edubuntu, Xubuntu), and although CE is not an "official" Ubuntu and although there may be only slight technical differences from Ubuntu proper, the notability criteria seem to be satisfied. --mcld 16:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added Sources - Ok, I have added six more links to reviews and info on Ubuntu Christian Edition. I hope that these are "notable" enough to end this debate once and for all. I just added them very quickly. If anyone would like to clean them up a bit I would really appreciate it. They are listed as More Reviews and Info. Thanks, Jereme --Mhancoc7 01:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 03:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Jackson's 10th studio album[edit]

Article is unreferenced and full of mostly rumours, which does not comply with WP:CRYSTAL –Dream out loud (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A helpful rule of thumb: If a future release doesn't even have a name yet, odds are it's not notable. --UsaSatsui 17:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL, not enough confirmed details about the upcoming album.--JForget 22:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the all of the above. Bookkeeperoftheoccult 09:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT#CBALL. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 16:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Will ^(talk) 16:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel 03:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riverbend Mall[edit]

Non-notable mall in Georgia, tagged for references since June 2006 with no improvement. Google turns up no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This mall was the scene of a notorious kidnapping on 25 September 1982, of thirteen-year old Lisa Ann Millican, by sexual predators Alvin and Judith Neeley. This incident is of course notable in itself. Moreover, a google search shows quite a number of links for this mall as well. The information in this article can be verified as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Siva1979. Citations for Millican kidnapping added to article ([19] and [20]). Needs cleanup. • Gene93k 15:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears verifiable and notable enough... Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. --W.marsh 20:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With references in place, it certainly appears to be notable. Needs more references, though... SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note there was a previous nomination here. Please don't blank AFD noms, create a new page. --W.marsh 20:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been fixed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the incident is notable then we need an article about the incident, not the place it happened. Punkmorten 20:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references about the mall are added. The only references now are about the crime, for which the mall was a trivial aspect (serial killers who kidnapped as many as 15 women in various places in three states). --Dhartung | Talk 22:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 12:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does appear to be both verifiable and notable enough to include. Burntsauce 17:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The murder has its own article, and the mall where it happened does not merit its own article.--Victor falk 16:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 03:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NorthPark Mall (Oklahoma)[edit]

Non-notable, very small mall (actually "lifestyle center") in Oklahoma, fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sign of notability. Punkmorten 13:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim to notability whatsoever --Victor falk 16:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 20:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shopping doesn't seem large enough nor does have enough stores for a proper article. Nothing really famous about it as well.--JForget 22:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 03:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Focus Point Press[edit]

This article was originally nominated for speedy deletion per A7, non-notability. The nom was declined by DGG (talk · contribs) because the article "seems to assert notabity" (edit summary). I contest this. Two publications were deemed notable enough to mention: one that started in May, and one that is intended to start in October. The notability of neither publication is asserted. There is no non-trivial outside coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. All references provided (in the External Links section) are either republishings of articles by an FPP magazine, or corporate press releases. If this company is notable enough for Wikipedia, this article doesn't show it. A ecis^Brievenbus 12:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that the article's author, Stdalton (talk · contribs), is probably Stephen Dalton, staff reporter for FPP. A ecis^Brievenbus 12:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is advertising disguised as an article. Lacks independent sources. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed, that is WP:SPAM without independent sources to establish notability. Carlosguitar 13:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and comment. Sources listed in article are all primary sources, press releases, or have little to do with subject. First several pages of gsearch don't turn up independent, reliable sources. As to the speedy tag, it was placed on the article 1 minute after creation. I would have declined that one, too, and changed it to a prod. --Fabrictramp 13:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Currently no evidence of notability and no reliable secondary sources.--Danaman5 15:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Just a clarification, Speedy A-7 is for articles that don't assert notability, in other words, they don't make any sort of claim of notability that warrants inclusion. This article asserts notability...it just doesn't actually have any. --UsaSatsui 17:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exactly. Unless something important can be said, it should be deleted. Given that "the flagship publication of the brand, was first published online in May of 2007" I would doubt it can be shown to be important, at least yet. No prejudice against re-creation if they become notable. . DGG (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merge or move can be discussed in the usual fora. GRBerry 20:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure House of Merit[edit]

This article is completely bogus. The Treasure House of Merit simply does not exist. A simple google search will reveal this. The article claims it has to do with the Catholic teaching on Indulgences. If this were the case, it would show up in the Catholic Encyclopedia online. The fact that searching for "Treasure House of Merit" turns up 10 total results shows this concept is completely made up. Please delete this article promptly. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philiplynch (talk • contribs) 2007/09/27 00:09:54

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The name of the article is odd, but the concept is historical. The refs to Luther's 95 Theses should validate the concept. There is also an entry, not under that exact name, in the The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology [21]). Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename? I found quite a few hits for "Treasury of Merit" rather than Treasure House, it seems to be the more common term for the same thing. MorganaFiolett 12:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per MorganaFiolett. "Treasury of Merit" seems to be the most commonly used term. "Treasure of Merit" is also more widely used than the current title. --Moonriddengirl 12:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly rename, and clean-up and expand. Being a tenured professor with doctorate in theology I can confirm that the concept of "Treasure of Merit" exists, [22], [23], [24] etc. It played a part not only in Luther's condemnation of indulgences, but also for example in the Crusades: those brave Christian souls who dared to go to the Holy Land and fight the infidel were supposed to have their (non-mortal) sins [or rather temporal punishments incurred by those sins] canceled by merits drawn from this Treasury, a kind of storehouse of good deeds performed by saints 131.111.8.102 15:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hmmh, "tenured professor with a doctorate in theology" reminds me of something...--Tikiwont 15:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Although Catholicism for Dummies does not seem to say much about it, the concept is real, nevertheless. I am not opposed to an intelligent merge, either with Works of supererogation, or Indulgence, or anything similar; all I am saying is that it is not a hoax, nor "completely bogus", nor "completely made up" stuff, as the nominator seems to think. To be sure, this is a fairly minor and historical Catholic doctrine, but it is real, nonetheless. 131.111.8.99 23:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to works of supererogation and merge and redirect the existing article on supererogation there, as well as this one, treasury of merit, and similar concepts. This article, while it can use some work, does a better job of explaining the historical meaning of "works of supererogation". - Smerdis of Tlön 18:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or merge - The concept supererogation doesn't look so similar to me, so if we don't keep Treasure of merit as separate article, I'd rather merge into Indulgence which relates explicitly to it.--Tikiwont 20:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to something more standard--I wonder where this particular phrase comes from.together with the failure to provide references, it shows a somewhat unsophisticated understanding of the topic. Qe there really no related articles in WP under other headings to merge to.? DGG (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- References can easily be found. Here's, for example, an extract from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia at Wikisource, article on Indulgences [25], section entitled "The Treasury of the Church":

Christ, as St. John declares in his First Epistle, "is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." Since the satisfaction of Christ is infinite, it constitutes an inexhaustible fund which is more than sufficient to cover the indebtedness contracted by sin. Besides, there are the satisfactory works of the Blessed Virgin Mary undiminished by any penalty due to sin, and the virtues, penances, and sufferings of the saints vastly exceeding any temporal punishment which these servants of God might have incurred. These are added to the treasury of the Church as a secondary deposit, not independent of, but rather acquired through, the merits of Christ. The development of this doctrine in explicit form was the work of the great Schoolmen, notably Alexander of Hales (Summa, IV, Q. xxiii, m. 3, n. 6), Albertus Magnus (In IV Sent., dist. xx, art. 16), and St. Thomas (In IV Sent., dist. xx, q. i, art. 3, sol. 1). As Aquinas declares (Quodlib., II, q. vii, art. 16): " All the saints intended that whatever they did or suffered for God's sake should be profitable not only to themselves but to the whole Church." And he further points out (Contra Gent., III, 158) that what one endures for another being a work of love, is more acceptable as satisfaction in God's sight than what one suffers on one's own account, since this is a matter of necessity. The existence of an infinite treasury of merits in the Church is dogmatically set forth in the Bull "Unigenitus", published by Clement VI, 27 Jan., 1343, and later inserted in the "Corpus Juris" (Extrav. Com., lib. V, tit. ix. c. ii): "Upon the altar of the Cross ", says the pope, "Christ shed of His blood not merely a drop, though this would have sufficed, by reason of the union with the Word, to redeem the whole human race, but a copious torrent. . . thereby laying up an infinite treasure for mankind. This treasure He neither wrapped up in a napkin nor hid in a field, but entrusted to Blessed Peter, the key-bearer, and his successors, that they might, for just and reasonable causes, distribute it to the faithful in full or in partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin." Hence the condemnation by Leo X of Luther's assertion that "the treasures of the Church from which the pope grants indulgences are not the merits of Christ and the saints" (Enchiridion, 757). For the same reason, Pius VI (1794) branded as false, temerarious, and injurious to the merits of Christ and the saints, the error of the synod of Pistoia that the treasury of the Church was an invention of scholastic subtlety (Enchiridion, 1541). According to Catholic doctrine, therefore, the source of indulgences is constituted by the merits of Christ and the saints. This treasury is left to the keeping, not of the individual Christian, but of the Church. Consequently, to make it available for the faithful, there is required an exercise of authority, which alone can determine in what way, on what terms, and to what extent, indulgences may be granted.

Although the current article clearly needs much work, the basic understanding of the doctrine there is fairly correct. 131.111.8.98 13:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here's more, from the Apostolic Constitution "Indulgentiarum Doctrina", from the Vatican site [26]:

Thus is explained the "treasury of the Church"(20) which should certainly not be imagined as the sum total of material goods accumulated in the course of the centuries, but the infinite and inexhaustible value the expiation and the merits of Christ Our Lord have before God, offered as they were so that all of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father. It is Christ the Redeemer himself in whom the satisfactions and merits of his redemption exist and find their force.(21) This treasury also includes the truly immense, unfathomable and ever pristine value before God of the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, who following in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have sanctified their lives and fulfilled the mission entrusted to them by the Father. Thus while attaining their own salvation, they have also cooperated in the salvation of their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body.

So, good, reliable references can clearly be found for this doctrine. Perhaps "Treasury of the Church" is more commonly used term for this, but "Treasure of merit" or "Treasury of merits" is also very often used. 131.111.8.98 15:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus Some of the sources such as the Deseret article and the NYT references do constitute independent reliable sources but it is not that they are non-trivial enough to satisfy WP:ORG. If there were a few more calls for deletion I would be more comfortable closing this as delete for now but as it stands below there does not appear to be anything resembling a consensus. I recommend that a merge may make sense, possible to the main page about the Ex-gay movement. JoshuaZ 01:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Follow-up point so it is very clear: references by others in the Ex-gay movement do not constitute independent, reliable sources. JoshuaZ 01:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People Can Change[edit]

This article was originally nominated for speedy deletion per A7, a non-notable group. The author contested the nom, and provided some references on the article's talk page. I changed the nom to ((prod)), to allow the author some time to improve the article by asserting the notability. The author expanded the article, and removed the ((prod)) tag, with the edit summary "removed warning since I have improved this article as outlined in talk page." I'm moving the discussion to AFD, since the article is now a contested prod, and to assess whether the author has indeed established the notability of the organisation sufficiently. Procedural listing, no opinion. A ecis^Brievenbus 12:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:SPAM, the organization is non-notable, references are all in-universe (Note: Deseret News is owned by the Mormon Church, which always defined homosexuality as evil, though now they say homosexuals can get into their heaven if and ONLY if they remain celibate for life, for which they are "rewarded" with becoming heterosexual in heaven - that is a VERY strongly non-neutral viewpoint and the newspaper coverage just reflects that), and as WP:SOAP. I have no problem with valid articles that discuss organizations that promote a controversial viewpoint, but the articles must meet wikipedia requirements for validity, which this one fails across the board. If article is changed in timely manner to meet these (including showing non-soapbox coverage elsewhere), I would reconsider my vote. If it stays, should be noted if they take in people under 18, which would be not by will but by parents' will. --Fitzhugh 19:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Deseret News is a secular paper with the second highest distribution in Utah. It has credibility in its field regardless of its ownership. (I am not saying whether or not it is actually owned by the LDS church; I don't know.) Furthermore, your attacks on the LDS church are not only irrelevant, but also false. The LDS Church does not currently, nor has it ever held that point of view. Also, they do not take in people under 18. Joshuajohanson 21:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - on the grounds that the organisation is non-notable. The majority of the references just point at the website directly related to the subject. Addi

tionally the article appears to be more interested in soapboxing and self-advertisement than being informative and encyclopaedic. There also seems to be an underlying attempt at pushing a homophobic agenda. ---- WebHamster 12:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:SPAM and failing WP:ORG. No evidence of substantial coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The only reliable source that discusses this ~~group~~ online support group is a newspaper article that mentions them in only two paragraphs. Fireplace 12:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I count three paragraphs with direct reference.

Paragraph 4 - "he started People Can Change"
Paragraph 9 "Our philosophy is if the core needs are met in non-sexual ways, male bonding among other things, the desire for the sexual attraction diminishes" (Wyler representing People Can Change's philosophy)
Paragraph 10 "60 percent of those who have gone through his weekend seminars."

I also think the other paragraphs (about Wyler's transformation and medical disagreements) are very much about PCC.Joshuajohanson 22:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)![reply]

Keep. Gosh, I think we need to be really careful that our own POV's aren't showing here, folks. "Pushing a homophobic agenda" is a strong accusation, WebHamster. I read the article. It is definitely a smaller organization, but WP:ORG is okay with that if there are RS's. WP:SPAM doesn't apply here either - it documents both the creation of the organization as well as criticisms of their impossibly controversial reason for being, but at least the article is attempting to be neutral. I don't see any attempt at a "homophobic agenda" in the article, or in the actual organization's website, for that matter. They seem to only want to "help" those that "want help". That doesn't mean "homophobic" any more than me saying I want "help" for anything else I don't like about myself. "Homophobic" groups definitely exist and should be run into the ground, but I don't see this group carrying around "God hates Fags" banners. (Please excuse my language, used only for emphasis here.) The criticisms and missions of the organization are in the article, and from what I can tell, use reliable sources. I say, clean up the sources, removing the numerous "people can change" dotcom sources into a single "external link" www.peoplecanchange.com. The others: DesertNews is reliable/independent; gives both sides of argument and documents notability of PCC. LifeSite.net seems neutral, independent also. BoxTurtleBulletin, ironically, seems very POV, is completely against this organization, but is included here - IMO as an effort to show NPOV. Again, PCC is a small organization, there aren't a lot of GHits. But WP:ORG says that doesn't necessarily mean NN. We don't want an encyclopedia that only has large, commercial organizations, do we? Keeper | 76 17:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm open to changing my vote if the article is modified to pass WP:ORG, but as it stands, it doesn't. Responding to your points about the sources: DesertNews mentions the organization only in passing, LifeSite.net does not seem to have any "established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight" (see WP:RS), BoxTurtleBulletin is a blog (see [[WP:RS]), and PeopleCanChange.com cannot as a self-published source establish notability (see WP:SELFPUB). A google news search reveals a couple more in-passing mentions of the group, but nothing along the lines of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:N). Fireplace 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I'm also open to changing my vote, based solely on RS. I agree it needs more reliable third party sources, but I think the effort is there and this deletion needs to be postponed a week or two. My vote, for now, is to let it breathe a while, give the significant contribs a chance to flush out and flesh out the notes, maybe tag it with ^{[citation needed]}? If nothing new and significant changes/improves, renominate. It isn't SPAM, it's a (small but real) ORG, just needs 3rd party sources. Keeper | 76 19:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided I suspect they are notable, but they have only in-universe sources. One real reference fro ma reliable source of some note would go a long way to establishing this. DGG (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Will this article on the Christian News Wire work?[27] It is completely about People Can Change, and is not within the ex-gay universe. I don't know which ones are the most reliable, but it is also covered by PHX News,[28] Evangelical News[29] and Virtue Online[30]. The Life Site article was originally printed in the Marketwire in July 2003, but now can only be found at FindArticle.com.[31] I used Life Site for easy access. The article was reprinted at Life Site, as well as CatholicCitizens.org[32]. All of these sources are outside the ex-gay universe.

I fail to see the problem with the Deseret Morning News article. It is more than a "passing mention". The article talks about the founder, discusses the upcoming Journey into Manhood weekend in Utah, which is one of the major productions put on by People Can Change, talks about the APA objections, goes back to talking about the Journey into Manhood weekend, gives Wyler's figures that 60 percent of the participants have seen some change, and then challenges those results. The whole article is about People Can Change, even though the words "People Can Change" are only used once and it is latter referred to as "the weekend". So to summarize, People Can Change has had significant coverage in Marketwire [33], Deseret News [34], and Christian Newswire[35], as well as substantial coverage within the ex-gay universe.Joshuajohanson 20:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the Deseret Morning News article, all the links you point to are merely reprintings of a press release sent out by People Can Change. Those sites do not have an "established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight" (WP:RS). Fireplace 20:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say these are reprintings of press releases. Where do you get that idea? Typically, press releases are marked as such and don't have interviews with the creators as the Marketwire source does.Joshuajohanson 21:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review of the Desert News article, Joshua Johanson's assertion is correct, the article is independent of the organization, is mostly about the organization (both pro and con are discussed). Small organizations like this one won't have a ton of stuff, but there is no standing rule that says "one" independent, reliable source isn't enough. Keep. --Keeper | 76 21:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally,as long as we are quoting policy: " 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." (singular). (Taken from Wikipedia:Verifiability) The RS guideline also states that it is perfectly acceptable to use "less reliable" sources in articles about themselves, so the peoplecanchange.com sources would seem appropriate in an article called People Can Change, don't you think? IMO, of course. Keeper | 76 21:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your second point, WP:ORG specifically excludes "press releases... and other works where the... group talks about itself—whether published by the... group itself, or re-printed by other people" as reliable sources that can be used to establish notability.
Regarding your first point, my reading of the Deseret News Article has it being mostly about Glenn Wyler, Russ Gorringe, about ex-gays and reparative therapy in general, and only incidentally about the two ex-gay groups it mentions, People Can Change and Evergreen. Whether this sole mention counts as "substantial coverage" from reliable sources (the WP:ORG requirement) is debatable, but I think it fails. Fireplace 21:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We may have to agree to disagree here, fireplace, because I think we are viewing the same article (Desert News) two different ways. I read it as being started and finished with a two-sided, descriptive view of the organization, and it's cited in this article as such. I will say, however, that I do agree with your first point (which responds to my second point :-); and I'll add that I wasn't attempting to claim that the PCC "self-released" articles assert notability. Far from it. I was only attempting to claim that they were acceptable to exist on a page about itself, as long as other WP:RS's were present. The contention really is over the outside sources. (Desert News, et al). Previously, I stated that we really just need to slow down the AfD to allow time for outside reliable sources to be added (or not added), and I'll personally add that because of the contentiousness of the issue and of the organization, due diligence should absolutely be taken here by all editors/voters, to be sure to avoid showing our our POV's. (myself included) Keeper | 76 21:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable exgaycruft that doesn't exist outside the world of ex-gayness and therefore does not belong here. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete From WP:N "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ... "Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources..." I don't see significant coverage in secondary sources. Compare the sources in this article with those in Richard A. Cohen, he is demonstrably notable, whereas this organization is not. Pete.Hurd 18:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some editors are confusing the content about PCC with their opinions about what PCC claims to do. This is evidenced by the fact that someone tried to introduce a commentary about Reparative Therapy on the PCC page. That would be like introducing anti-abortion stats on the Planned Parenthood page. The PCC page is not about Reparative Therapy. It is about PCC. The organization is notable as a non-profit as it is has been around for seven years and effected hundreds of men internationally. Also, the in-universe argument is being misapplied. Whether The Desert News is affiliated with the Mormon church is absolutely irrelevant unless one can demonstrate the reporting of the DN is skewed. Otherwise, suggesting that an affiliation is relevant is merely an ad hominem attack. What is material is the credibility of the DN as it is reporting on this matter. In other words, does it fairly represent PCC? Remember, the article is not talking about the efficacy of Reparative Therapy. So far, I have not seen any solid ground from which to doubt the facts the DN reports. (Note, The Christian Science Monitor is strongly affiliated with the Church of Christian Science—and it is at least as credible as, say, the NYT.) I also need to suggest that the vote of anyone who has tried to apply an “anti-gay” argument in this discussion should be discounted. That is not the issue here. The subject matter is PCC, not reparative therapy. To suggest that the inclusion of an article on the PCC amounts to supporting an anti-gay agenda is like saying the inclusion of the article on Planned Parenthood supports the pro-choice agenda.LCP 18:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, If you delete this page, you will also have to delete Jerusalem Open House and every other page like it listed on List of gay-rights organizations and who knows what else. Many of the refs on List of gay-rights organizations would also have to go. And that would be a shame. If people seriously question the objectivity of the info presented here about PCC, perhaps a Refimprove tag is the most appropriate solution.LCP 19:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know if anyone has actually noticed, amidst all the rhetoric on both sides, but the article itself doesn't actually assert notability. The article, the references, the discussion in here all just point to the fact that it exists, not that it's actually notable. And from what I can tell no-one is saying that it doesn't exist, so where does that leave us? Currently someone could quite legitimately place a speedy tag on it (discounting of course that it's currently in AfD). ---- WebHamster 20:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wow, I was gone for awhile, and I was surprised how much changed. For some reason, the source from the Christian Newswire and the 2003 NARTH Conference on Homosexuality: Current Trends in Research and Therapy were removed, the first one with reason of being self-published, though the Christian Newswire is clearly independent. Also the authorship of the Marketwire report was changed to People Can Change. It seems like someone is trying to sway votes by removing third party sources and falsifying other information. To me, that represents a new low in the discussion. I have also since added an interview with Warren Olney on KCRW's show To the Point and a New York Times article (pay special attention to the second audio clip included with the story). With substantial coverage by the New York Times, KCRW, Marketwire, Deseret News, NARTH and the Christian Newswire, I think this passes WP:ORG. Joshuajohanson 20:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the organisation simply having a passing mention in a 1.5 line paragraph in the NY Times article is hardly "non-trivial" or "substantial". And the QT movie of the interview is ostensibly the same storyline. The NARTH article is an "in universe" publication so can hardly be deemed independent, let alone classed as a reliable source. All the others have already been discussed. Yet again all these references do is demonstrate existence, mostly with a passing reference, they don't demonstrate notability. Your batting average is not good I'd say. ---- WebHamster 21:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing your ideas. WP:Notability: "Notable means 'worthy of being noted' or 'attracting notice'. It is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance'." "As of September 2007, NYTimes.com had 13 million unique visitors per month." I’d say the mention in the NYT means that PCC has “attracted notice.” Also, I can not find in WP rules where “in universe” enters as a critique of an article. Can you please point me in the correct direction? And although I understand the term in a general sense, I don’t see how you intend to apply it or how your application of the idea responds to my critique above. I would be grateful for an explication.LCP 22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is much more than a passing mention. Yes, the 1.5 line paragraph is the only one with the name People Can Change, but the two paragraphs after that refer to it as "the weekend" for a total of three. It is more than a trivial mention, because the whole article is about similar programs. The article centers on Larsen's experience, and his time in People Can Change can hardly be called a trivial part. The audio portion has the same story line, but goes into much further depth about the weekend. I don't see how you can say it has trivial coverage in the audio portion, which is part of the article. I know we are discussing (we're not done) the other articles, but 2 people voted on this without seeing those other sources. Besides, we never reached a conclusion. Also, you didn't mention anything about KCRW. That was substantial coverage, much more than 3 paragraphs worth. What do you think of that? If you still don't believe that was substantial coverage, (which I still don't understand), consider this from WP:ORG "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." So even if you turn three paragraphs into non-substantial, it really doesn't matter because simply having multiple independent sources have been used to establish notability. Joshuajohanson 22:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article is not about PCC, it's about the experiences of someone else. The PCC element is incidental and is mentioned in passing. The KCRW article, again, isn't an article per se, it's reference to the fact that Richard Wyler was present at an on-air debate. Once again it's not about PCC. Let's face it "gay curing" is a small pot to choose from so it's not surprising he got asked to appear. It demonstrates paucity of people from the "other side of the argument" rather than notability. All these references do is establish existence, not notability. Even secondary sources have to say something non-trivial. Nothing you have come up with has established notability. All they've done is establish existence and demonstrate that not very many people believe in curing gay guys of their "affliction" so there's going to be very few people to mention when the subject comes up. That's not notability, that's just lack of choice in a small market. ---- WebHamster 23:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The points you raise speak more loudly for inclusion than exclusion. Even though you attempt to devalue the mention of the PCC in the NYT, you can't get around the fact that the PCC has “attracted the notice” of the NYT. By definition, that means it meets WP:Notability requirements. Also, your statement, “lack of choice in a small market”, would make the mention of PCC in the NYT even more notable. It demonstrates that in “a small market”, PCC is apparently one of the relatively big players.LCP 23:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to note that the first objection to the inclusion of PCC was that there were no secondary sources referring to it. Now that it has a very notable secondary source that speaks of it at relative length, the argument has shifted in an attempt to discredit the secondary source.LCP 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no. They speak more towards a general article of curing homosexuality having a small paragraph about PCC. I'm the only single, straight, white guy, living on my block. That doesn't make me notable, it just makes me the only single, straight, white guy, living on my block. "Very notable secondary source"? "Relative length"? Now which one would that be? It's not about discrediting any sources, it's about discussing any sources cited actually achieving what it is they are meant to do. If all they achieve is confirmation of the group's existence then they are somewhat superfluous. The citations are there for all to read and interpret in their own way. My interpretation is that none of them demonstrate anything more than the fact that PCC is a very small goldfish in a very small bowl. ---- WebHamster 23:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You state, “citations are there for all to read and interpret in their own way”. This seems to imply that subjective interpretation is the best we can do. However, I don’t think we’re quite there. Here’s why:

You draw a distinction between “merely existing” and “attracting notice,” and I don’t see warrant for that distinction in WP rules.
You haven’t said a word about "Notable means 'worthy of being noted' or 'attracting notice'. It is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance'".
You have not spoken in defense of your original use of “in universe”. This pertains the article in the Desert News.

Can you please address these issues? Also, I am not sure the analogy works. The problem is that yours is just one block among many others just like it in the city. What if your block were the only block in the city in which all of the residents had ex-ray vision--except you? You would then be very notable. Or more to the point, what if everyone in the city embraced homosexuality and you were the one person who rejected it and, because of this, you were given press in the NYT? I think that would make you quite notable.

I am afraid that if we apply your reasoning universally, we would have to delete many, many articles from Wikipedia, both those I mention above as well as articles such as the one on the Metropolitan Community Church--a group of negligible importance relative to even just Anglicanism. Relative to Christendom, it is just one very, very, very small pro-gay denomination in a Christendom in which 99% of all Christians (over 2 billion) belong to denominations that do not approbate homosexuality.LCP 00:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

♦ Citations and they way they are used is not subjective, but the contents and what they mean to the article in question most certainly are.

♦ Of course there's a difference between "merely existing" and "attracting notice". watch a bus go past, it exists, you forget about it. Watch a Ferrari go past, it attracts notice, 'you' imagine yourself driving it. (Sorry for the car analogy, I served my apprenticeship on Usenet!)

♦ I haven't said a word about "notability" and "attracting notice" because I didn't think I needed to. What makes you think that "exists" and "attracts notice" are the only 2 criteria available. Personally I'd put "noteworthy" in a class of its own above both of the others. Seeing an attractive young blonde girl in the street "attracts notice" and a double-take, seeing a very attractive blonde girl in the street has you running to get her phone number. Both "attracted notice" only one was "notable".

♦ The only time I used "in universe" was in relation to the NARTH website, and I would have thought my meaning was rather obvious.

♦ As for my block analogy, of course it works. You just don't want it to hence your widening of the picture. As for getting your article in the NYT then yes I would agree... the problem is the PCC organisation didn't get an article about themselves into the NYT, a single person did. Or did you fail to notice that the article wasn't actually about the PCC and only served to demonstrate that they existed and only got a mention because the main subject of the article went to them for help. Doesn't sound like the NYT found them particularly notable, if they had you would have thought there may have been a follow-up article all about their work. Strange how none has been written by them isn't it?

♦ And yes I would agree that there are several thousand articles in need of deleting, but that fact makes little difference to this discussion. --- WebHamster 00:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you mentioned “in universe” I did mistake your meaning. I thought you intended to apply it more broadly--as several other editors attempt to do.

I quoted “attract notice” directly from WP:Notability. I did not say it was the only criteria. I did imply that it is a sufficient criteria. You have not demonstrated otherwise (or perhaps I failed to notice). WP:Notability does not say, “a feature needs to attract notice in the form of an article in a major publication devoted only to itself. Nor are we talking about an attractive woman on passing on the street. Or did you not notice? I am not saying that PCC should be included because a thought of it happened to flitter across someone’s consciousness. You might “personally” “put ‘noteworthy’ in a class of its own”, but we are not playing by WebHamster rules. We are playing by Wikipedia rules—which I have referenced and you have not. Or did you fail to notice?

Actually, I tried to accept your analogy before I found it wanting. So when you say, “You just don't want it to”, I don’t know what to say back but “Neener-neener-neener, did so want it to work. I’m tellin’ mom!”

WP:Notability doesn’t say how much attention the subject of a feature needs to attract or how notable it needs to be. However, being spoken of in an article in the NY Times, even though not the subject of an article, is arguably sufficiently notable. And then there is the article in the Desert News. Strange isn’t it, how the NY Times hasn’t written an article that mentions, even in passing, your feelings towards very pretty blond girls?LCP 01:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

♦ When you refer to playing by Wikipedia's rules I'm sure you really meant guidelines didn't you? I'm not expecting you, or anyone else, to do as I say or even believe what I believe. I'm merely stating my POV on this matter and trying to use analogies to better describe what it is I mean.

♦ As regards my analogy... well if your Mom, isn't a white, straight, male living on my block then she doesn't count in my analogy. You can tell her from me! The point you seem to have ignored isn't that it's part of a wider picture it's merely that being different and being the only one in a particular universe (regardless of how big that universe is) isn't notable in and of itself. It's what is done with the difference that makes it notable.

♦ WP:N does quantify what it means by using the terms "non-trivial" and "substantial", and to me that does not include passing references to item B whilst discussing item A, especially when only a few words are actually used. In the NYT article if Olsen had gone to someone else for help then they would have been mentioned instead of PCC ergo PCC's mention is just incidental. I've also asked myself the question on how that article was instigated in the first place. I wonder if a PR department somewhere had a little word...? Let's face it, the article itself does not actually assert any notability. It says what it is, and says what it stands for and that's it. I'm sure that it had something that really made it stand out they would be trumpeting it from the heavens, but no, not a trumpet's fart anywhere. I'm sorry but this furry rodent doesn't believe that a listing of what are effectively trade papers featuring articles on something else that's in that same trade is what was meant by the consensus that came up with WP:N. Likewise drive-by mentions in newspapers doesn't cut it either. I remain unconvinced. Having saiud that, I'm still open to discussion with any very nice blonde ladies who may stroll down AFD Street. :) ---- WebHamster 01:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we’ve pretty much teased out both sides ad nausiam. There is only one thing I want to add to clarify something about which I was not clear. The reason I said, “I am afraid that if we apply your reasoning universally, we would have to delete many, many articles from Wikipedia,” was to warrant my assertion that you are applying WP guidelines in a way that is not precedented. My point is that WP generally takes a less strict interpretation of notability than you have been proposing here. I was not trying to argue tu quoque. Having said that, I think I am done. I’ve put in my vote, and I’ll leave it to the admins (or to whomever makes the determination) to keep or delete the article. Thanks for a good argument. I enjoyed it. Especially the bit where I got to ask you why there was no article about you in the Times. I enjoyed your quip about my mom too.LCP 02:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still on the KCRW thing. Did you listen to the debate, or just read the summary? PCC played a large portion in the debate. He goes into the history, the philosophy, the survey they did, who they've helped, as well as received criticism from Peterson Toscano about only having guys. It really goes in depth. Also the audio portion of the NY Times article was the most substantial part, and it contained a whole heck of a lot more on PCC than just what it is and what it stands for.Joshuajohanson 02:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listening to the debate was irrelevant from a WP standpoint. After all, the larger the portion of the debate PCC took then the less independent the reference becomes. A debate is not what would be considered a reliable source as it's a discussion, it's not a venue for verified facts. Likewise with the NYT article. If Olsen is going on at length about PCC then it's not independent. He was a "patient" of theirs, now if it's the independent NYT staff going in-depth about PCC then that would be an independent narrative. So is it NYT or Olsen who waxes lyrical about PCC? Now I'm not saying this is the case merely pointing out the possibility, but what if Olsen was offered an incentive to go to the NYT with the story? This is why what he says can never be considered to be independent. ---- WebHamster 02:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is Warren Olney and Peterson Toscano talking about People Can Change make it less independent? I could see if Wyler went on about it, and Olney kept trying to get him back on subject, then that would be less reliable, but Wyler was invited specifically to talk about People Can Change, and he did, and so did everyone else on the broadcast. I'm not saying what Wyler said was a fact, but notable enough for him to get called in specifically to talk about it. Same with the NYT article, if Olsen didn't go to PCC, he wouldn't have gone to therapy either and it would have made for a very boring article and even more boring audio clip. Joshuajohanson 02:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zoulfakos[edit]

The car rental company he started is barely notable and I can find zero information about him. It appears to be an auto based on the editing history Spryde 12:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is impossible to verify the contents of this article. A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:BIO. --Gavin Collins 20:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete short, not referenced, nn Tiptopper 02:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus and move. The title of the article seemed to throw everyone off. Jossi's post seemed rather persuasive, with many Google book hits for epistemological psychology In 1940, Bachelard wrote of the evolution of scientific systems in the western world, and devised what he called an epistemological profile. There is a lack of consensus as to whether Bachelard originated epistemological psychology and whether the remaining information in the article can be sourced. I'm moving the article to Epistemological psychology per the discussion to give it a better chance of being improved. -- Jreferee t/c 14:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episteme psychology[edit]

unsourced article. I've been unable to verify this term. Google returns 17 unique hits, but those seem to be Wikipedia referential. A month ago, when the page was created, I sought sourcing from the creator who by all appearances may be the author mentioned in history, but the creator has not produced anything in spite of apparent willingness to discuss the matter. Professionals from whom I've sought assistance have not been able to provide anything. Unless sourcing can be produced, I think we have to conclude that the topic is not notable. {WP:PROD removed by vandal.) Moonriddengirl 11:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Oh, was that the user following you around and harassing you the other night? I'm sorry, I didn't know...that prod could have gone back up. Oh well. --UsaSatsui 15:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found. I've looked on Google, GBooks, GScholar, GNews and found nothing. I can find no relevant mentions on Pubmed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Ovid or PsychInfo (although I'm not an expert in the area). --Kateshort forbob 12:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have looked for references and not found any in the professional literature. Furthermore, I cannot make sense of the article content. I am wondering if it is a hoax. "Inkling" is not a standard psychological term. Is it being used in the standard dictionary sense? Quote from article: "The inkling is presumed to trigger an affect which encapsulates and saturates all human experience." What does this mean? --Mattisse 13:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/rename It seems that the principal author of this subject(Bachelard) was French and so you have two difficulties - the sources are in French rather than English and that they are then garbled by weak translation of subtle ideas. For example, I suppose that the word 'episteme' ought to be 'epistemological' as, according to the OED, 'episteme' is a noun, known to English from the works of Foucault. Colonel Warden 15:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a good point. "Epistemological psychology" has 61 unique hits on Google and may be more prevalently represented in professional literature. It seems even to have a long-running journal of its own, although, very oddly, I can only find one google hit, referring to volume 78. :) Can anyone else confirm the existence of a Journal of Epistemological Psychology? --Moonriddengirl 15:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is this material for psychology, I am wondering, despite the name. The first article from the first link on the Google list you provided above is the following:http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/husserl.htm dated 1937, and the first article in it is 22. Locke's naturalistic-epistemological psychology. The second article is 23. Berkeley. David Hume's psychology as fictionalistic theory of knowledge: the "bankruptcy" of philosophy and science. The second link on your Google list is http://www.thesharpener.net/?p=147 which is a 2005 blog whose aim is to "explore the land of blogs". The blogger, Nosenonkey, says all entries "must all be sites about which I was previously unaware before starting this online journey". The third entry on the Google list is a very unprofessional CV of a German professor: http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Rainer.Maderthaner/curriculum-engl.htm. Please provide some source material for the speculations about that this article is a French translation of a recognized field in psychology. --Mattisse 15:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - The first entry on the Google list is apparently on the topic Edmund Husserl (1937)

The Crisis of European Sciences with excerpts from source: The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology (1954) publ. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, 1970. Sections 22 - 25 and 57 - 68, 53 pages in all.

--Mattisse 15:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sure that most of the Google entries are completely irrelevant--they usually are. :) I see the term referenced in an abstract as it is used in this article, over here. A good many of the 61 google hits I found refer to a single article: More, M., 1991a, Dynamic Optimism: Epistemological Psychology for Extropians, Extropy #8 Vol.3, No.2, Winter 1991/92. (There's some exposition about the article here. Not very encouraging in establishing notability for this usage.) There's a reference to the term on page 335 of Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie, but I don't read German. :) (It's here, in case anybody does.) It's included as part of a hyphenate here, but no indication is made that the term is formalized. If anybody can verify the existence of the journal, that would go a long way to persuading me that the subject is an independent field of psychological study, particularly if the journal does have over 70 volumes. --Moonriddengirl 16:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "Erkenntnispsychologie" turns up twice as many hits than "epistemological psychology" in Google Scholar, it looks like the term was tossed around in Continental Europe more than in English speaking areas. Burzmali 19:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 00:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be original research. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Epistemological psychology about which there are many sources. See [36] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Take off the air. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pulzar FM[edit]

Non-notable station. Not many serious ghits. Spryde 11:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an advert. It is also difficult to verify the contents of this article as well. A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Siva1979. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just an ad for a NN station. --Kudret abi^Talk 07:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11 advert, a7 no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 15:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vizor 3D[edit]

Contested WP:PROD. No notability established. Google only hits four, so I cannot establish notability or verifiability. Moonriddengirl 11:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under G11. Also no assertion of notability. Carlosguitar 13:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JoshuaZ 01:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plants And Animals[edit]

Little notability. Typical promo piece articles found + myspace page but little else. Fails to meet criteria for WP:BAND Spryde 11:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ff m 16:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails numerous tests for notability. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Google search I tried turned up some articles, and so I added the feature in the Montreal Mirror as well as what I think is a non-trivial mention in Chart magazine. In addition to the Exclaim! article, I think we are nearing the threshold of the band being the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works". They have had a tour across Canada—let's try to find some references for that too. Also the affiliation with Arcade Fire. Keep. --Paul Erik 18:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —Paul Erik 00:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NMG Stifle (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a result of sources cited by Paul Erik, I think this one manages to skirt by our WP:MUSIC guidelines. Burntsauce 17:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Baleet.. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Floors[edit]

A non-notable band. I nominated for speedy and another editor removed the tag. The only claim to notability in the article is playing in front of 30,000 people, and that is not sourced. Also, the wikilinks under studio albums and singles are not related to the band. Cyrus Andiron 14:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable band. NawlinWiki 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - they have a claim for notability under WP:MUSIC #9 - "Has won or placed in a major music competition". They have coverage in the local press [37][38][39]. Whether or not this is enough I'm not entirely sure. Darksun 16:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some additional sources - Channel 4, more from the local press, [40][41] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darksun (talk • contribs) 16:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The battle of the bands was a local competition for a radio station, as explained in the article itself. Also, the sources being presented are all local newpspaers or publications. Those are not exactly reliable sources. They have not had extensive coverage outside of the city that they live in. That is not an assertion of notability. [42] - This says that they are unsigned, they do not even have a record contract.--Cyrus Andiron 17:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nothing in the reliable sources guidelines suggest that a local paper isn't a reliable source. Topics on Wikipedia do not need to be globally or even nationally notable, there are plenty of 'local interest' articles, provided they have multiple sources it doesn't nessecarily matter whether they're only known within a certain 'scene'. Darksun 17:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Stated above is the incorrect statement that the Battle of the Band contest in question was local. This is incorrect as the contest was regional, therefore on much larger scale, with multiple reliable sources to confirm notability. Despite these sources being local, the sources show this competition was larger than a local scale. Also notability does include bands that are unsigned, as this is not criteria for every stage of a band's notability. The fact that the band is unsigned does not deter from the notability of the page, the sources/references on it, nor does it detract from a single being released in November produced by a major music industry player. (Source pending). Jackgnic 18:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment They have still not met any of the criteria in WP:MUSIC. The battle of the bands that they won was supposedly regional, but only covered by local press. I don't consider that winning a major performance (criterion #9) considering the fact that the event did not have a name and weas sponsored by a local radio station. Their single is due to be released in Novemeber, but that is not verified or sourced. The statement that they are working with another band member is also unsourced. These guys are nothing more than an unsigned high school band. They do not have a notable album or single and they have never been on tour. The only external links on the page go to myspace, hardly a reliable source for anything. --Cyrus Andiron 18:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The Battle of the Bands contest has a name - The Pulse of West Yorkshire Battle of the Bands. It was covered regionally by the radio station, but the minisite has since gone offline as a new year as taken place. It was covered in depth regionally on air on the radio to a listenership of thousands, but this cannot be referenced as a written article as it was aired live to the region. The event was not sponsored by a regional radio station. The event was ran, organised, judged, broadcasted, and covered by the regional radio station. I have also afforementioned the sources are pending for the Mickey Dale connection and the single release, due to be confirmed within the next 7-10 working days in other citable sources. As mentioned in the artical, the band are on tour at the moment in support of their single release. Single release reference pending. These references will however only back up the point that the artical does confirm to criterion #9 as the contest was major, even if the citable sources are local. Local publications cover regional press on a daily basis. Added now to the page include sources for a previous album release.Jackgnic 20:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Non-notable local band. No touring, no charting, 3 figure sales on their recorded music. Winners of a non-notable local ("regional" is really pushing it as the "region" is limited to a part of Yorkshire) competition. They are basically a school band who do local gigs and who've won some money and invested it into employing a producer. The references are puff pieces in local rags, not the material of encyclopaedias. ---- WebHamster 12:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with Cyrus Andiron that the contest does not appear to be major. A google search for the contest only yields 11 hits, none of which (unless I've missed something) are reliable. I was checking to see if they were notable for the World Jam appearance, but while World Jam is a common name for a festival, combining the name and locate was not helpful. The two articles sourced do not seem to me to satisfy the criterion of "multiple non-trivial published works". They may be poised on notability, but they don't seem to be there yet. --Moonriddengirl 12:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Webhamster. Stifle (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Sources now added for credibility of the single release, the single release having being officially produced by Mickey Dale of Embrace fame, the single being out in November, and references include articals that mention the band opening World Jam festival for 30,000 at Chelmsford Park. More sources to be added within a couple of days. Sources can be local and still notable; just because a source is local doesn't mean it doesn't conform to Wikipedia standard. All sources now conform to notability for the entry to evade deletion, with more sources to come. Jackgnic (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having just gone through all the references to format them correctly and to remove or multi-ref duplicates (as well as some vandal reverting along the way) I can state that none of the references stand up. They are either press releases or self submitted (PNG Marketing giving instructions?), and the 2 that aren't are just puff pieces in the local rag. There is nothing independent there. How about some nationals? Or something in one of the major music rags? And come on, do you really think a CD giveaway competition in a local freebie paper is a reliable, substantial and non-trivial citation? And do you really think a sound sample is a good idea for real music fans to listen to? Shudder! ---- WebHamster 15:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As far as I recalll Wikipedia doesn't really do this sort of thing. Seriously, however, no sources, so fails WP:Music instantly. A1octopus 17:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the correct referencing - I have taken note and will do it in this format from now onwards. First note: you have incorrected sourced that the paper is a local 'freebie' paper. This is not a freebie paper, and I would not source from a freebie paper. This is plain to see. "And do you really think a sound sample is a good idea for real music fans to listen to? Shudder!" I'm sorry, but what?! Does that sentence make sense without explanation? You need larger sources in addition to the ones already presented? I will source these shortly and put them on Wikipedia, then we can finish this finally. Jackgnic (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.181.148 (talk) [reply]

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

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

The result was Merge→Epic Movie and delete (don't keep the redirect). The discussants are split between "Delete" and "Merge" recommendations; however, 'no consensus' would lead to the unacceptable outcome (based on consensus) of the article remaining in its present form. A few of the "delete" inputs imply that "merge" would be an acceptable outcome as they contain statements like "no particular reason ... (for) spinoff article" and "no good reason for an article split" and "does not warrant a sub-page". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters from Epic Movie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Most of those characters are either characters only featured in this movie, obvious parodies, or characters from other movies that already have a full article. Any notable character can be included on the main page, plus Jack Swallows and White Bitch already redirect to the main article, so should the rest. TheBlazikenMaster 11:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because there is no particular reason why a one-time film should warrant its own spin-off article when the information could easily be compressed into a table citing the actor, the role, and what actual role it parodied. As for the plot detail that goes with each character, Wikipedia is not a plot summary. Any plot detail should already be covered at Epic Movie#Plot (which I just noticed is of ridiculous length -- it needs a trimming). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no good reason for an article split, especially when many of these character descriptions are barely more than could be expected in the plot summary. Girolamo Savonarola 13:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not warrant a sub-page, and most of the character descriptions are less than a few lines long - • The Giant Puffin • 14:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on the movie itself. The film isn't notable enough to warrant special treatment like this though a list of the parodies would be of interest, just not as a separate article. 23skidoo 14:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge prt 23skidoo. No reason to keep it a separate article ff m 16:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Add any information that's not in the main article and delete this subpage. A single film doesn't warrant this much coverage of the characters. --Nehrams2020 20:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Tiptopper 01:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to the film article per above. --Kudret abi^Talk 07:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-sectarian Buddhism[edit]

Reason Peter jackson 10:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something seems to have gone wrong here. Reason is neologism. Peter jackson 10:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody sort this out? The instructions are very complicated and confusing. I want to create a discussion page on this. Is it meant to go here? Peter jackson 10:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got it right now. I'm going with Keep on this one -- it's an established article, the term shows up on google pretty well, it's referenced on template:buddhism, and you as the nominator seem to have a history of vandalizing this page which makes it hard for me to assume good faith. Judging from your talk page, you seem capable of some really good contributions, so maybe you could provide a more verbose reason that you're nominating this? Deltopia 12:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this has been thoroughly discussed on the talk page with general agreement that this is not a neologism but a term actually used by some academic or scholarly sources. GlassFET 17:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I still have some reservations about the titling of the article and some POV concerns (particularly the "Later elaborations on the original teachings" section), but I think that these can be addressed and that several compromises have been proposed in Talk. What the article needs now is for additional material to be added that balances out the POV. A title change might also be necessary, but Wikipedia definitely should include an article covering theories and current research on the earliest periods of Buddhism, and there's no reason that this article can't be a jumping off point for that. --Clay Collier 21:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Upon further review, I suspect that most of Peter's angst comes from the nomenclature and a few other issues. I would recommend looking into the Dispute Resolution process if the talk page isn't reaching consensus; it might work better than the AfD process... (not that I want to tell a bunch of experts on Buddhism how to run their Buddhism page) :) Deltopia 23:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep off course. Peter indeed has a history of vandalising this page. Also, why wasn't I informed of this proposal? previously people were so polite as to inform when proposing for deletion, it's part of the Wikipedia policy. Greetings, Sacca 08:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't regard what I was doing as vandalism. I was trying to deal with what looked like propaganda on a non-existent subject. I must say that the article has improved quite a bit. However, contrary to what GlassFET says above, I've just looked through the talk page & found no citation of any scholar who uses the term. As far as I can see this is a term used only by a probably very small number of Buddhists. I leave it to the administrators to decide whether this is a neologism that should be deleted; I simply draw it to their attention. The normal term used by scholars is early Buddhism, though that is of course ambiguous as to just how early. Original Buddhism is a weasel term in this context. Its only logical meaning is the original teaching of the Buddha himself. To treat it as synonymous with PSB is sneaking in a POV. Few scholars actually maintain that this original teaching was substantially the same as that just before the 1st schism. I suspect most Western scholars are agnostic on this, but in Japan it might be different.

I don't know whether it's relevant to the question of deletion under WP rules, but at least it's an argument for using a different term, that PSB is offensive, implying Buddhists are sectarian, one of whose dictionary meanings is bigoted.

My recommendation, whether or not this article is actually deleted, is that we go for early Buddhism. Peter jackson 10:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - So evidently your argument is not necessarily that the article be deleted, but rather that it be renamed, Unfortunately, this may not be the best place to make such a recommendation. Personally, I prefer the existing title, as I find it to be much more specific and clearly defined than "early Buddhism". Also, there does seem to be at least some evidence that the term is not in fact a neologism. John Carter 14:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right John, the term has been used in scholarly articles, I have added the reference now. Greetings, Sacca 11:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, not necessarily. I'd never heard of this term before I came across it here. I put in citation requests, here and elsewhere. Months later, a citation of a Buddhist monk appeared. This suggests the term is pretty rare. Just how rare I don't know, nor would it help if I did, as the guidelines are vague on how rare something has to be to be deleted, so the administrators will have to decide in whatever way they do. Whether or not the article is deleted I think the content should be moved to Early Buddhism, as I understand that WP's policy is to follow standard terminology, but as you say this is not the place to discuss that. Peter jackson 10:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Nat Krause on Talk:Pre-sectarian Buddhism most of the Google hits for PSB are simply WP itself. This seems to support my suggestion that this term has little existence in the real world. Peter jackson 17:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 11:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient campbell[edit]

Recreation of deleted article. Was speedied earlier today per CSD:A1 A^RendedWinter 10:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was -> /dev/null. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arnis Nicolas System[edit]

Notability mainly, but the state of the article dosen't help. Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently [43] the founder is very active in promoting arnis in the Phil., and I think a case might be made for his notability (Google Garitony Nicolas, no quotes), but I just can't find evidence of notability of the art itself and the article is being used as an ad and/or webpage. The current state of the article is very bad but it could be edited down if evidence of notability were found. Deleting this and possibly putting some of the info. under Kombatan is probably what's best. JJL 13:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Bradford44 03:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and perhaps merge to Kombatan as suggested above. --Kudret abi^Talk 07:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Page already deleted by: User:Number 57. The reason given was: CSD R2: Redirects to the Talk:, User: or User talk: namespace from the article space. Non-admin closure. Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 18:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milad Khaki[edit]

Unsourced article from one contributor. This reeks of original research and fails to establish any notability. Who is this guy and why is he so special? Looks like someone's resume and photo gallery. VegitaU 10:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as a vanity piece, do we need so add WP is not for resumes to WP:NOT now?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate1481 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor guy, he went to the trouble of adding a picture of his cat and all... Tomasboij 12:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caustic Reply: Which will make deleting it even more of a relishing experience. HA!. -- VegitaU 15:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Combination myspace/resume/Yahoo! 360/Flickr of a thoroughly non-notable person. Delete him and his little cat,too!--Sethacus 15:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete fails WP:BIO ff m 16:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails biographyWP:BIO, conflict of interest (WP:COI) and wp:notaresuméoracurriculumvitae. --Victor falk 16:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. So tagged. —David Eppstein 16:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Went to the trouble of moving it from his User: page, and putting in a redirect there. Looking at the history makes me sad. Definite Speedy A7.Deltopia 17:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per just about everyone else. Burntsauce 17:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have userfied this page; the user moved it to main space for no obvious reason. Please delete the redirect and protect the user page against moves. Cruftbane 17:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Towers[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL and doesn't assert notability. superβεεcat 10:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of notability. But WP:CRYSTAL does not apply since construction is underway according to the project's web site. An editor changed "just started" to "proposed" while cleaning up the article. • Gene93k 13:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still crystal until it is finished and opened for business, no? - superβεεcat 17:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the not yet topped off Burj Dubai or the Freedom Tower. WP:CRYSTAL says articles about future events should only contain verifiable information, not unverifiable speculation. Gateway Towers may not be a notable building, but its construction is verifiable. • Gene93k 20:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability to come. --Gavin Collins 20:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 20:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. At 14 stories it doesn't seem heartily impressive, but 20 or so stories might be the maximum height of any existing building in the city. --Dhartung | Talk 23:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal-ballery. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball delete. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 09:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kolum sewell[edit]

Notability not established (speedy unaccountably refused) - no Google hits on either name or supposed TV show, edits to supposed spouse article suggests a hoax Stephenb (Talk) 09:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stephenb, the speedy was not "unaccountably refused". The article states "well known host of Irish television show ..... has published several novels, plays and poetry collections." It is not for an administrator to make a decision if the article is notable off their own back and without discussion. The article asserts notability in a non frivolous way and therefore does not fall under WP:CSD#A7. Hence my decline to delete at that time, without prejudice to an AfD where you have rightly taken it. Best. Pedro : Chat 13:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, yes, "unaccountably" was a bit strong, but the assertion of notability was highly dubious and easily disproved Stephenb (Talk) 08:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Per the below this looks like a hoax, but as stated it is not for admins to make that decision, it is for the community, so by bringing it to AfD all is good. Pedro : Chat 09:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, no sources, no Google hits, IP address defending it on talk page (making the assumption that it is the logged-out creator) only seems to be vandalising articles. Blair - Speak to me 09:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, appears to be a hoax/vandalism. NawlinWiki 16:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Hoax. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day (IP belongs to a school). Whatever you wanna call it, it doesn't belong here.--Sethacus 16:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Appears to be false. Not verifiable ff m 16:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (what is a strong delete? Does it mean hitting the delete key really, really hard?) The article is a blatant hoax. Googling the name ("Kolum sewell" in quotes) comes up with exactly one hit which was the original author vandalising another page to indicate that this creation was the spouse of Chris Harrison (diff). The "Irish television show Singin' Dancin' Hulahoop star" does not appear in any search engine and sounds highly dubious! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 21:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per most of the above. Strong Delete is basically just an article that falls very short of the notability guidelines and/or violates several aspects of the Wikipedia policy mostly what Wikipedia is not.JForget 22:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bite me he is a celebrity, check out www.kolums-mankey-sambo.bebo.com for more info on this man... Kayteepirate 08:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the author of this article has now been indefinitely blocked, does this help speed up the deltion process? LOL! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. But this is now a snowball delete anyway. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 09:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Per consensus, sufficent reliable source material exists for the topic. Even if the topic is about speculation, hoaxes, fantasy, fiction, etc, it still may be attributable and the rough consensus agreed that this topic could be attributable. Jreferee t/c 15:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there was a prior AfD not mentioned in this AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Phone. -- Jreferee t/c 15:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GPhone[edit]

This is a speculative piece of fiction, with references based on a number of blogs, synthesizing a few random facts together to project a piece of technology that may or may not ever come to pass. Fails WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Delete. Neil ム 08:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The brave effort to make it at least look like an encyclopedia article is cancelled out by the content being, per nom, speculative fiction. Chris Cunningham 09:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub it. While speculation itself is sourced, it is still just a speculation. However, given a high visibility of the gPhone/Google, there will very probably be a lot of people looking information about gPhone. So, until gPhone is confirmed, we should have a stub along the lines "gPhone is the alleged name for Google smartphone, of which there are only rumors." Then few "See also" links to notable sites that have information or commented on it (The Inquirer, Wall Street Journal, Engadget) and protect the article for now, so it would not become a spam/blog promotion magnet. IMHO, that would be overall best solution. -- Sander Säde 09:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google#Applications already has mention of a possible gPhone, which should be sufficient until the product is officially announced and/or released. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup - A Google Phone has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources worldwide [44][45][46][47][48][49][50]. Don't see how WP:SYNTH applies, WP:RS exist, not WP:OR since there are multiple sources, while WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball only applies to unverifiable speculation. See WP:RUBBISH -Halo 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Had a look through most of those links - they all pretty much say the same thing - some people from Google have been in talks with people from phone networks, probably about a Google-branded phone, and then some hand-waving about the iPhone. There's nothing actually about the gPhone itself. Everything verifiable at the moment would fit better in the main Google article. Neil ム 15:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. As much as I would like to take the eventualist approach toward this article, there is really nothing worthy keeping beyond the fluffy hype and hand waving. Burntsauce 17:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Halo. IMO, notability of future products can be established by how strong the expectations of them (on the market etc) are. If those expectations (not the product) and their strength can be proved by reliable sources, then the article may exist. We can merge into Google or redirect it also. --Yuriy Lapitskiy 12:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuriybrisk (talk • contribs)
Delete without prejudice to recreation when announced. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Halo --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 02:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To me the main criterion for justifying the existence of speculative articles like this one is that the article should have a reason to exist even if the product in question never materializes, and I think that Google's phone meets that criterion. Jun-Dai 17:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for above Just asking for some clarity on your statement. It sounds like you're trying to justify the existence of the article even if the product is never released? Off subject, has anyone looked at the edit history for this article? It's a spam-magnet, 100% speculative. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that at least four people have seen the edit history, yes. Chris Cunningham 10:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam is not the point for deletion. Remove all the spammers, not the article - they are the root of the problem here. --Yuriy Lapitskiy 06:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuriybrisk (talk • contribs)

My argument is that there is no information other than the spam. Delete the spam and speculation and you have no article. We know absolutely nothing at this point other than that Google is considering. There are no hardware specs, the operating system details are vague at best ("a Linux based OS"), no carrier information (3G, GSM, CDMA?), etc... Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article thoroughly, please. The WSJ specs a more or less sharp - 3G is mentioned, GPS, etc. There are other views presented also, like Phoronix/OpenMoko (indirect linking to QT/Greenphone). --Yuriy Lapitskiy 05:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC))(i signed, no need for Template:Unsigned, thank you) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuriybrisk (talk • contribs)

Redirect to Google#Applications per User:Yngvarr. Rami R 19:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rumors are just rumors. --H.T. Chien (Discuss|Contributions) 19:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasspeedily deleted under G5. Natalie 13:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese Mint[edit]

Created by User:Numismaticman, a sock puppet of a banned user (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Aidan Work)
Google search found few results (Maltese mint or Malta mint), and most are hardly related
A Malta based newspaper says "As Malta does not have a national mint" ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Central Bank of Malta refers to a "Malta Mint" here, but it's unclear whether that mint is still in operation. High-value coins are minted outside the country per the same page. Collectible coins are minted by reputable mints, obviously no particular one. There also definitely seems to have been a mint at the time of Napoleon as he refers to it in his letters.[51] There are very few sources regardless, and I'm leaning toward a merge with Central Bank of Malta. --Dhartung | Talk 09:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 03:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Super Insurgent Group of Intemperance Talent[edit]

Non-notable, fails WP:BAND. Closest thing to notability is their Australian tour. One album and one EP, neither on major label or notable indie label and neither charted. No independent sources cited, only unverifiable excerpts from reviews. Contested speedy. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: In A message on the article's talk page, original author appears to admit that the band is signed by his company. Now qualifies as spam, and probably qualifies for speedy delete on different grounds (WP:SPAM). In a later message, though, he claims to just be a fan. I'm a bit skeptical, to say the least. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : as per rational provided by User:Realkyhick. The album articles the author of this band article has created should also be deleted. (Caniago 17:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per Caniago. Does not meet WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Caniago, NN. --Kudret abi^Talk 06:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ht-//dig[edit]

long-term stub for an abandoned project. no established notability, doesn't look like there's any chance this will ever be expanded even to the point of justifying itself. Chris Cunningham 07:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The project may be abandoned but this was one of the first website search engines. I remember using this back in the mid-nineties. This is like deleting an article about the Model A because no one makes it anymore. I *know* it can be expanded and improved. Spryde 12:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It will be difficult seeing as there are still a ton of sites still using it. It was first developed at San Diego State University back in 1995. Andrew Scherpbier was the original author. It is sad that I can't find this information in what would pass as a reliable source since this software was so prominent (and still is by a simple google search). I can add the sources I have found and see if that is acceptable to all? Spryde 12:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article by adding references to its notability is by far the best way of avoiding deletion, so go for it. Chris Cunningham 13:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article referenced using whatever reliable sources I could find in Google Book search + the htdig website. Doing a book search finds it mentioned in quite a few books related to Unix and Linux. It also has some indirect mentions by books that reference sites that use it. Spryde 16:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete , I can't seem to find any reliable sources regarding this site but there's a slight possibility I've overlooked something. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The added sources help modestly. I agree with the 'model A' analogy above. It's hard to find fresh refs for something out of use, but that doesn't make it automatically NN. The article is short, maybe some more history can be 'dug' up? (Pun intended). Keeper | 76 17:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't see how this meets WP:SOFTWARE. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Uh, you may want to check what policy page you are linking to there :) Spryde 03:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And as the last ditch effort, I added a Linux Magazine review of ht://Dig. I am working on finding more book cites for this. Spryde 04:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable bit of internet/web history. 132.205.44.5 19:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic. IP198 20:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic, As per Wikipedia:Notability, Spryde has found reliable secondary sources about ht://dig. One could argue as to whether they are significant, but I think they are more than trivial.

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

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Carmichael[edit]

Autobiography of radio DJ. Poses a conflict of interest problem and does not pass WP:BIO, no third party reliable sources. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 07:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as failing WP:RS and WP:DJ Ohconfucius 07:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - He's on the radio Tiptopper 16:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was on the radio before, does that mean I get an article? Stifle (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect all to Angels Fall First. Non-admin closure. --Ag ü eybaná 23:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once Upon a Troubadour[edit]

Non-notable song. Rocket000 07:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album article, as always. Punkmorten 13:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above ff m 16:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album article, and do the same to the other twelve songs, each of which has its own interlinked article. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 23:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exit 245[edit]

Not very notable. Rocket000 07:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete College a cappella band, won tenth place in a college a cappella band competition, it seems.Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Addition of more content, awards, discography, similar group to Hullabahoos not just 10th place in some band competition, recognized internationally in A Cappella Music. Jmuacappella 14:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the updated version. More references (particularly from reliable sources would be desirable. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Obviously, we can create a disambiguation page once there is something to disambiguate. GRBerry 20:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nareg[edit]

I had speedy deleted this page as lacking context, but the creator argued that this was incorrect. This may be so, but I still feel that this article is not suited for Wikipedia. It is intended as a disambiguation page, but there are no Wikipedia articles for people with the name Nareg or Narek, except for the given Gregory of Narek. This makes this nothing more than an etymogical dictionary definition, violating WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a list of all given names (or surnames) with their origin. Fram 07:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Fram was reasonable enough to bring this discussion to this forum and I appreciate that greatly. While I am new to editing Wikipedia, I have used Wikipedia for several years and have read through most (if not all) of the WP:LGL, including WP:NOT. I state this only to establish that I have greater familiarity than my small list of contributions would suggest. While I certainly appreciate Fram's experience in this matter, I respectfully disagree with Fram's interpretation of the the WP:NOT guidelines in the case of given names (or surnames). In fact, there are nearly 2,000 Wikipedia articles under Category:Given Names and approximately 6,000 Wikipedia articles under Category:Surnames. Referring to WP:DICT:

An article with a family name or a given name as its title is usually a disambiguation article, which links to all of the articles on people who are commonly known solely by that name, all of the places commonly known by that name, and all of the things known by that name.

The word "usually" suggests that while it is more often than not the case that a given name or surname article is a disambiguation, there exist circumstances where it can be not and still be a valid Wikipedia article. If for some reason unknown to me the arguments above are fallacious, I would posit that the article Nareg is, at the very least, a WP:STUB and can be expanded to become a good article (please see Category:Given name stubs). Thank you again for your reconsideration in deleting this article. --SimpleParadox 17:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP is not a dictionary of names. --Gavin Collins 20:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with the speedy per A1, but failing that, delete per Gavin Collins. Stifle (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Sagredo 04:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backseat Goodbye[edit]

Band with only one member. He has three roommates, though. Has self-released many albums. No citations asserting notability. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' per nom. WP:NN, fails WP:BAND and provides no WP:RS. Ex-girlfriend is a bitch, but then most are. --Evb-wiki 11:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For being influenced by the Dresden Dolls. And for being non-notable in the extreme. I bet the girlfriend was a sweetheart. MarkBul 15:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jreferee t/c 15:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Aeronautics and Space Administration[edit]

Fictional gov't agency in Farscape TV show. Its name, an obvious extension of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is explanation enough; it doesn't need a page on Wikipedia. This agency isn't really integral to the show, let alone possessing of real-world notability. I proposed its merger to and later redirected it to the Farscape character who is a member of the agency; a user reverted my redirect without comment. As of this nomination, no citations appear on the page. Since its redirection was reverted, I would like to see it deleted and then (possibly) a redirect made. SolidPlaid 06:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom. This deserves, at best, a one sentence mention in the Farscape article. No independently notable. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to John Crichton, the character on the show associated with the agency. --Dhartung | Talk 08:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Merge tag was in place for all of three days, before the nominator decided it wasn't worth the effort and redirected without bothering to merge anything. A reference has now been added to Farscape terminology (which will perhaps be next on the nominator's list), so by all means delete and redirect as necessary. PC78 09:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't plan on nominating Farscape terminology for deletion, since it is a good place to put chunks of information from the show that don't need their own pages. SolidPlaid 18:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 10:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)--[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pumpkin Patch[edit]

Non-notable band. No full length albums out. No sources. Nearly every link is to MySpace. Rocket000 05:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non notable as per WP:BAND. --Oxymoron⁸³ 06:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of any independent releases or coverage which would statisfy WP:MUSIC criteria. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as copyvio and blatant advertising. Neil ム 08:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laing+Simmons[edit]

Taken directly from the authors talkpage. Doesn't assert the notability of the business. Reads more like advertising. A^RendedWinter 05:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable real-estate agency. Doesn't seem to have any real claim to notability; no superlative status within its own industry, no evidence of documentation in reliable third party sources. Fails WP:CORP pretty easily. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should have been speedied. Raymond Arritt 06:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy. Non-notable, copy vio. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 07:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halvsie[edit]

Seems to be WP:Neologism invented by Halvsie.com. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only usages in print are trivial mentions of the website URL, not even actual uses of the term [52][53]; barely any web GHits except directly related to the website's author: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). No evidence is given to show that anyone on the alleged "list of halvsies" actually self-identifies using this term. cab 06:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not only do many of the people here not refer to themselves as 'halvsies', many could potentially take offense to the term or contest it's accuracy, a BLP issue. Keeper | 76 17:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article looks like original research.--Gavin Collins 20:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Possibly notable, but it needs some real references. for one thing, it is not clear to me to what extent this may be considered a derogatory term. DGG (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt it's intended to be derogatory as it looks like the inventor of the term made it up to apply to herself. On the other hand, I don't see how it's even possibly notable when it doesn't get used by anyone aside from the person who made it up. cab 06:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no such thing as Halvsie, it is definitely something that the website made up. --Kudret abi^Talk 06:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Christian School Athletic Association[edit]

Doesn't assert notability, and may not meet WP:CORP from what I can see. Comments? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 05:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 05:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no claim of notability. --Victor falk 16:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Most states with a large number of "Christian schools" have an athletic association that operates independently of the regular state high school athletic association. There are a variety of reasons for these; in some cases, the private schools can't arrange to play against public schools because of school board politics, and the schools end up scheduling against each other. I note that Ohio, Louisiana, Missouri and North Carolina have similar associations. Granted, the winner of the state Christian school basketball tournament doesn't have the same notability as the winner of ths state high school championship, but within the world of "Christian education", organizations like the KCSAA are quite notable. Athletic competition is often a make-or-break feature for keeping enrollment up for that type of school. Mandsford 22:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slow keep per Mandsford, multiple claims of notability have been made to support the article. Burntsauce 17:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article makes specific claims of notability, and such state athletic associations have a strong precedent for notability. NOTE: The AfD does NOT appear on the article in question. Alansohn 04:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable but needs more work and references. --Kudret abi^Talk 06:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-nominate The AfD notice was never placed on the article, and as such this AfD should be re-nominated as a procedural nomination. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge sourced real cases to Stockholm Syndrome. I'll to a rough attempt which interested editors may refine or expand with additional sources. (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 11:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible examples of Stockholm Syndrome[edit]

Vague collection without proper criteria for inclusion Tony Sidaway 04:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem is the lack of references - which certainly are available for some cases. And then there's the "pop culture" trash that pops up everywhere. Merge a handful of legitimate cases - with references, and delete the rest. MarkBul 04:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, naught but unreferenced speculation and the typical pop cult trivia. --68.163.65.119 05:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep but Trim~~ until only verifiable cases are covered. And please remove the Ask Yahoo! link. It is not exactly scholarly. BTW kill the pop culture section before it grows!--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change my vote to Merge the verifiable cases to Stockholm Syndrome since the article is not that big.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge referenced examples to Stockholm Syndrome; Delete the rest. Clarityfiend 07:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge RS supported examples of real-life events to Stockholm Syndrome (if the sources allow the instance to be used to study the phenomenon, then they belong in encyclopdeic coverage of the syndrome). Get the fictional cases out, and drop the unreferenced real life examples. Pete.Hurd 07:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pete Hurd (cull the fiction)--Victor falk 16:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 00:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim brutally, then merge only verifiable cases into Stockholm Syndrome and redirect. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The Famous possible cases section contains several references, but most of the Fictional uses should be deleted. NCurse _work 12:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - merge anything that is real that has reference sources. The fictional section is five times as long as the real. Does not seem to be frequently in reality but makes a great fictional story line. --Mattisse 01:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Edokter • Talk • 23:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spider Rider characters[edit]

Excessive and unencyclopedic detail, completely in-universe. No apparent signficance outside the book and anime itself. We already have an article on the subject of Spider Riders. Tony Sidaway 04:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge this list with Spider Riders#Cast and Spider Riders#Japanese Cast (which means to either merge this list into the main article or merge main article sections into this list). Voilà, encyclopedic list. (I don't know if a little bit of trimming will help here also, but then that's for cleanup, not for AfD.) – sgeureka ^t•c 08:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a plausible suggestion, and normally I would just get on and merge. But the reason I don't think it would work here is that the article is already reasonably adequate (we don't need to know all of the characters to understand that the novels, anime and manga are about children who ride huge spiders under the earth in a war against mutant insects). Moreover this article, at around 35000 characters, is already ridiculously large, and twice the size of the main article. Adding this information would hopelessly unbalance the parent article. Moreover the content of this article, which I urge you to read, is largely opinions such as "She might also have a romantic relationship with Hunter too." The article might well benefit from the addition of brief plot summaries, which would introduce the characters, where relevant, in context, but this article isn't a good start, and would be likely to be a net drain on resources if content from it were added to the article. --Tony Sidaway 16:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete lack of references. Open to merging per Sgeureka if sources are cited. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. The article Spider Riders already provides enough detail on this topic, though in my view it needs trimming and removal of many unsourced statements. If only one article is to be kept, then Spider Riders is the more logical choice. EdJohnston 17:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. No assertion of notability. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

302SQN (AAFC)[edit]

Nominating for deletion, as it doesn't cite any sources, nor indeed does it seem notable - it seems vaguely like advertising. Being the oldest AAFC in the country might be a bear claim to notability, but many other units - in the UK Sea Cadet Corps for example - have been going for 80 years or more. I think a redirect and merge with an appropriate list would be more appropriate. _{There are also several other articles of this nature being nominated separately.} Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. --Dhartung | Talk 03:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, lack of sources especially. Anynobody 04:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 13:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. --Gavin Collins 20:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not appear to be notable, and does not cite any sources I see no other option. Burntsauce 17:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. No claim of notability. Stifle (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

613SQN (AAFC)[edit]

Nominating for deletion, as it doesn't cite any sources, nor indeed does it seem notable - it seems vaguely like advertising. Being the oldest AAFC in the country might be a bear claim to notability, but many other units - in the UK Sea Cadet Corps for example - have been going for 80 years or more. I think a redirect and merge with an appropriate list would be more appropriate. _{There are also several other articles of this nature being nominated separately.} Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. No more individually notable than a Boy Scout troop. --Dhartung | Talk 03:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 13:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid (Star Trek)[edit]

Article is mostly just a copy from the wiki at memory-alpha.org. If you ignore the first sentence which looks like WP:OR it looks like a list of hybrids in the star trek universe and this could be handled better with a category. Delete Pocopocopocopoco 03:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though the list has organisational value beyond a category, there are problems in locating sources for such trivia (and using the show would be WP:OR). WP:NOT#INFO is a possible criticism. --Alksub 04:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I agree with everything else you said your statement about OR is incorrect. From WP:OR "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Also from WP:OR "Examples of primary sources include... ...scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." Finally also from WP:OR Secondary sources are only required when interpretation of the primary source was required. Editors seem to misuse the OR policy to get things deleted. OR should be renamed to Original Idea's or Original concepts, since that is what it blocks. So you see using the show wouldn't be OR it would be source based research. Anyway I would say Clean up to get rid of in-universe style or delete. Viperix 10:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the term OR is overused. The problem with this particular article is that it comes off as "in-universe OR" if that makes sense. In any event, I can't find anything to suggest that "Hybrid" is a commonly used term within the Trek franchise, or if it is that it warrants an article in the main Wikipedia. If it weren't already stated as being part of Memory-Alpha I'd suggest sending it their way. 23skidoo 14:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-encyclopedic material, with OR and in-universe problems. --Orange Mike 15:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet more Star Trek in-universe garbage. Burntsauce 17:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 20:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable SF characters. --Gavin Collins 20:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - science fiction is not inherently non-notable, Gavin. --Orange Mike 15:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am usually not in favor of secondary articles of this sort, but this is sufficiently notable a feature of the series to make a good subject for an article.DGG (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt belong here... does belong at memory alpha. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alkivar, and if kept, then send to WP:CP as Memory Alpha uses a CC license which isn't compatible with the GFDL. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There's no need to send this to WP:CP unless the text is copied from another source. There are no images here, either. 23skidoo 20:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jreferee t/c 16:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-RPG System[edit]

Fails ~~WP:FICT~~ WP:BK and maybe a copyright violation since most of the page is a quote pulled from the defunct RPGBlog.net. As good faith I've merged that text block in to the article Ironwood Omnimedia which I have previously tagged for several citing issues. Torchwood Who? 03:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BK is a more appropriate guideline than WP:FICT, as this is certainly factual. A game system is not "in universe" by any stretch. --Dhartung | Talk 03:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, I agree and have changed the grounds. --Torchwood Who? 03:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk 08:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you disagree with there being entries for Ironwood Omnimedia Company; they are rather popular in circles here in Central Florida, also in Iowa. I am not affiliated with IOC nor have I ever been, I just love the system since I tried the free version and decided that there should be information out there for others researching it. IOC was nominated for several Ennies and, according to one of the judges "E-RPG is one that fell victim to that lack of theme for this category"; as he recognized that the books are solid but being universal hurt them in the running. --James Alderman 03:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't have an issue with Ironwood Omnimedia Company entries that can prove notability, as I stated in the deletion nomination I even went so far as to move the quote block about E-RPG to the main Ironwood Article, however there are several redirects to the E-RPG system and E-RPG itself has little to no significant coverage in the media. I've asked the community to help imrprove the main Ironwood article here [54] just prior to my noms. As for the Ruel Knudson nom... he's not notable in any way other than as associated with Ironwood and as such should not have his own article. If the main Ironwood article, which still has multiple issues, can be salvaged in the near future I'll have no issue with it and won't support deletion of it. I'm also skeptical of the fact that you have no association with the company as the ONLY contributions you've made to wikipedia are the creation of Ironwood articles. If you would like to attempt to prove the notability of the E-RPG system or the Ruel Knudson article, please provide reliable third-party sources to support your research. For example, where can we see the quote from the Ennie judge listed in print by a source not related to Ironwood?--Torchwood Who? 15:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

follow up I've noticed the Ennie judge blog link and would like to quote it here for the sake of the debate,

"E-RPG is one that fell victim to that lack of theme for this category that I spoke of earlier. Mechanics and writing aside, it's very straight forward and to the point, not allowing much room for things like art and layout concerns. That doesn't make it a bad book, but it can hurt it when stacked up against some of the other great entires."

This quote noted by James Alderman clearly implies that E-RPG couldn't hold up to other books in the category, a category for which it was NOT nominated at this year's Ennie awards. For James Alderman, I can only find references that show E-Rpg was nominated in one single, non-juried category at the Ennies and did not place. This also seems to be the first and only nomination for such an award. I'm not saying that E-rpg isn't a fun system to use (I don't know, I'm not really a gamer) but I am saying that it's just not notable enough right now to make the cut. Maybe it will be in future, but I just don't see it yet.--Torchwood Who? 01:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Failing to win an Ennie isn't a sign of notability. Percy Snoodle 13:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game related fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 20:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Percy Snoodle. Stifle (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Torchwood Who? 03:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Wikipedist 04:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently, this game is presently not notable. Were it to win a notable award, or to be covered by independent sources, it will well deserve an article. Goochelaar 14:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.--JForget 00:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruel Knudson (US)[edit]

Fails WP:BIO Torchwood Who? 02:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Never a good sign when the WP entry is the first hit in Google. Leuko 03:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now that is complete nonsense. How about http://www.google.com/search?q=george+w+bush or http://www.google.com/search?q=osama+bin+laden? (or, as a matter of fact, the google result for the most people who are very famous, and also many many other topics.) ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 09:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources outside his company, which has an article.--Sethacus 03:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sethacus. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Tiptopper 13:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kudret abi^Talk 06:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - can be recreated for a transwiki if a Wiki with a compatible license wants it. WjBscribe 18:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures in Metroid Fusion and Metroid: Zero Mission[edit]

The article, like the other two metroid creature articles, has no notability, so no reliable sources, and no out of universe information. As such, it is a list of creatures from Metroid, which is totally unencyclopedic and should be transwikied to the Metroid fan wiki. Judgesurreal777 22:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Important ones. Should not be its own article. i ^said 00:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Just merge the Creatures in the Metroid, Metroid II and Super Metroid series with the ones in the Creatures in Metroid Fusion and Metroid: Zero Mission and rename it to something like Creatures in the 2-d Metroid Series. That way we keep all information and reduce the number of articles. Tensa Zangetsu 00:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ per Tensa Zangetsu--Torchwood Who? 17:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Metroid Wiki--Torchwood Who? 17:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 14:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 20:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Lack of independent sources indicates that these creatures are non-notable per WP:FICTION, and I agree that the text is too in universe for an encyclopedia. --Gavin Collins 20:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 02:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge/TransWiki. Not for here, I'm afraid! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge or transwiki. These creatures do not have reliable, third-party coverage that would make them notable outside of their own universe. Notability is not inherited. Also, see WP:WAF and WP:NOT#GUIDE. bwowen talk•contribs 04:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gavin collins. If there is a place to transwiki it to after it is deleted, please let me know and I can provide the content for you. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in universe, game guide-like and no indication of real world notabiloity. Nuttah68 20:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT#GUIDE. I'm sure tears will not flow freely by removing this material, as it exists in profundity elsewhere. Doesn't belong here. Keeper | 76 17:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. — Edokter • Talk • 23:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuddly Duddly[edit]

no claim of notabilty, no reliable sources, prod removed Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 01:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: per my remarks on the talk page, the article title is a misspelling and the correct spelling of Cuddly Dudley redirects to Ray Rayner, redirect dating from 2005. Michael Devore 01:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I support a merge and redirect to the Rayner article as well. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 01:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hah, I remember this guy. Roy Brown, the voice and puppeteer, might actually be a better target for a merge/redirect. Brown performed as the character on the Chicago Bozo show well into the 90s, long after Rayner left the Chicago area. Zagalejo^^^ 01:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jaranda. No assertion of notability. Eusebeus 07:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Roy Brown (clown) seems the obvious choice. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a case could be made for using it as a dab page, directing not only to Roy Brown (per above), Ray Rayner (also per above) but also to Dudley Moore (who had this as a persistent nickname). Grutness...wha? 00:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC) (did I just type "not only... but also..."?)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 02:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess a Merge is best. Just don't mess with Mr. Moose! MarkBul 02:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A merge is not appropriate because the toy had notability separate from those who subsequently used it. Colonel Warden 06:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jaranda, or merge as a distant second choice. Stifle (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The misspelling of the article title has kept others from finding reliable source material during this AfD. I found a few under the misspelled "Cuddly Duddly" and added them to the article. I found more under the "Cuddly Dudley" (one "d") spelling, but don't have time to add them to the article. Google books has some hits. If not closed as Keep, No Consensus seems the best approach in view of my late added sources to the article (substantial new information not reviewed above) and to give others a chance to use the proper spelling of the topic to locate sources to improve the article. -- Jreferee t/c 16:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting distortion of the English language to say "becomes a star on television" is not a claim of notability. I wonder how this kind of thing happens. Kappa 19:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as no consensus and ... conduct housekeeping so that the article title is corrected to "Cuddly Dudley"; some instructions on how to accomplish this type of title swap are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages (I don't remember where the 'master' instruction set for this activity is). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WODUP

Hikiji[edit]

blanked by original editor
-- Taroaldo 02:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G7 (author blanks page), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular Static[edit]

Fictional concept with no secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context Jay32183 01:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looks like similar articles have been deleted as well for lack of real-world context. This one is no different. -WarthogDemon 01:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as article title name is not merely fictional and has real world context beyond the show and has been covered in scholarly secondary sources. I'll do what I can to improve the article, but I'm going to have to drive home soon, so ... Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You realize, of course, Pumpkin King, that the sources you linked to (dealing with static molecular analyses) have nothing at all to do with the concept of "molecular static" treated in this article. Don't you? Deor 02:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and so I urge someone to use these sources, who knows more about science than I, to restructure the article accordingly. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD discussions aren't about the titles, they're about the articles. This article is about a concept from Charmed. If there's an actual scientific concept with the same name it could get an article. It shouldn't be written on top of this article. If this article is kept then it should be moved to Molecular Static (Charmed) and give the science article this spot. You can move this article there now if you wish. Moving this article won't affect this debate or the science article though. Jay32183 03:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My head is exploding! Do I have to explain? MarkBul 02:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deor 03:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems rather crufty and not notable outside of the TV show. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have a love/hate relationship with WP:FICT, but I have no reservation applying that guideline here. To Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho!: this won't be salted, so we can always add the science stuff after the AfD. Ichormosquito 03:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deletion of this article lacking sources to support assertions of notability. GRBerry 20:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PassGo Technologies[edit]

Prodded; later removed by a single-purpose-account. Company seems to be purely promotional without notability. -WarthogDemon 01:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two claims to notability asserted. I can't verify that this company is on Software Magazine's list due to paywall. The second, a review of product, is insufficient to avoid charges that this is a WP:ADVERT. Delete unless something more substantial arises. Alba 01:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find the claims of notability here impressive - the 360th largest software company? The company isn't even publicly traded. Out! Brianyoumans 04:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions and list of Software-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 20:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. • Lawrence Cohen 21:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Private company partnering with Vasco[55]. Vasco is listed on NASDAQ.[56] [57]. Article needs much work but company is notable by association, I think. Desperately needs verifiable citations. -- • • • Blue Pixel 03:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A listing on the NASDAQ is not very convincing; many small companies are listed there. Originally the NASDAQ was principally companies too small or risky to be listed on the major exchanges, and I believe the listing requirements are still substantially less strict than the NYSE. Brianyoumans 00:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The company and CEO, John Rainford, are also closely linked to Symantec. Symantec is just another little fish in the NASDAQ pond, I suppose, but PassGo Technologies seems to have a lot of strong associations. I still vote keep. -- • • • Blue Pixel 01:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable company. Keb25 07:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advert, no sources to verify. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikocracy (second nomination)[edit]

Non-notable former website; I haven't been able to reach it for a number of weeks. The Onion article does not actually mention Wikocracy, although it was probably inspired by it. Most of the articles mentioned in the previous AFD discussion have now disappeared off the web. There was some hope that this would become a significant site; instead, it seems to have vanished and left little of note. Brianyoumans 01:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Keeper | 76 16:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the site is 404ing for me, and notability and verifiability are both highly questionable. Stifle (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I don't really see how this ever met notability. EyeSerene^TALK 17:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Haas & Viscera[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Charlie Haas & Viscera

Short-lived, non-notable tag team. They only had 9 matches according to the article. DrWarpMind 00:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. DrWarpMind 00:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete, per notability and short duration of the team. Nikki311 01:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge back salvageable info to the respective wrestlers' articles--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN bottom-rung tag team. Dannycali 06:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is hardly as famous as Edge & Christian, put that info in both of their articles since it isn't notable enough to be individually an article.--JForget 22:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - oh kill it, kill it! It burns, it burns! AAAHHH! Anyway, it fails the notability policy. The Hyb rid 23:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. Definitely non notable. Burntsauce 17:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Davnel03 21:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Allthough they are jobbers. Jobbers are needed in WWE. Chandlerjoeyross 22:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That has nothing to do with this though and is not a valid reason for keeping the article. They are notable enough, however, to each have their own articles (which they do), and at most, a breif mention of their time as a tag team could be included in their individual articles. --Naha|^(talk) 17:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability and short duration of the tag team. --Naha|^(talk) 17:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 23:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AsianAve[edit]

Social networking website of questionable notability. I believe it fails WP:WEB and would delete. Evb-wiki 00:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but source. Social networking website dating from before the term was invented, covered in NYT and WSJ among other reliable sources. Originally it was a "portal", only in the last few years has it moved to the social networking model. --Dhartung | Talk 03:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless those sources are provided and determined to be notable non-trivial coverage.--Crossmr 04:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
additional comment after having a look at these sources, the claim of notability is thin at best. We have one article in which AsianAve is not the subject of the article, but its parent company is (its mentioned, but not the subject), and the second article in which its sort of the focus but shares that focus with the ad-campaign. Note that the article isn't titled "AsianAvenue stops ad campaign", so the focus is actually put on the vodka company. In addition to that, no other sources have been provided to establish notability. That makes the most recent article, in which its not the subject, almost 7 years old. As far as notability goes it was barely a blip on the radar 7 years ago let alone now. I don't feel there has been any demonstration that this site is notable--Crossmr 14:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've heard of it, it goes back a few years. SolidPlaid 06:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:IDONTKNOWIT. I'm afraid I haven't seen the notability guideline which makes allowances for whether or not someone has heard of it. If this is notable please provide some sources to support that assertion.--Crossmr 13:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a digital version of Wall Street Journal I found online[58] OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's one, can we have another reliable source? Notability requires multiple ones.--Crossmr 18:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. I am not Asian but I have heard of this as well, probably from one of the WSJ or NYT sources he just mentioned. Burntsauce 17:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning doesn't making them available for any editor to independently check them.--Crossmr 18:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can independently go to your local library and check Lexis Nexis for yourself. Burntsauce 20:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
easily? I'm given no issue number, date, etc for which to check these alleged references. That is the problem. Vaguely claiming that something appeared in a reliable source at some point and using that as a basis for keeping something in an AfD debate doesn't exactly cut it. Thats exactly WHY it was placed on AfD, because those sources weren't provided. WP:V puts the burden of proof on the individual(s) who want the material kept or added. As such anyone feeling this should be kept because of those sources is required to provide them. I'm not saying they don't exist, but they have to provided in a usable format see WP:CITE for how to site offline sources.--Crossmr 23:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually go to the link that I pointed out, it says right on the top the date of publish, which is Monday, October 23, 2000. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out that's one, someone else has already pointed out the site isn't actually the focus of that article, the parent company is. Notability requires multiple sources and they must be the subject of it. What's required is a minimum of 2 reliable sources which make this site the subject of their writings.--Crossmr 04:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you look at the source, you may see that, while AsianAvenue is mentioned, the article is actually about Community Connect, AsianAve's parent company. --Evb-wiki 03:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment sources have to be cited, not just vaguely saying it was in the times, go find it for yourself.DGG (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources. Community Connect probably is notable enough, AsianAve doesn't appear to be. Note to Burntsauce: It is for those who seek to include content to cite it and verify it. Stifle (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 19:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enotary[edit]

Can't find any sources besides the national notary association (1st-party) to back this up - verifiability in question Stifle (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found 37,000 Ghits. [59] Disclosure - I'm a notary public. Bearian 21:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A cursory search shows that e-notarization is up and running in Colorado [60], North Carolina [61], and Pennsylvania [62]. I stopped looking after that. SkerHawx 18:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Enough coverage in books [63] and scholarly articles exist [64]. --Kudret abi^Talk 06:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Eat. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loris Chen[edit]

I realized there may be some claim of notability for the subject. The subject has won a few awards, but I don't think those awards meet the Criteria #6 of WP:PROF. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I both agree and disagree. The subject does seem somewhat unimportant, but is also important in a way. Davidm617617 21:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidm617617 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 23:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment certainly as won a lot of awards, and may be as notable as a 7th-8th grade teacher can be. There are currently no sources in the article (years awards won might be useful to mention in article), and WP has no articles on the awards she has won by which to easily evaluate their notability: NJAS Teacher of the Year, Toyota Tapestry Large Grant Award [65] [66] [67], Japan Fulbright Memorial Fund Award [68] [69], PSE&G Envrionmental Education Grant [70], NJ Presidental Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching [71] [72]. Pete.Hurd 01:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Surely non notable! -- Kleinzach 01:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability standard. Eusebeus 03:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Probably not notable. If they were national wards, she;s be notable, but they seem to b state awards only. DGG (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The PAEMST one appears to be national. It is awarded at the national level, but given to nominees from each state. —David Eppstein 17:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Crusio 10:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep possibly noteable due to awards, but as the article stands it's a delete. I think categorize it as a stub and see if someone can improve it. Wikipedia is not paper! Jon Hobynx 18:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Also missing sources with which we can verify. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --I'm sure this is a fine teacher of science-- but NN. Tiptopper 17:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable secondary sources to establish notability. --Kudret abi^Talk 06:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think the PAEMST awards are notable as being a longstanding award given at the highest level to a quite small number of educators: "As enacted by Congress in the 1983, the President makes up to 108 awards each year. The 2008 call for nominations marks the 25th year of the program." I'm not as impressed by the other accomplishments listed in the article, though. —David Eppstein 17:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eppstein, that's 2,700 awardees. This is a nn teacher. Ritametermaid 09:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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