< January 4 January 6 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sierra Leone Liberated Africans. Keilanatalk 18:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mammah family (Sierra Leone)[edit]

Mammah family (Sierra Leone) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(AGAIN) No information to indicate significance in a biographical article. And therefore, the article is pointless Ranket (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 01:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Jefferson Blythe, Jr.[edit]

William Jefferson Blythe, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

William Jefferson Blythe, Jr.'s sole claim to father is that he was President Bill Clinton's biological father. However, he died three months prior to Clinton's birth and played no part in his upbringing. Doesn't meet notability or WP:BIO criteria. Only reason it seems to be included is that he is Bill Clinton's father and notability is not inherited. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see [1] particularly the last subsection title Non valid general criteria. Being related to a notable person does not, by itself, make a person notable. I just went off the link included in that section. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Would you point out the section in WP:ATA that you have in mind, Phoenix-wiki? --Dhartung | Talk 00:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: Both WP:BIO and WP:NOTE say: A person is presumed to be notable enough for a standalone article if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. So the question becomes is there significant third party coverage?

And of course there's the whole thing the father of a president is almost inherently notable -- especially when he's the namesake of the President and that he's buried next to the President's mother. Americasroof (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an essay and not policy or guideline. The original afd nomination here was an attempt to wipe out articles on three relatives of Presidents in one fell swoop because it was more convenient than writing three afds. Please show your good faith and follow the wiki policy of one afd per article so that they can be discussed each on their own merits. Americasroof (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If "one afd per article" is the Wikipedia policy, please explain why we have WP:BUNDLE. A polite request to separate a multiple is acceptable, but badgering the nominator for bad faith is not. --Dhartung | Talk 04:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to elaborate? The Washington Post article and the chapter in The Fathers of American Presidents are both primarily about this man. Zagalejo^^^ 18:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. Keilanatalk 18:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Scullion[edit]

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

NN person and I suspect is probably an autobio. This google search (which subtracts WP, Amazon, Lulu, and book from the search) returns 559 G-hits, most seeming to be forum/blog postings and other people than the subject. The bundled book is also self-published, the more famous names said to be in the book are actually quotes from other published work by those famous names, not original content. Pigman☿ 23:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because it is a non-notable book. this google search returns five hits:[reply]

Liber Malorum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
If I might suggest my google searches above instead? I refined them a little more than yours. The only parameter which might have been misapplied/bad was connecting "-book" with Sean Scullion's name search. It was intended to eliminate bookstores but could well have eliminated pertinent hits. Leaving the book parameter off results in 865 hits. Pigman☿ 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Just re-read the first sentence of Liber Malorum: "Liber Malorum - Children Of The Apple is the first book by the Australian fool and magician Sean Scullion." So, this seems to me to confirm that any other books by a "Sean Scullion" are by a different writer with the same name. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that if you could show somehow that the contributions by the notable authors are original, editors would agree that the Liber Malorum article should be kept. Another ttroublesome charge is that the book is self-published - can we verify from reliable sources whether or not this is the case? Skomorokh incite 01:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the PagAnarchy Press website, there's a scan of the back cover claiming that the notable authors have contributed original material. Is that any use to WP? It seperates original content from 'cameos' lists the pre-published work including William Blake et al. http://www.paganarchy.net/back.php Chaosplanet (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I note the book is listed on lulu.com which is a print-on-demand publisher. This is typically a self-publishing press because the up-front publishing cost is minimal and no requirement for ordering any stock whatsoever. For as little as US$100.00, the book will have an ISBN, bar code and be listed on the major online bookstores: Amazon, Borders, and Barnes and Noble. Pigman☿ 05:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
link: The page for the book on Lulu.com. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
question So, Chaos, are you saying that the original content in the book was written by the contributors in the top list, and that any content by the authors listed in the "cameos" section (William Blake, the Principia Discordia, Robert Anton Wilson, Hakim Bey, Timothy Leary, William J. Murray and Donald Tyson) consists only of quotes from pre-published works by those authors (as granted by free use restrictions governing the length that quotes can be before you have to get permission and pay the publishers a fee)? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
answer Actually, the copyright holders of Blake, Leary, Murray and Tyson granted free permission to reproduce. The Principia Discordia, and all Hakim Bey texts are in the public domain already so no permission is required to reproduce. The copyright holder of the Robert Anton Wilson text (from the Illuminatus Trilogy) charged a fee for permission to reproduce and this fee has been paid by PagAnarchy Press to the Copyright Clearance Centre. I went to the Liber Malorum booklaunch in London and am already a massive fan of this work, which is the reason for the initial article. However, I will understand if it is not yet deemed 'notable' and needs to be removed for now. Chaosplanet (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the blog posts again confirm that the author's only book is self-published. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy deleted. IrishGuy talk 23:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chantelle Norris[edit]

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

Absolutely no notability, referred to as a 15 year old 'guy', then as a female from there on out, blah blah... Alloranleon (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • RE above - I'll keep that in mind in future. Thanks. :) Alloranleon (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There was a clear consensus for deletion. The arguments for keeping were not sufficiently strong to overcome that consensus. There were three relevant sources, one of which was a directory-type entry, one a passing mention of a transaction and the other a statutory notice; insufficient in my view to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Country Club Mall[edit]

Non-notable mall in Maryland, fails WP:RS. At only 500K square feet (source), it falls short of super-regional status. Tagged for references since August with no improvement. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The key question is: What fact is being presented in the article that makes this mall 'notable' and not just another mall. If there isn't something that stands out and seperates it from just 'an ordinary mall', then it is just 'an ordinary mall', which is not notable by itself. 1000 citations about the mall existing doesn't assert any notability, so the number of references is meaningless until some notability is claimed. Pharmboy (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability does not mean fame or uniqueness. It is debateable what makes something notable, but it doesn't have to be different from any other of its type. One thing that all agree is required to be considered notable is that it has to be covered by reliable outside sources. See WP:Notability for more details.Sebwite (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to WP:Notability, A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. which would disqualify chamber of commerce and similar entities, and only serves as the basics of the definiton. Notability can be fame or uniqueness, although I don't remember using those terms as how to define notability to begin with. My argument and reasoning still stands and conforms to policy: Something about the place must be different or at least special at the very least, just to make a claim of notability. Pharmboy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Presently, I am looking through the more than 17,000 Google hits on the mall to find notable information that can be used in the article. This is a time-consuming process, but I am sure I will find something. Already, I have found that the mall is a hub for the region's transit system. Though the chamber of commerce site is the one I listed that said it was the only mall within a certain distance, this is very likely written elsewhere as well.Sebwite (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment And if you find it, please bring it here. People who vote to 'delete' are supposed to do so after trying to see if it is notable, but that doesn't require fishing through all 17,000 ghits, just a good faith attempt. If something is found, added, cited and brought here, I would be happy to have a reason to reverse my opinion. My opinion to delete isn't because it is "this" mall, it is because it is any mall that hasn't established notability per policy. I don't think being the only mall in $x miles qualifies, but if there is something unique to being the hub (first electric train in the state, etc.) then it might squeak by, or perhaps something else that qualifies. Otherwise, every mall in the usa would be here, and Wikipedia is pretty set about not being a directory for all malls/businesses/etc. Pharmboy (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Has some major anchor stores found at many notable malls' is not a reason to keep or to establish notability. Generally the stores at a mall are something that is mentioned after notability is established. It is not the cause of notability except in rare cases and this is not one of those. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is nothing under WP:CORP that says this article does not qualify.Sebwite (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlimited (Hilary Duff album)[edit]

Unlimited (Hilary Duff album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's a fan-made compilation distributed using the usual fileshare channels. Fails Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums_and_songs. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You need to click through to the last page of results on Google to get the true figure. In this case, it's 645 - not all of them relevant (many of them just contain 'Hilary Duff' and the word 'unlimited' on the same page). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something on google is borked, as it won't show past 726, even if you choose to see 'omitted results', multiple times. I understand what you are saying, but I am also seeing the album featured on Yahoo downloads and pretty mainstream places. I am not saying this meets policy by itself, I am just saying I think you rushed the nom a bit as there is a lot of talk out there about the album from mainstream sites (but the links I can get in 3 minutes don't wp:rs). Again, I have no use for Hilary Duff, but this just seems to have too much attention drawn to it to be not notable. If nothing else, this is one of the very few cases when WP:IAR might apply (justified by the quality of non-wp:rs coverage + the artist is unquestionably notable). I won't labor it, but I am hoping you see why I think this is more of a borderline case than the nomination itself may indicate. Pharmboy (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilanatalk 18:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations in Camp Lazlo[edit]

List of locations in Camp Lazlo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A list of secondary locations which mostly appear for a single episode. Mostly trivial material, non-verifiable, primary-sourced (in-universe). There's not much of a chance of third-party sources on many of these. The exception being the first three locations listed in the contents. Those, while still needing to be addressed, are where the show occurs. Yngvarr 23:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in parent article and then delete. The main characters article could probably easily fit in the important characters from this list if it was cleaned up. As it is, no sources to prove notability, which means whether or not to keep hinges on whether it is governed by WP:SIZE concerns. As stated above, this could still be merged into the main list, and though still "only a guideline" I think most people would assume the bedrock to inclusion on Wikipedia is more important than the 32KB limit which does not apply to most modern browsers. David Fuchs (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor characters in Camp Lazlo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of minor characters in Camp Lazlo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a list of single-episode characters, those one-shot types of characters who only serve to advance the plot elements for an individual episode. It's chock full of trivial, unverifiable material and original research, with no possibility of any third-party (or even second-party) sources. They're not only non-notable out-of-universe, they're non-notable in-universe. Yngvarr 23:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment The name of the article is a bit misleading. The term "minor" implies a greater level of appearances than what actually occurs. When I consider a "minor" character, someone like Apu from the Simpsons comes to mind. Some of the characters listed in this article never even appear (Edward's mother, Lumpus' grandfather), they're merely mentioned once or twice. As much as the trivia has been addressed, they still continue to reappear (which I realize is not terms for deletion in itself, but in this regard, I'll argue otherwise). Yngvarr 16:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia makes no such distinction, and I don't agree that "minor" has the threshold of significance you suggest. "Minor" characters can occur only a few times, or even just once. In any case, what you're arguing is article content, which isn't a good basis for an AfD. Torc2 (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm arguing for deletion based on notability and reliable sources (or lack of). They have no note both in an in-universe context and out-of-universe context. The burden of proof gives further details: so far, there have been no arguments for keeping that have proven that these subjects have been covered by WP policies (WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS). If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Yngvarr 10:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure there has. This article only exists apart from the main Camp Lazlo article due to WP:SIZE restrictions. It's entirely appropriate for this subarticle to be primary sources since it's merely content for the main article. The content is covered by WP:NNC more than WP:N. Torc2 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NNC over-rides WP:N? WP:NNC still says [the] topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article (emp. mine). I'm not arguing for the size of the article, I'm arguing that references and sources for these characters do not exist. What about WP:SYNTH, for which this article also suffers (as a form of WP:OR)? The content is based solely on primary sources; and criticism of the subject is impossible without those sources. WP:SIZE is style guidelines, not policy; WP:N is policy. Finally, if one were to actually address the issues with List of characters in Camp Lazlo, then WP:SIZE may not be an issue (see the long-outstanding tags). Yngvarr 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N doesn't address the issues created by WP:SIZE and the fact that a single article that is split due to size isn't the same thing as two distinct articles. (FWIW, WP:N is also a guideline, not a policy.) WP:SIZE and WP:N conflict in this regard, and the guidelines and terminology just haven't caught up to reality yet. It's a shortcoming that some editors are working to address . In the meantime, the reality of the situation is that it's ridiculous and crippling to pretend articles like this were ever intended to be totally independent from their main articles. These aren't "separate articles" - they're sub-articles; they're part of the main article that just exist on a different page. List of characters in Camp Lazlo, List of minor characters in Camp Lazlo, and List of Camp Lazlo episodes are all part of one article: Camp Lazlo - the fact that they are on different Wiki pages is just incidental. They're simply data that won't fit in the main article; that they're primary-source summaries is basically irrelevant. If there is superfluous information, it should be dealt with using guidelines that apply to article content, not article creation.Torc2 (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stronger, multiple sources were introduced during AfD, although it still appears to be a magnet for vandalism. David Fuchs (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melon heads[edit]

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

Hoax article? Links and one reference all seem highly questionable. Cool story, though. Pgagnon999 (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to delete the melonhead article you may as well delete bigfoot, lochness monster, chupacabra, aliens. Just because it is not a world renowned myth doesn't make it less important or relevant. Most Ohioans are very familiar with this story and it would be shame to railroad it off of wiki. It is not a hoax entry, it is a vital part of Northeast Ohio's mythical heritage. Feel free to email your questions. per Mmoorhead1207@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.38.220 (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a local urban legend. I think it's fake, but it is somewhat important. Here's a few links on it.

http://deadohio.com/MelonHeads.htm

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:oZhsre-pE14J:www.forgottenoh.com/Counties/Lake/melonheads.html+site:www.forgottenoh.com+melon+heads&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

http://www.geocities.com/son_of_pauly/melonheads/melonhead.html

http://www.weirdus.com/stories/OH04.asp

http://creepycleveland.blogspot.com/search/label/melonheads

VinTheMetalhed (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think they're enough to establish the existence of the urban legend. And we can have articles about urban legends, as long as they're clearly presented as such. Zagalejo^^^ 00:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete. I agree with Zagalejo, in principle. However, the article still has to meet WP:NOTE and WP:RS criteria. A cursory bit of research on the book they provide is inconclusive as to the reliability of it as a source. And if this is a widespread legend, it must be reported in more than the local alternative rag. I'm positive that Ohio has a large-ish newspaper in that general area, as do Connecticut and Michigan. In the case of Connecticut, there certainly should be a bit of newsprint about it, since the story apparently dates back almost 150 years (or is it 50? The article is unclear)... And, honestly, if it's really as well-known as is claimed, I'm surprised Snopes hasn't heard of it... With more reliable sources, I'll gladly consider changing from Delete, as I tend to have a bit of an inclusionist bent... -- Lewellyn talk 00:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem citing a referenceable urban legend, no matter how oddball. However, unreliable internet sources about an alleged urban legend do not constitute an actual urban legend; they constitute an internet hoax that suggests an urban legend. There may be a root truth to the internet stuff, but the references aren't strong enough to back it up. Quite a bit of the information in the article isn't even backed up by the links and single reference. Another point: might be worthwhile to give the article history some scrutiny. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, no, this isn't an internet hoax pretending to be an urban legend. For one thing, the Melon Heads are briefly mentioned in this 2000 article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer. (I can access the whole article on Newsbank. It's just a sentence – "She will share the legend of the 'melonheads' that haunt Wisner Rd in Kirtland." – but it proves that it's an actual piece of Ohio folklore.) Zagalejo^^^ 00:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. ..but the article you mention is about a woman gives "Ghost walks," not about the actual urban legend. Did she acquire her information from the web as a way to bolster her program, or is she retelling an actual urban legend (did the chicken come before the egg?) Once again, reliability is a problem. ..--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly? I don't know. I'll keep looking around, though. Zagalejo^^^ 00:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Not to be difficult, but are you able to find anything else substantial? A sentence in a newspaper article which appears to be lacking in verification of the legends they're discussing isn't really much "proof" of anything, other than someone apparently is paid to tell the story. It also seems to contradict the Wikipedia article slightly... Still looking for a reliable source, myself... -- Lewellyn talk 00:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only other things I've found so far are reviews of the Weird US books, which list the Melonhead stories as one of the highlights. I'm still digging around, though. Zagalejo^^^ 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Janeyvon (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)I live within 10 minutes of Kirtland, Ohio and we, as teenagers, did go melonhead hunting in the late 70's. I know teenagers still continue to this day, so it is an urban legend. But, the information I found on Wikipedia about Dr. Crow is new to me . . . we never had this much detail![reply]

Yes, it's highly educational and encyclopedic--Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I chopped out a lot of the BS, and included some newspaper refs. Zagalejo^^^ 06:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job :) I'll upgrade to Weak Keep based on your edits. However, the article should probably be locked down or closely monitored: it's a real kaka magnet.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An existing urban legend verifiable to several distinct sources. The primary grounds for inclusion on Wikipedia are verifiability and notability. The available sources confirm both of these. The truth of the urban legend is irrelevant (most urban legends are largely, if not totally, false), what is important is that they are a part of popular culture. If you were to delete an urban legend just because it's about something made up then you might as well delete all urban legends as well as most classical myths. - perfectblue (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contention isn't with the existence or hokey source of the urban legend, it's with the reliability of the sources that report the urban legend. I.e., is it an urban legened, or is it something invented by internet bloggers and a single publisher? Is it really an urban legend, and to what extent? For instance, using your example above, I could invent a bogus Greek myth, paste it on the net or publish it, and someone else could edit it into the Wiki article on Greek mythology, but that wouldn't make it a real Greek myth. So far, all but one of the Michigan references are sketchy at best, and all of the Ohio Melon heads references are equally sketchy. I'd like the legend to have a place here; its a fun story, but we are an encyclopedia. . .and we need good sources to maintain credibility as one. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This actually works both ways. Fakelore is just as valid on Wikipedia as [Folklore]]. If this is a hoax, a fake urban myth, then it appears to hav been widely distributed enough to be notable in itself and therefore sufficiently notable to be included. In this case, the only point of contention would be the entries framing. You'd need to WP:V it is as a web hoax. A local paper saying that it's fake would be sufficient to rate at least a reference that people thought that it was fake in the entry, and if it provided evidence to back it then I'd have no problem with the entry saying that it was a fake myth. My point however remains that if its a genuine myth then it's notable because of its coverage, and if its a fake myth it's still notable for the same reasons.
At the end of the day, and in the very best of situations, this would still be an urban myth and nothing more. It doesn't need peer review reliability. Only a couple of sources that are sufficiently reliable enough to report on the contents of the myths, and pretty much any well urban legend book could so that. - perfectblue (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up - I was asked by an editor to review the sources a bit more, because all three of the books found are by the same publisher. So I read the Holland Sentinel newspaper article in full, and it did seem like most of the info was from the book series; but there were also a few names of people relating stories that weren't from the book; it's hard to tell though. I searched a bit more and found another article, in the Cleveland Free Times, a weekly paper: [6]. That article doesn't mention the book, but the history is similar enough it seems like it could be from the book; on the other hand the paper also mentioned some other people who said they'd heard the stories. One of the papers asked the Lakewood Town Manager and the other paper spoke with the Kirtland Fire Chief who said he'd heard the stories when he was a teenager. If those are valid interviews -if those same interviewees are not named in the books, then that makes those newspaper stories independent and reliable for keeping the article. If it turns out that the books name the same individuals making the reports as the in the newspaper articles, then that might show that the sources are not independent. As far as I can tell so far, they seem independent, so I'll leave my "keep" comment. I'm open to changing that though, if more info is provided showing the sources are not independent. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Lakewood Town Manager and the Kirtland Fire Chief are not named in Weird US or Weird Michigan. I'm not 100% sure about Weird Ohio, since I can't get a preview of the Melon Heads section with Google Books (but if I'm near a Barnes and Noble, I can probably check, because they always carry these titles). Zagalejo^^^ 06:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got a copy of Weird Ohio. The bad news: The four pages covering the subject look to lift text directly from the websites cited at the top of this article (what a surprise to see my own words, since I contributed to Forgotten Ohio). The good news: One of the sources, not listed above, is entitled "Solving the Melon Head Mystery", and is available here, in two pages. The author (Ryan Orvis) said on the second page that he "went to the library", and and since the cite appears to be recent, any research that he did probably would be the same that I would do on Monday, when the reference librarian today stated that the employee who would know the most about it would be in. I think that we have enough substance now! Anyone with more editing experience than I have want to go to it?  :-) Mapsax (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the great research & debate that went into this discussion. After a recent negative experience with Wikipedia, all of this makes me feel right at home & hopeful about this medium :) As for the Melon heads, I no longer object to the article itself; my only beef (notability & reliability of sources) is with the Ohio melonheads section. That said, I rest my case: let community concensus move the article forward.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Phoenix-wiki 23:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, you do realize that what you say would effectively mean the end of most sports and music related entries and almost all TV related entries. Let me give you a case study: Football (US football, not soccer or rugby football). This sport is basically a US only game with no real international importance. It is followed by fewer that 50% of America's 300+ million population who in turn make up a fraction of the worlds 6+ billion population. The vast majority of international TV stations don't cover it, the vast majority of the world's population don't watch it. 9/10 people in the world proably couldn't even tell you which month the Superbowl was in, let alone who won it. Football barely even makes the headlines outside of the sports pages and it hasn't changed the world any. Therefore under your notability criteria all football entries including players, etc, would be removed from Wikipedia. Things can be notable and specialist at the same time. - perfectblue (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you even consider deleting this article? The legend is found in many books in including "Weird Michigan" and there's even several local newspaper articles (at least in Michigan) about the story. Since Wikipedia is one of the biggest resources for information online, why not keep the stories on here for others to see? It just doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.250.194 (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the Hoax issue, it is actually irrelevant whether or not this started out as folklore or fakelore so long as any claims about its status are addressed using verifiable sources. Both folklore and fakelore are equally acceptable on Wikipedia so long as notability is demonstrated, which it has been via the array of different sources available.
On notability. Notability is relative, not absolute. If notability were absolute then practically nothing would be notable. There are 6+ billion people on this planet and asking for something to be notable to more than a handful of them (absolute notability) is frankly asking rather a lot. Micheal Jackson and the Beatles would squeeze through, and so would the War on Terror, but practically no American politician below the level of president would. In fact, using absolute notability, most Americans states would not be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Melon heads are notable on the grounds that they have good coverage in the media and in urban myth circles. The myth has propagated and survived without a factual event behind it and it has spawned a pop culture belief of its own that exists independently of other urban myths (notability is its own, rather than one which is inherited from another myth). Take this myth and put it in its native environment, and it is notable. Therefore it is notable overall.
On the reliability issue of sources, I seriously have to ask why people are raising the red flag here? This is a myth being treated as a myth, there are no extraordinary claims being made so no extraordinary proof is required. A source simply needs to be reliable enough to report on the contents of the myth, not to verify the myth as being true to science or history. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof but absurd claims require only proof that an absurd claim was made because they are only verifying that the claim was made, not that the claim is true.
Maybe if this was being put forward as science it would need a better source, but a myth being treated as a myth require only sources that are WP:RS as far as myths are concerned. - perfectblue (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Archtransit (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obadiah Newcomb Bush[edit]

Obadiah Newcomb Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
James Smith Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Obadiah Bush is the great-great-grandfather of Bush 41 and great-great--great-grandfather of Bush 43, while James Smith Bush is the great-grandfather of Bush 43 and great-great-grandfather of Bush 43. Being related to a POTUS (or two) is not notable on it's own, so they need to be notable in some other way. Aside from his descendents, the article for Obadiah's only claim of possible is an unsupported claim that he was a "well-known abolitionist and VP of the American Anti-Slavery Society". James Bush's only other claim to fame is.. Well, nothing.

Both subjects seem to be included in Wikipedia because they are inherited to Presidents of the United States and notability is not inherited. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POINT OF ORDER: You Can Not Delete Three Unrelated Articles in One Nomination!!! Americasroof (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are all related by the fact that the only thing notable about them is that they are related in some manner to Presidents of the United States. However, if you'd prefer, I can move William Jefferson Blythe, Jr. off to his own AFD. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blythe definitely needs a separate entry. You shouldn't cut corners on afds. It will take you two minutes to properly nominate each article. Americasroof (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO it was created properly.;) But as requested, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Jefferson Blythe, Jr.. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking William Jefferson Blythe, Jr. out of this debate. PLEASE SPLIT AFD's for Obadiah Newcomb Bush and James Smith Bush. They have separate issues and need to be discussed separately. (There's already a split vote). Americasroof (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you talking about Wolf's Head? I'm not sure James can be considered "a founder" as the article only says he "supported" the founding along with 300 other Yale students. It seems his involvement consists of attending the first meeting. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been away from the topic for some time. There's hardly anything in the article about his books and they are probably his chief claim to fame. Fortunately Google Books is expanded considerably since the last time I did any research for this article. --Dhartung | Talk 05:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All of the sources I have used are available with either a NYT or Google login, both of which are free. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, as I withdraw my nomination. The main reason that I thought this wasn't notable was because the provided sources (i.e. Urban Legends and Snopes) do not make something notable; I didn't have time to do some checking when I saw this. Non-admin closure. bwowen talk•contribs 18:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progesterex[edit]

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

This is a non-notable hoax. The circulation of a hoax email around the internet does not make it inherently notable; not even an MP asking someone about it makes it notable. For something to fulfill Wikipedia's notability guidelines, it needs credible third-party coverage, which this hoax does not have. bwowen talk•contribs 23:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisara[edit]

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

Subject not seem to meet WP:WEB. It was cited as a reference in "a French well-known road magazine", but did that referencing contain non-trivial coverage about Wikisara we could use to write this article? I see no news results. W.marsh 22:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myami Kurosaki[edit]

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

I believe this is a hoax; the citations don't check out (the theme song to Gundam Seed was sung by Tahaki Nami); repeatedly recreated with different information (birthplace changes from Florida to Korea). If the result is deletion, I'd like the closing admin to SALT this (I still can't figure out how my protection of the page failed). Accounting4Taste:talk 22:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Archtransit (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madiun Stadium[edit]

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

Move to AfD - not a hoax. A search of Madium Stadion reveals a number of solid links Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, for instance, this link Photo of Soccer Stadion Madium Indonesia
Regardless of other articles, there is plenty of evidence of the existence of this stadium. A search of "Stadion Wilis Madiun", the common name in Indonesian (although perhaps not suitable for a page title) turns up a lot of hits referring to games played there, including; the provincial government [8], Tempo (one of Indonesia's largest newspapers)[9]. I'd say they're not in on any hoax. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That being so, even if the stadium exists it would be better to create the article from scratch rather than rely on any infoformation the user has added to the article which may or may not be correct. (Caniago (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Actually, I tend to agree with you. I've notified the Indonesia wikiproject, and if there's no comment within the next few days on the verifiability of the information in the article, it would probably be better demolished and started again. The style of vandalism enagaged in; adding half truths and plausible information, means we can't trust anything from this user. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, without prejudice to recreation based on reliable sources.--Kubigula (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gelora Bung Tomo[edit]

Gelora Bung Tomo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Evidence found that the page may not be a hoax My Indonesian isn't great, but I've dug around and found a couple of Indonesian language sources, and one english language, demonstrating plans to build Gelora Bung Tomo Stadium. See Skyscraper city thread, with attached Indonesian language newspaper article, Surya Online article Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're intrested in translations of the articles, this tool may be of assistance Toggletext. Cheers, Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm fairly certain of the existence of plans to build this stadium; there's enough evidence for it on the web. I think it deserves an article. However, because this was created by a known vandal who likes to insert nonsense, we can't be sure of the information written here, and we're better off with it deleted. Once we take out everything that might be false we're left with just a few words. Mostlyharmless (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedied. —Animum (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corey J[edit]

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

No assertion of notability; its only contributor (sans myself) is Littlecoreyj, so it's also a COI. —Animum (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. David Fuchs (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zillah Bell Contemporary Art[edit]

Zillah Bell Contemporary Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article was tagged for speedy with suggestion no indication of notability. Given links to other notable artists who have exhibited there I feel this article requires more discussion in an open forum if deletion is to occur. --VS talk 22:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. David Fuchs (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jetman (video game)[edit]

Jetman (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article fails WP:WEB. Specifically #2 on WP:WEB. It shouldn't matter if it's part of Facebook. If it is noteworthy because it is part of Facebook, then I can think of plenty of other Facebook flash games that would need an article based on this logic. Jon Ace T C 22:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "These are different games with a different fan base" So? If Game A has X amount of players and Game B has Y amount of players and Y is greater than or equal to X then how is Game A more noteworthy than Game B? Just because some fans of Jetman decided to create a page on Wikipedia doesn't make it notable. Jon Ace T C 05:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may not meet other standards, but to say it's a "non-notable Facebook application" is patently false. Nearly THREE MILLION people have it currently installed and who knows how many more have tried it. The daily usage is almost double that of Counter-Strike, a game whose popularity (and notability) is indisputable. Look at the page for Crysis: does it get a huge entry because it's released by Microsoft? Jetman has 20x more players than Crysis, yet because it's an indie release isn't "notable." To say, as someone else did, that "the number of people using something doesn't make it inherently notable" is ridiculous. Almost every medium measures "notability" by usage statistics, at least in part. Think newspapers: if one citizen has a heart attack one day, it won't even get a blip. If 250,000 citizens all have a heart attack on the same day, it's immediately notable -- and newsworthy. Methinks some of you don't quite comprehend how incredible (if not important) it is that 3 million people have this game. That it isn't backed by a mega-coporation with a PR department and placement in Best Buy does not mean it isn't "notable." So... UNDELETE POR FAVOR. Pariah23 (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome FitzGerald[edit]

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

Non-notable author. All books are self-published through iUniverse. Original author, Distortionpro, created this entry and made no other edits to Wikipedia. Possible autobiography/promotional article. IrishGuy talk 22:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nominator User:Philippe nuked article just as AfD opened. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freefaller[edit]

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

Article tagged for speedy deletion and contested. Views now sort from editors at large. --VS talk 22:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steel Law Online[edit]

Steel Law Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability, no future development, and article is a stub that cannot be easily expanded with new content. Gront (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. It sat there for three years without asserting notability. -- Mentifisto 00:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arms Reach[edit]

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

Article tagged for speedy delete and contested. Views sought from editors at large. --VS talk 22:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of car companies that do not make FWD models[edit]

List of car companies that do not make FWD models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

no incoming links, a short list that that has barely any clarification on what qualifies. Could be expanded as is, but I think articles which list FWD, RWD, AWD, etc cars would be better than a list of companies that DON'T have these types of cars. The359 (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R. S. Wenocur[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using ((subst:spa|username)).


R. S. Wenocur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:BIO. Deletion log [15] shows this article has been deleted four times previously, and there appears to be no further assertion of notability. Only 61 Google hits [16], 127 on Google Scholar [17]. Judging by recent hostile edit summaries by creator and removal of (IMV) justified notability tags, this looks to be a tendentious re-creation. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF. Wenocur satisfies all six criteria most obviously the fact that she has published works that are widely cited by other academics in the field. Previous deletion is not grounds for deleting this article, and neither are hostile edit summaries. The creator is knowledgeable in the relevant field, but is not an experienced Wikipedian. He has been frustrated in trying to create an article about an academic who is certainly notable in her field and had a moment of bad judgement in an edit summary. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The creator is ... not an experienced Wikipedian. He has ... had a moment of bad judgement in an edit summary.
The creator has been here since September 2006 [18] and should be well aware of the requirement not to make severe breaches of WP:CIVIL by attacking an editor on grounds of age [19] [20] . The personal attacks including this and this are well deserving of a block in themselves. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mister Legrand has been here as long as you say he has, but he has accumulated fewer than 400 edits in that time. That's what I meant by not experienced. I agree that his remarks toward Immortal Goddezz are inappropriate and have told him so. However that doesn't bear on the notability of Wenocur, who has had at least one of her articles cited in 69 related articles, thereby clearly satisfying criterion 3 at WP:PROF. Steven J. Anderson (talk 02:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So what if the creator should be blocked? That has no relevance to this discussion. This discussion is about whether this article should be deleted. Whether to block a user should be discussed elsewhere, not here. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I agree that a low h-index in itself is not absolute proof of lacking notability (although generally it is a good indication), one very high impact paper indeed suffices. However, I don't see that beig the case here. One paper with 46 citations is not really exceptional. What is this "significant and well-known academic work"? --Crusio (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some special Vapnik-Chervonenkis classes RS Wenocur, RM Dudley - Discrete Mathematics, 1981 Cited by 69 - Related Articles - Web Search) Among the sixty-nine works citing the Wenocur-Dudley paper is the following: Estimation of the Stapes-Bone Thickness in Stapedotomy Surgical Procedure Using a Machine-Learning Technique (1999) VG Kaburlasos, V Petridis, PN Brett, DA Baker - Information Technology in Biomedicine, IEEE Transactions on, 1999 - ieeexplore.ieee.org, as noted in the article. I believe most academics in this field would call this a very strong showing. Also please remember that WP:PROF is explicit in stating that "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable." --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A single paper doesn't impress me as notable unless it's a citation classic (over a hundred citations) at the very least Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - she's listed in the drexel link 'Wenocur, Roberta S. - Asst. Professor, Mathematics' Additionally the abstract is to show her participation in the University of Pennsylvania; not provide information on the abstract itself or else in the article it would mention the abstract. Just thought I'd clarify.. not even sure why since I'm voting delete. --ImmortalGoddezz 16:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing my mistake. I updated the paragraph to include what you found, and deleted some of my previous words to make the result easier to read. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question What would make you think that this article contains Wenocur's impression of herself? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When an article resembles a resume, we tend to assume it is sourced from the author herself. What is most helpful is to get some form of outside commentary on the author's work, prizes, citation counts, journal editorships etc. Reaching the level of full professor, since the standards are rigorous, is a form of outside commentary. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citations for Wenocur's work, prizes, and citation counts are already mentioned in the article, particularly "Some special Vapnik-Chervonenkis classes" which is cited in 69 other related articles. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
when an article resembles an academic resume, I assume it reflects the basic objective facts of someone's career. When it resembles a press release, then it's another matter. the question, is on the notability of the career. What usually makes academic notable is the academic work they do, not their personal life. citations are one very relevant measure, though there is no fixed cutoff. I saved the previous version of the article because it seemed to be that the AfDs showed some sort of subtext that I did not quite understand. DGG (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon.com gives more information for "RS Wenocur" than WP. She writes in one of her reviews, "As a probabilist and statistician, with a Ph.D., having worked at universities, as a consultant, and in industry for approximately forty years, I had previously employed Fourier Analysis only as a tool, not having studied the subject as a discipline unto itself." Mathsci (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment. The WP page seems to have been copied and pasted from the self-written biography here [22]. This CV provides considerably more detail, but is not neutrally written and reads like an advertisement for services on offer, which include "homework help" and "mentoring and tutoring of child prodigies" [23]. I do not understand at all Steven J. Anderson's completely disproportionate and unhelpful promotion of this article: is he at all familiar with the academic world? Wenocur's extremely slender and unimpressive mathematical output according to Mathscinet comes to a total of 6 articles with a total page length of 40 pages. It is disruptive of User:Alfred Legrand, whoever he/she is, and Steven J. Anderson to misrepresent this academically humdrum career. Mathsci (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to make of Steven J. Anderson. Perhaps a better understanding of the relationship between User:MathStatWoman and User:Ksingh20/User:MxM Peace would shed some light (topics best discussed elsewhere). Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remark. User:Alfred Legrand has suggested that the BLP for David Eppstein should be listed for deletion here [24]. Mathsci (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He or she is welcome to take it to AfD; I won't interfere. But he or she should pay attention to WP:POINT. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: we serious researchers think Wikipedia is not very good math resource, but we got together to support colleague who is clever and worth noting. We do not usually do Wikipedia, since it is poor source and full of advertising and incorrect information, but this is enough, you make very good researcher look bad, so we must speak out now JanosGalomb (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment I've sent e-mails to Charles Fefferman, Herbert Wilf, Janos Galambos, and Mark Pinsky asking if they had written the comments above (which one may reasonably assume they did, from their usernames etc.). I have thusfar received one reply, in which the respondent said nice things about Wenocur, but go on to say they know nothing about the WP edits. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing irrelevant comments: Many serious researchers ignore Wikipedia, until you try a smear campaign like this. MathStatWoman (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, the tags have been restored by another user. I have no opinion either way in this AfD, but please don't remove the tags again. Thank you. Acalamari 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We each have our own opinions, we are not ASKED TO DO ANYTHING. Just pick and choose what opinions the admins want? Alfred Legrand (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that tag was put in, as were the ((spa)) tags, was because of the likely meatpuppety/sockpuppetry in this AfD, as there are "keeps" from new accounts with no edits to any other page except this one. Acalamari 22:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with Acting workshop. Canley (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy workshop[edit]

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

Acting workshop is the basic main kind of workshop in the arts. I merged as much as I felt fit in the article, but may add more. Comedy workshop does not include and sources or citations. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 20:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the main reason I am requesting deletion for this one is that it is a variation of an Acting workshop. I don't feel we need articles for both. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 21:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A merge might make sense, but an AfD isn't the place for that. Rray (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Angelo (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appleby Frodingham F.C.[edit]

Appleby Frodingham F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I beleive that this club plays below level 10 (level 6) of the notabily threshold and have not appeared at a higher level of football or have a had cup success e.g. reached the 1st round of the FA cup  Sunderland06  20:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FCHD implies there are two distinct clubs of this name, the earlier of which played in the Northern Counties East Football League Premier Division, though the article makes no reference to any break in continuity. The current incarnation of the club seems not to have played at a notable level. Struway2 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the history section on the club's official website. [26]. It implies the club moved to Winterton Rangers, and a new one was reformed. Not sure whether to stick or twist. Peanut4 (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And according to Winterton's official website [27] they themselves were disbanded in 1985. Peanut4 (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Winterton Rangers disbanded in 1985, and re-entered the NCEFL (coincidentally) the year after Appleby F. left it, according to their website. But Appleby F.'s website claims all the honours of the original club, so on grounds of verifiability over (possibly) truth, I don't see how one can argue against them being the same club. In which case,


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

The result was Speedy Delete No claim to notability. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misfit6[edit]

Misfit6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was submitted as Speedy/Band but the original author decided to remove the tag so here we are. They are a 'virtual band' that has yet to release anything. clear wp:band failure. I would still ask for a SPEEDY DELETE as it still applies. Pharmboy (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was withdraw Rowan Joffe's BAFTA awards and nominations make him notable, while Nathalie Lunghi's starring role in new ITV1 drama also makes her notable. Egdirf (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Lunghi[edit]

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

A very short article which does not assert her notability. Although her parents are well established actors in their own right, her imdb entry only has three credits Egdirf (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because, again, it is a very short article and the actor has only a handful of credits]:

Rowan Joffé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Severna Park Mall[edit]

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

Small regional shopping mall with no claim of meeting WP:Notability in article. Fabrictramp (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Good work on the rewrite. Unfortunately, both of the sources added are from the website of the company managing the mall, so don't establish notability. :( --Fabrictramp (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true. The newspaper sources on Google News might, however, if Google will let me read them (or if someone with full Google News access can help out here). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this property previously went by "Severna Park Marketplace" [28] which may skew search results. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I said that backwards, but you get the picture. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 10:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was withdraw. Looking at the discussion, I realise I should probably have listed these separately, so I'll withdraw the debate and let someone do this. Egdirf (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine James[edit]

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

A very short article about a porn star. There is very little other information available apart from the links given, and these are sketchy. I don't personally have an opinion on this, but feel a discussion on the matter is appropriate. Egdirf (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Elen Cole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stephanie Bews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Samantha Sterlyng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • It would have been better if he had done them separately, but that is not a good reason to keep them all. Epbr123 (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you feel that a violating the deletion guideline isn't sufficient reason for opposition? If deleted, improperly listing this as a multi-article AfD is a legitimate reason for opening a deletion review on procedural grounds. Since the review would most likely result in overturning deletion, it seems like a good reason to me. Horrorshowj (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it would be best if this was withdrawn and individual AfDs started. However, I don't agree with voting to keep articles based on procedural reasons. If this AfD is closed as keep all, it will make it difficult to renominate these articles again individually in the near future without the outcome being swayed by this AfD. If the nomination isn't withdrawn, I am confident that the closer will be able to wade through the mess to decide which articles should be deleted; but this will be harder if procedural votes are thrown in. Epbr123 (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin's Magic[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Marvin's Magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is the second nomination for this article, which was last debated in January 2006. It is still as poor an article as it was then, abliet with the advertising removed, and all the notional bits "asserting" its notability. One of the reasons it was kept last time was 75k GHits - well, its got a catalogue which is sold by other retailers, so hence 75k GHits. I can't find any WP:RS sources beyond multiple listing on Amazon, Play.com and other retail points which are reselling its catalogue Trident13 (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 position of Sheriff of Gloucester is, as the official website says, purely ceremonial. Witts role as a local councillor is also insufficient for notability. However, he is also a local author. Taking all these together and there is a case for notability. The consensus, though, is clearly that this doesn't add up to enough and it is not my role as closer to substitute my judgement for that of the Community. I would have no objection to recreation if further and better sources can be provided. TerriersFan (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Witts[edit]

I believe this individual, a local politician in England, does not meet the criteria for Notability. His notability rests on being one of 35 current local councillors for Gloucester, and on being one of 257 past Sheriffs of Gloucester. I don't believe any of his peers or rivals have articles. Behind The Wall Of Sleep (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Unbirthing Fetishism[edit]

Partial Unbirthing Fetishism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: This article was PROD-nominated after a prior PROD-dePROD cycle (see diff between PROD-nominated versions). The most recent PROD nominator stated "No reliable sources on this, so doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morlun[edit]

An article which is based on a non-notable comic character which has no real world significance and no reliable sources. It is written completely in-universe style, unencyclopedic, it fails WP:FICT. Blueanode (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 01:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Graves (poker player)[edit]

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

Very short article about a one-time poker winner; fails notability guidelines –Dream out loud (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

notice given to wikiproject poker related to this afd

  • I'm not trying to say that this player isn't notable in real life, but this article doesn't meet notability guidelines by stating that the player is notable. The three-sentence long article gave me the impression that he won a single poker tournament. If you want this article kept, it should be expanded with more references added, which elaborates on the player's notability. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles don't meet notability guidelines. Subjects of articles do. Yes, the article should be expanded, but there is no time limit for when that has to take place. And being a stub isn't a valid deletion reason. The consensus here will decide whether or not the article will be kept, and the length of the article isn't a factor, since it's not a valid reason for deletion. Rray (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rray is 100% correct. The nom's reasoning only can lead to the conclusion that the article should be improved. Needing improvement can not be used as a reason to delete. Pharmboy (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a person is notable in real life, doesn't it stand to reason that s/he is notable enough for an article?Balloonman (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nod... winning a single WSOP event is the equivalent to having a one hit wonder or winning a single golf/tennis Major or winning a single Oscar. If he never does another thing, he will still be notable in the poker realm.Balloonman (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Fuenzalida[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mimi Fuenzalida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was previously nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mimi_Fuenzalida), the result was No consensus, default to keep. Subsequently, it has been confirmed that the creator of the article, who also voted, was misrepresenting them self. They are a sock of the company that is the subject of a COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt. They did not identify the affiliation during the vote and made numerous false allegations in their comment.

Non-notability per WP:BIO. Minor actor with one appearance on a television show. None of the movies she has been in appear notable.

COI-affected editors have been instructed to mention any affiliation with the firms involved when commenting. BlueAzure (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heptalogy[edit]

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

This is an article about a nonce word formed on a predictable numeric system with almost no precedent in published material. It contains a dictionary definition and a list compiled by original research, neither of which is encyclopedic. No evidence the term "heptalogy" has been applied to any of these works before. Lo2u (T • C) 17:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J-ſtanContribsUser page 16:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airside[edit]

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

I placed notab and sources tags on this article in September - no additions since. Seems to be a small local design company with few GHits Trident13 (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11.   jj137 ♠ 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adroit designs & print[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Adroit designs & print (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I placed a notab and sources tag on this article in September 2007 - still no new information added. Appears to be a small local company, with few GHits Trident13 (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G1 JIP | Talk 17:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boston sport city of america[edit]

Boston sport city of america (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

OR and POV filled essay. I would say its also a borderline G1 or A1 by the poor quality incoherent writing but I don't believe essays are covered under CSD. Mr Senseless (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Marasmusine (talk) 09:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lineflyer[edit]

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

Yet Another Flash Game. This appears to be a modification of another flash game. I'd basically call this non-notable. There are plenty of ghits, but they're all just links to flash sites and so forth.As written, the article pretty much sounds like an attack on this particular hack. Yngvarr 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hedvig Malina[edit]

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

The primary reason for deletion is non-notability of the subject. The only notable act is an involvement in a case that was reported mainly in Slovak and Hungarian media and briefly in some other countries. Therefore, the article is not a biography but an article about the case the subject is involved in, which fails notability guidelines per WP:BIO1E.
The case is already reported in the article '2006 Slovak-Hungarian diplomatic affairs'.
Moreover, the article is highly inaccurate, uses almost entirely a single Hungarian source. After I tried to correct the article, mainly move it to the correct name Hedviga Malinová and put up tags I found appropriate, it has been guarded (vandalized) by 2 editors: Hobartimus (talk · contribs) and Squash Racket (talk · contribs). Their bias can be easily seen in their comments, for example, at my talk page and in their contributions.
Their attitudes toward the case and overall reasons why and how to write articles are illustrated in the off-topic debate at Talk:Hedvig Malina. The debate also illustrates that the article is not a biography but a hub for editors who want to push a specific POV and link unrelated cases and topics.--Svetovid (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First I would kindly ask you to remove all degrading comments on me and Hobartimus, then we can continue. Thank you in advance. Squash Racket (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP tries to insert a renaming process too. Available English language sources refer to her by the original, Hungarian name (Hedvig Malina). The Slovakized version of her name is only used in Slovakia, even by a Hungarian party in the public due to constant pressure by the Slovak authorities. We are talking about a large minority in a member of the European Union, where minority rights should be respected, so I think we can keep the name Hedvig Malina here. Especially in this case. Squash Racket (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. east.718 at 17:07, January 13, 2008

Marta McGonagle[edit]

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

Non-notability per WP:BIO. Minor actor with a number of small roles roles in television shows. Only one of films she appeared in seems to be somewhat notable, Believe In Me was given a limited theatrical release.

This article is part of an ongoing COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt. COI-affected editors have been instructed to mention any affiliation with the firms involved when commenting. BlueAzure (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. east.718 at 17:07, January 13, 2008

Protege (N.C.Simko Project)[edit]

Protege (N.C.Simko Project) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability is asserted (after the CSD tag) but I don't think his project, or the artist himself, is really notable. No reviews by anyone, besides this article google doesn't have anything on the artist (and obviously nothing on 'protege' since it's a common word and this is not that popular). It's an article created by the artist himself too which obviously violates COI -- Mentifisto 17:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. east.718 at 17:07, January 13, 2008

Kevin T. McCarthy[edit]

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

Non-notability per WP:BIO. Minor actor with a number of small roles. Co-writer of 9 minute short film, that won awards from film festivals Wikipedia doesn’t have articles about.

This article is part of an ongoing COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt. COI-affected editors have been instructed to mention any affiliation with the firms involved when commenting. BlueAzure (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see why. If the article fails notability, it deserves to be deleted, regardless of the COI dispute outcome. Mooting that dispute is a boon, not a cost. -Lciaccio (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After reading through the COI case, it does in fact seem to be resolved (even though it hasn't been marked as such). Minor, serial one part actor. Only notability seems to be alumi with Jon Voigt, Susan Saradon, Chris Saradon, Ed McMahon and Peter Bosco? I dont think that counts as WP:N. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 01:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Havidol[edit]

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

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: This went through a PROD-cycle in April 2007 and was re-tagged for PROD-deletion (diff between PROD-nominated versions). The latest PROD nominator stated "Very limited notability demonstrated, doesn't sound like it needs its own article." Personally, I do believe it has sufficient notability for retention in Wikipedia. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 highly recommend for this article to be merged somewhere though, especially in the should be article of Women in the American Civil War. Secret account 18:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Burns (US Civil War soldier)[edit]

Mary Burns (US Civil War soldier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

We'll try this again. Non-notable, no references except a brief mention in a couple books. The previous version that survived AfD had several comments that Mary Burns was notable, but no one spoke up for this person. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query -- How is this undue weight? Undue weight really talks about weight of information within a particular article; information tending to be given undue weight in a way that creates a non-neutral POV. Concerns about a more notable topic not yet being included while less notable topics are included are not undue weight -- in some instances they're systemic bias, but not in the way you're suggesting, I think. --Lquilter (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This could be considered UNDUE because there are 42 people listed in Category:Female wartime crossdressers and anothe 6 in Category:Female wartime crossdressers in the American Civil War. How many individual articles of two sentences do we need for this subject? Shouldn't this encyclopedia stick to Notable people? This woman didn't even make it to fight but was discovered before the company left! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. That doesn't really work for me; it just seems like a straight WP:N argument. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I think. --Lquilter (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You realize she's mentioned in one sentence in each of those sources? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, Notability requires "significant coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I agree with Satyr about the notability and one-sentence-ness, I do feel the need to point out that the bar for notability is set really low. When Wikipedia routinely keeps pages like Fuzzy dice, Cooties, Fish of Oklahoma (a list!), Dibs, Vorpal, and stubs like Victory Boulevard (Los Angeles) and Carolina Renaissance Festival, and empty pages like 32 AH (and series...at least fill them!), I can see where a one-sentence by two-reference "article" could be seen as a legitimate keep. As for the inclusion or exclusion in the timeline article, that is a list not of women who are notable, but of women with Wikipedia articles. Notice that every line links somewhere? The reason she's not listed there isn't (necessarily) a lack of notability, but that nobody's added her since she got her own article. Anyway, I stand by my "vote" of VERY WEAK Keep, but absolutely agree that this is not enough currently to keep around; I just would like to see someone improve it drastically (and if not, PROD it in a few months). VigilancePrime (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this research! It makes *FD discussions much better when folks have done research on the issue at hand. --Lquilter (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't thank me - I've made rather a bloomer. The footnote in question actually covers a discussion of two different women discovered before seeing combat, and only the last of the references is to Mary Burns. I've reworked the article and I think it's now about as full as it's ever going to be. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merged and redirected (by User:Buspar) to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. Non-admin closure, yada yada. Zetawoof(ζ) 13:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul presidential campaign developments, 2008[edit]

Ron Paul presidential campaign developments, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was split off from Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 and is yet another unnecessary Ron Paul page. The contents could have been contained in the parent article with some editing but are instead bloated with crufty accounts of radio appearances and Meetup.com activities. See earlier AfDs Ron Paul Revolution (AfD discussion) and List of Ron Paul campaign 2008 appearances (AfD discussion). Delete, do not merge. Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • All the more reason to delete it. :) Terraxos (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment, I think editors should also be aware that the article Ron Paul presidential debates, 2008 also exists and that perhaps it too should be brought to AFD.--STX 04:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC) It has been merged. --STX 04:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 15:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tasha Forbes[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NOT#PLOT, since it is almost entirely plot summary and character history without real-world context or importance, and WP:FICT, since reliable secondary sources are not provided to establish notability. Google returns only non-WP:RS fansites and unrelated hits, which indicates that this article likely cannot pass notability guidelines no matter what. I both tagged the article and raised my concerns on the talk page a month and a half ago and it has not been improved so I am bringing it to AFD. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brien Perry[edit]

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

Non-notability per WP:BIO. Minor actor with a number of small roles in television shows. None of the movies he has been in appear notable.

This article is part of an ongoing COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt. COI-affected editors have been instructed to mention any affiliation with the firms involved when commenting. BlueAzure (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. east.718 at 17:06, January 13, 2008

Cassandra Braden[edit]

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

Non-notability per WP:BIO. Minor actor with a number of small roles in television shows. None of the movies she has been in appear notable.

This article is part of an ongoing COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt. COI-affected editors have been instructed to mention any affiliation with the firms involved when commenting. BlueAzure (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Importance is asserted, but not shown through reliable sources. Pastordavid (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Baldry[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lee Baldry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: In my opinion, this is a speedy deletion candidate. However, my opinion is secondary to consensus, which appears not to support this. Found as a PROD-nominated deletion; the PROD nominator stated "None notable person. Article has already been flagged for non-notability since April 2007." If deleted, I would suggest salting to prevent spurious re-creation. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, although users are certainly free to discuss merge. Cool Hand Luke 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uka Uka[edit]

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

Unnotable video game character with no real-world significance. Article is almost entirely game plot regurgitation, Original research "supported" by a glut of game quotes. Tagged as such and suggested merge to List of Crash Bandicoot characters. Tagging was labeled vandalism. On closer inspect, the list of character covers this one adequately enough, so merge is probably not needed anyway. Collectonian (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd agree with the Illustrious One that this boarders on a personal attack. I agree that some of those arguing for keep aren't on the best of behavior, but grouping all "defenders" as "five-year-olds" is a rather broad brush. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support Marasmusine's solution, if not past experience showed me that it is usually just a small plot summary that is merged, while all the nice out-of-universe information is left out or put together in a "out of universe information" section at the top of the list article. The theory behind merges is that sometimes information is better presented in a large article (note my mergism userbox). I don't think that is the case here: the information on Uka Uka (which we all agree has some place in Wikipedia) is better presented in its own article. User:Krator (t c) 22:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflection I agree. --Illustrious One (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be added in the series game characters article, not have a article of its own. Ihsbislns (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Ihsbislns[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rudget. 14:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - ok, when I searched, the news coverage mostly referred to a notable sailing boat. From your searches, there does appear to be significant news coverage. Addhoc (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

r

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raw Gettin' Green Entertainment[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Raw Gettin' Green Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD for lack of sources and questionable notability. I ran a google search and although there were lots of GHITS, the only link that was actually related to this subject was its Wikipedia article. NN record label that hasn't had a single release yet, fails WP:MUSIC. Also wondering if its a hoax as I can't find anything (even an official website) on it. Mr Senseless (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 concensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 03:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs of Oklahoma[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list of songs whose only common bond is that they mention Oklahoma or have it in the title somewhere. None of these songs have any other common bond, so this list violates WP:NOT#DIR, not to mention the utter lack of sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well we have to start somewhere, remember wikipedia is incomplete! Lobojo (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rudget. 14:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Subject satisfies WP:BAND as indicated by discussion below and expansion of article. The same guideline indicates that notability is generally considered inherent in official releases by a notable artist, which means that the album articles are kept as well. Given that the album articles are currently nothing more than track listing, however, they may be merged into the main article (space permitting) as outlined in WP:MERGE, but any such discussions should be started only after there has been an opportunity to verify the available non-English sources. Non-admin close. --jonny-mt 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moi Caprice (band)[edit]

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

After looking for sources, I haven't found any reason to believe they're notable - and the band don't even have an All Music Guide biography.[34] The article has been deleted once before in March 2007.[35] I'm also nominating these related articles:

Funeral 14:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bduke (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian hardcore punk & metalcore bands[edit]

List of Christian hardcore punk & metalcore bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The list is full of non-notable bands and it's only for Christian bands in minor subgenres of heavy metal and punk, it's hardly essential. And its content is already covered in Category:Christian hardcore and Category:Christian metal groups. Funeral 14:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus/Keep. Addhoc (talk · contribs) has cleaned up this article and added references. There's no consensus to delete here, and the recent improvements give clear cause to keep this article around, in my opinion. Further information below has clarified the prior issues with copyright that do not seem to matter with the current version of the article. — Scientizzle 17:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Page[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sue Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has already been through a deletion review once already, with delete being the result. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Page.

It has since been recreated in the exact same form by User:Eskog. See Sue Page.

Consequently, I did the obvious thing and inserted a speedy delete tag inside the article. However, within minutes this was removed by User:Random832. In doing so, Random832 failed to follow through the proper process of challenging a speedy deletion. Random832 offered only a vague explanation for this action in the edit summary.

I submit that this article remains a very poorly written piece about a non-notable person and should therefore be deleted. Dlw22 (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Will debate merits below, but the page has "Copyright © 2006 Northern Rivers University Department of Rural Health" on the bottom, does permission to use come as an irrevokable official form? IANAL, but it looks to me like more is required than the subject's own permission. The source is clearly copyrighted, makes me nervous. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bduke (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prasco Laboratories[edit]

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

Manufacturer of generic drugs that fails to meet WP:ORG. No adequate assertion of notability, no sources of any sort. Originating editor appears to have conflict of interest, judging by username. Speedy tag removed by third editor (not originating author) hence bringing to AfD. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant efforts by Rudget and Serpent's Choice, well done folks. I think if the article had looked like this originally (and not been originated by an obvious COI editor) I'd never have AfD'd it. However I'm still ambivalent about whether, even with the resuscitation efforts, there is life in the casualty. I guess that makes me a Neutral now with a request to a closing admin to pretty much decide on first principles with reference to WP:ORG. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by Nominator see bellow, non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Go-Getter (film)[edit]

The Go-Getter (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film that fails WP:MOVIE's standards for inclusion. While I did find some reviews [40],[41], they all contained no critical commentary and thus fail WP:MOVIE's standards for acceptable sources. Withdrawn See bellow TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep stars numerous well known actors (Joe Pesci, Zooey Deschanel), has an imdb page and was shown at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival. Yeah, that's pretty notable. Reviewed in Variety, which is a notable source. It doesn't have to be "talked about in length", just reviewed. Doc Strange (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of recent automobile models by type[edit]

List of recent automobile models by type (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Request clarification. I think I've missed something, but I see nothing in Lists of automobiles that remotley resembles this list, the closest I can find is Car classification, which of course only lists a few examples, and Category:Car classifications, and lists and categories are not mutually exclusive, so can someone tell me where this article is duplicated in list form as seems to be being asserted above? MickMacNee (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note the I have significantly edited the List of automobiles article mentioned above, the version I found and refered to above is this one. MickMacNee (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I will also move to P. O. Box 1142. Any further merging is an editorial choice, to be made on the article talk page. Pastordavid (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Brotherhood of P. O. Box 1142[edit]

The Brotherhood of P. O. Box 1142 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsupported by citation, and right now contains insufficient information for verification. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added 2 sources to the article. Bláthnaid 14:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only the MSNBC article you linked refers to them as the "brotherhood of P. O. Box 1142", and it doesn't capitalize their name as a formal designation. Those sources establish that there's something significant about "P. O. Box 1142" connected to the military, but they are trivial mentions in establishing the claim of a group with that specific name TheBilly (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is a problem with this specific name -- that is why I did a google search for different phrases from the article. The NPS and Süddeutsche Zeitung articles use just the phrase "P. O. Box 1142", and the Congressional record calls them "P.O. Box 1142"/"Post Office Box 1142," so perhaps P. O. Box 1142 would be a better title. Bláthnaid 15:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close per nominator's request, in order for him to re-list them separately. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Gustav II Adolf[edit]

ADMIN REQUEST: I would like to withdraw this Afd and renominate individually. There are civility and process issues stemming from the bundling of these articles. Note also the issues with separating without closing as noted here: [46] Charles 15:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Gustav II Adolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a genealogical repository. Also unprecedented, we are much more likely to include a person's ancestry rather than their descendants on Wikipedia. Also violates WP:OR and is not properly sourced ("various" being a word used). The article is not an encyclopedic topic and many of the descendants are not notable. If the fact that the King has descendants is notable then it belongs in his article. Charles 12:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the ancestry of the Swedish kings already exists at Family tree of Swedish monarchs. It is not customary or particularly encyclopedic to dedicate a page to every line of descent from different ruling houses to the current ruling house. Charles 12:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedigree of Swedish monarchs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Laniers, Livingstons, Longworths Suedois (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Kennedy family is almost entirely notable. Indeed, everyone on that list (almost, except for two or so grandchildren) has a notable parent with an article, as opposed to generations of non-notable descendants of royalty. The Kennedy family tree has an arguable case for being merged, but given its size and specific nature, it is really a branch or continuation of a single article. Charles 12:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Above, User:Charles alleges to be "nominating here "Pedigree of Swedish monarchs"...because it is "RELATED" with the other delproposed page. What is the "relation" which would entitle to bundle these into one proposal? Suedois (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Please show where non-notable descendants of an individual warrant an article on Wikipedia. Charles 12:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several descendants of Gustav II Adolf are notable. It is just that Sweden is under-represented in the field of biographies in this Wikipedia. Deletion of a genealogy from where links to such prominent persons easily start, has moreover the unsavory effect of discouraging to make biographies of those persons. Suedois (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, which ones? These people are "misrepresented" because they are not notable. That is why their ancestry is not encyclopedic. Charles 13:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edit history of this very page reveals, who has been the user who has done his utmost to misrepresent things. Suedois (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the ancestry article for deletion is not encyclopedic. The other article can be changed from PNG to utilize Wikipedia's family tree code. Charles 13:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suedois (talk • contribs) <--- Now out of context because of Suedois' reversions and changes. Charles 14:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Must say it is a sadly mistaken view. We are here to determine encyclopedicity of a topic, not which of two articles is currently less or more encyclopedic. It should be obvious that they should be merged, and the entire deletion proposal is improper. Suedois (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: They should not be merged, the family tree of the kings should be converted to text from PNG; the descent ("pedigree") from the individual houses should be deleted. That is what was meant. The article holding the PNG image is not up for deletion. Charles 13:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Descents of British monarchs from various dynasties is an example of another article of this kind. It is notable and encyclopedic information presented. To know how some monarchs of a country were related with another line of monarchs of the same country. It sems to be so that if an article has something to do with British royals, it will not get deleted, and deletionists choose similar articles related to OTHER countries as their targets. A wikipedia policy prohibits/discourages Anglo-centrism in this Wikipedia, which is basically intended for bthe entire world. Suedois (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please observe the Wikipedia etiquette of properly formatting and indenting talk page posts. Elizabeth's page is basically a list of descents from one monarch to another, as opposed to long lists of intervening ancestors of non-Swedish houses, etc. Additional descents are from predecessor kingdoms. The "pedigree" is actually very much unlike the Elizabeth page while the Family tree of Swedish monarchs is more like it (and is not up for deletion). The Family tree of Swedish monarchs should be changed to the format used in Elizabeth's page. Charles 14:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Elizabeth page has information which is analogous with the information on the pedigree page, one is British, one Swedish. Both have intervening generations occasionally in neighboring countries. See carefuly the Flanders route connecting Elizabeth's Norman ancestry with Alfred. Etc etc. It looks to me that User:Charles is using this AfD as vehicle to try to have such format deleted whgich he wants deleted, while he admits that the topic is encyclopedic. Readers may drwa their conclusions about the possible bad-faithness of the proposal. Suedois (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Charles appears to be claiming above that Merovingians and Carolingians were British dynasties - or at least that lineage is "non-British" ancestors or intervening generations. And, some rulers of Kievan Rus and Novgorod apparently are acceptable to British monarchs family tree, while they should be kept from the tree of monarchs of neighboring Sweden, or at least it looks Charles is desiring such. But seemingly British monarchs enjoy some privileges, compared to monarchs of other countries. Suedois (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 15:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Persianate society[edit]

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

Ontologically racist and unexceptable concept Polysynaptic (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 15:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Evans[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Russell Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Note: the prior AfD (which resulted in deletion) was not as to the same Russell Evans.) This Pastor Russell Evans doesn't seem notable enough independent of his ministry. Delete and redirect to Planetshakers. --Nlu (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 demonstrated notability of subject and further expansion of article. Non-admin close. --jonny-mt 08:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duane Peters[edit]

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

This songwriter/skateboarder simply doesn't sound notable enough. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 improvement Reputable sources added. Nom withdrawn. PeaceNT (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maths Class[edit]

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

Was a speedy delete, but that was when the article was empty. It was expanded. There are claims to notability but I'm convinced that right now this band fails WP:MUSIC. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That was the failure of my WP:TW tool again. I have corrected this. This is clearly not a simple AfD, as there has been coverage in the media, so they're not just a self-published MySpace band. Having said that, I don't think they meet WP:MUSIC just yet.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Oehlkers Wright[edit]

Elizabeth Oehlkers Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Notability of subject unclear. Article was tagged for improvement, but none was forthcoming. Prod was contested with stated reason "The authors which were translated by Mrs. Wright (Zafer Senocak, Zehra Cirak and Ernst Peter Fischer) have their articles in the German WP without any complaints and thus they are relevant. Mrs. Wright herself is relevant - her translations do not come out at any dubious Vanity-publishers." I do not know whether or not these authors are notable, but if they are, I do not think that this automatically confers notability on their translator. I have taken this to AfD to obtain a consensus from the community. Crusio (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: being married to a Pulitzer Prize winner does not seem to me to make somebody notable of themselves. Zafer Şenocak is notable, but does that automatically make anyone who translates his works notable, too? --Crusio (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
being married to a pulitzer prize winner is not notability in the least. Neither is being a coauthor. She has to be judged by her own work. We need at least reviews of her translations DGG (talk)
  • I agree. I also fail to see how a transloator can be as notable as the original author, or even more so??? --Crusio (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arthur Waley is more notable than many of the people he translated. Constance Garnett is more notable than Alexandr Ostrovsky. If you're commenting on my statement, I did not say that a published translator is more notable than the authors she translates; I said that mere fact of being a published translator is more notable than that of being a published author.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I now understand the distinction you are making in your statement about translators being more notable than authors. I'll have to mull that one over...--Crusio (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But is there any evidence of that here? Garret also translated Dostoevsky and Anton Chekhov. Waley translated some of the greatest works of chinese literature. their translations were classics for many decades, and played a major part is establishing the english readership of the national literatures involved. Is there any evidence of that here? DGG (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not as far as I can see. --Crusio (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Trancers. GlassCobra 17:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Deth[edit]

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

Non-notable character of an only semi-notable series of films. No need for this. JuJube (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. east.718 at 17:05, January 13, 2008

Alex Rain[edit]

Alex Rain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Farnsworth (Nemesis) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable fictional character in barely notable film. JuJube (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse Ginger[edit]

Nurse Ginger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Brick Bardo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable fictional characters in film series. There is a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pahoota. JuJube (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pahoota[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional location in a film. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of power plants[edit]

Comparison of power plants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is an essay, it is inherently not intended to be informative, but argumentative which Wikipedia policies state is clearly not acceptable. For where this information should go (and is) see Energy development and possibly Power station. Energy development clearly contains a list of pros and cons for every power source. Article status is currently that even a basic treatment of major power sources is not present, and 90% of it is simply a placeholder waiting for someone to write it. It will be better for Wikipedia for us to deal with it now and be done with it. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 09:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fanra, WP:AFD is not the Information Gestapo (to semi-paraphrase "Dilbert"). It's not that we're arguing against your points and we disagree, it's that the article is an essay and it violates WP:NOT, especially WP:SOAP and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. I suggest you read WP:NOT. Doc Strange (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 15:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Devourer[edit]

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

non--notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately there is no speedy criteria for this type of stuff. I really think we need a speedy for non-notable fictional subjects. I'm also getting ready to send the author to AN/I since he keeps creating these articles and totally ignoring the fact they are getting sent straight to AFD. I have had problems with him in the past when he was creating character articles for this series. Ridernyc (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the problem is the editor keeps creating new articles as fast as people can nominate them. Ridernyc (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. Secret account 15:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aldebaran Robotics[edit]

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

Contested CSD with tenuous notability claims. Keilana(recall) 23:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following article is being bundled as it relates to a project-in-progress by Aldebaran Robotics, included per discussion below

NAO (Aldebaran Robotics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 07:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stormie (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonsense/hoax, likely g10 attack, WP:SNOW, WP:BOLLOCKS. NawlinWiki (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trey pelton[edit]

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

Unsourced, likely hoax. slakr\ talk / 07:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sourcing is a major concern which wasn't met, being a bit actor isn't a mention of notabilt per WP:BIO, Secret account 15:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Unger[edit]

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

Non-notable child actor. Has appeared in a few bit parts and "relativly (sic) minor roles". Google has IMDB and a few other directories, but nothing that really asserts notability. Lankiveil (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Winner iPOP Soap Scene Division 4M, Winner iPOP Swimsuit Divison 4M, 1st Runner Up: Star of the Year, 1st Runner Up: Model of the Year, Top Ten Commercial, Top Ten Fashion Print, Top Ten Runway, Signed with Trilogy Talent and Osbrink Agency, Booked International Commercial for Legoland, Appeared in a national KFC commercial, Has a role in the "National Treasure II" with Nicolas Cage, Recently did an episode of SCRUBS, Did episodes of Desperate Housewives and Cold Case. JERRY talk contribs 07:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The live action movie, which is so notable it doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia or even mentioned at Jack and the Beanstalk, has a bare bones entry at IMDb (basically just the cast listing, which is not always reliable since they have had BS cast listings before) and IMDb even lists movies that are just rumored, is not listed at Box Office Mojo [48] or The Numbers [49]. In fact, the ONLY site online where I can see any mention of a live action JATB is IMDb. Everything else this kid has done are nothing more than bit roles and non-notable stuff. TJ Spyke 08:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not deletion criteria. Your comment will be discounted by a discerning admin on closing this discussion. Please have a read over WP:AFD. JERRY talk contribs 03:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sorry :) i'm a bit confused beetwen UNC and WP. then I still must say, that the article is about a not really notable person, and still unverified. so i still say delete per nom --Drhlajos (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bduke (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert David Steele[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet WP:BIO. I do not think that being the "second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence" (a claim which has been uncited since February 2007) makes Mr Steele automatically notable and the other positions he's held look even less notable. The article is not sourced or cited - all the links appear to be examples of Mr Steele's work rather than about him. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

08:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you add any reliable sources about him making that claim and it having a significant impact to the article? --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.   jj137 ♠ 02:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full Bad Girls: Extra Time Plot Discription[edit]

Full Bad Girls: Extra Time Plot Discription (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a place for plot summaries and episode guides. Most of this content has been copied and pasted from List of Bad Girls Extra Time episodes, which is where it really should be. Lankiveil (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spartaz Humbug! 20:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lungbutter[edit]

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

non-notable neologism, AND a non-notable collection of punk rock bands. No reliable sources for any of them. Lankiveil (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 15:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David W. Virtue[edit]

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

Subject is non-notable operator of a non-notable Anglican web forum. The creation of the article was the only contribution of Ptay1 fishhead64 (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that you are incapable of believing my good faith in the matter, especially since I have been a contributor to improving and extending the article in question. I was prompted to nominate it based on the banner applied to it concerning notability, and the realisation that most Anglicans with whom I raise Virtue's name have no idea who he is. fishhead64 (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that using "most Anglicans" as a test for, well, much of the material on Anglicanism is a useful test. And I suspect that a substantial proportion of those who are trying to follow this particular issue are aware of David Virtue and his role in the matter. I apologize for the phrase "good faith", but it does seem strange to me that Virtue should be put up for deletion by someone who is surely aware of him. Mangoe (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Sales[edit]

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

Not totally happy to Speedy this article. It seems to me that the original editor is seeking the opinion of more experienced editors and the article could be made non-spam (by removal of one link) and tidied up with help. Appreciate other views by editors - I do not cast any personal opinion to keep or delete. --VS talk 05:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- I think the topic is necessary and would only add to the already enormous volume Wikipedia encompasses. I, being the original author, am simply one person, with one approach at adding information. These articles take a life of their own from others in the 'field(s)' at hand. It would morph, given the chance, into something completely different than even I can imagine at the moment.

-- No, this is not an attempt to get 'www.GuessStables.com' free advertisement. It is listed other places, and Wikipedia isn't necessary, nor would it be the barometer for the companies Success or Failure, given the factors.

--I propose the article is not 'marked for speedy deletion' as I can then continue adding to the content without being worried of impending deletion. I also full well intend on taking hints/tips and advice from everyone who cares to contribute to make the entry worthy, and a community effort.

GuessStables (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GuessStables (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Deleted by User:Jmlk17. Non-admin closure.. Lankiveil (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schwab band[edit]

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

Article has quite a long history and only recently was tagged for speedy delete. I would prefer to see editors views through an AfD process before possible deletion. --VS talk 05:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. east.718 at 17:04, January 13, 2008

Luxxury[edit]

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

Article was tagged for speedy by another editor. Speedy contested. I am passing on to AfD for discussion. --VS talk 05:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I just removed several links on the article. Myspace and blogs are not reliable sources under wp:rs, and two of the links were from the band's own website, so I removed one of those. Pharmboy (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment One of the links you removed was a clip of the Billboard piece, which I'd provided as evidence of the "Notable" contention (Billboard.com site requires a paid subscription and the article cannot be linked to directly). I've left it out of the article but believe it should still be considered verifiable support. Also RCRD LBL is, in fact, a record label which is an offshoot of Downtown Records) (Gnarls Barkley's label), so I think that link should be allowed. Its a new kind of blog/label hybrid, to be sure, but they pay artists an advance, own the masters etc like any other label.Butterscotch79 (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Also, I just found yet another article about Luxxury from a national magazine, XLR8R, but it too is a clip on the band's Myspace, and is not directly linkable on the magazine's independent site. I won't link to it as clearly it won't pass muster under wp:rs, however I would submit that its yet another bit of proof of the overall Notability criteria being met. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butterscotch79 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pharmboy - I understood from your talk page that you prefer for discussion to take place here (hopefully I've understood you correctly, apologies if I have not!): Thanks for your comments, I was wondering if you had any more suggestions about what concretely you feel is lacking. Again, I feel as though the entry more than meets the requirements of the Notability criteria, so any specific thoughts you have that I can address tangibly would be appreciated! Butterscotch79 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first problem I saw was all the releases for 2008, when 2008 hadn't even started yet. That is always a red flag. Second, all it needs is some citation showing they have an album released on some label that everyone has heard of, and some wp:rs article where someone that isn't affiliated with the band is talking about them. Not a blog, but a real cite. That is my sole criteria, as I interpret wp:band, which is a pretty lax reading of the policy. Pharmboy (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator, without dissention. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discos Fuentes[edit]

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

Contested PROD, about a Colombian record label. No assertion of notability, completely fails WP:V and WP:RS due to a lack of independent sources other than its official website. Mr Senseless (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bduke (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. V's Private Hell[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dr. V's Private Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to be a notable public access television programme. There is some discussion of it on blogs and the like, but nothing I can find coming from a reliable source. Lankiveil (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Items in Super Mario Bros.[edit]

Items in Super Mario Bros. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is a sprawling list with no weight information wise. The info it does offer is trivial and in-universe. This article cleary crosses the Game-Guide line by providing information on all power-ups and items in the Mario series. This should be deleted as was Zelda items and Metriod items (which was redirected).→041744 04:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think you misunderstand. No one is calling this article vandalism. At issue is whether or not this article meets the standards applied to all articles for inclusion here. The two key policies at issue are at WP:N and WP:V. That is, the articles has to be notable (which some elements may be, but this notability must be verifiable in legitimate, independent sources. Failure to meet these criteria is grounds for deletion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 am going to be WP:BOLD and redirect this page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Elementary School (Mt. Juliet, Tennessee)[edit]

West Elementary School (Mt. Juliet, Tennessee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable primary school. -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 below and withdrawn nomination. Non-admin close. --jonny-mt 08:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Sire[edit]

James W. Sire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to fail WP:BIO. Jfire (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vlq[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could this article be expanded, or is it destined to forever remain a dictionary entry? If it is, then merge into Barbershop music, export into Wiktionary, or both. If this article has potential, don't do either. SeanMD80talk | contribs 04:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:BLP & WP:NOT#NEWS. PeaceNT (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay R. Grodner[edit]

Jay R. Grodner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't meet notability standards -- in the truest sense, a petty criminal; I suspect this is a WP:COATRACK for some sort of political agenda which I don't fully understand. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 01:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Senate Delegations[edit]

Massachusetts Senate Delegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Also, the table is completely unwieldy and fairly unreadable and is filled with redlinks. After Midnight 0001 03:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Dhartung if that's how the table looks typically, i don't want to encourage a reckless reformat.--Cube lurker (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Caged Fran[edit]

The Caged Fran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod was removed by an anonymous user without comment. I suspect that this article is a hoax. A google search returns 0 results. The supposed author does exist, however, a quick perusal of his books finds no mention of The Caged Fran. Also, the article reveals the plotline of the book even though the book won't be released for another month, which makes me suspect that the author of this article made it up. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Boldly redirected to album, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight (Sara Evans song)[edit]

Tonight (Sara Evans song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable single, which missed the top 40 of the charts Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that even though this song didn't reach the country top 40, it provides information about the song such as writers, producers, etc. There are also many other songs that have had less success than this song that are articles. I have also included a critic's opinion on the song. NickDCXfan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2008 Extreme Championship Wrestling results[edit]

List of 2008 Extreme Championship Wrestling results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unneeded list, articles for 2006 and 2007 results have already been deleted. –– Lid(Talk) 02:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Crowther[edit]

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

Prod removed by WP:SPA. Non-notable org, so non-notable person. 28 Ghits for "Tom Crowther" mma. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixed Martial Arts World Fighting Championship. Shawis (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bduke (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Martial Arts World Fighting Championship[edit]

Mixed Martial Arts World Fighting Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod removed by WP:SPA. Non-notable org. 8 Ghits for "Mixed Martial Arts World Fighting Championship". 13 for "Mixed Martial Arts World Fighting Championships". See also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Crowther. Shawis (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guess it was a language issue after all. W.marsh 03:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lotru-Ciunget Dam[edit]

Lotru-Ciunget Dam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax, essentially, but this is not obviously incorrect. I don't know much about Romania, but I do point out there are no Google web results for this dam outside of Wikipedia mirrors [53] and nothing on a book or news search. Still, there could be a language barrier or some other problem here. At this point I see nothing proving this dam exists, though. W.marsh 02:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect to Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. — Scientizzle 17:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo DS Pokémon Diamond & Pearl Super Music Collection[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nintendo DS Pokémon Diamond & Pearl Super Music Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This seems to be an non-notable soundtrack, while the game is definitely notable, its soundtrack has received little coverage from third party sources. Marlith 01:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. east.718 at 17:01, January 13, 2008

GBA Pokémon Firered & Leafgreen Music Super Complete[edit]

AfDs for this article:
GBA Pokémon Firered & Leafgreen Music Super Complete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This seems to be an non notable soundtrack, while the game is definitely notable, its soundtrack is not. Marlith 01:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. east.718 at 17:01, January 13, 2008

GBA Pokémon Ruby & Sapphire Music Super Complete[edit]

AfDs for this article:
GBA Pokémon Ruby & Sapphire Music Super Complete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article seems to be on a non-notable soundtrack. While the game is definitely notable, its soundtrack is not. Marlith 01:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginative Sex[edit]

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

Article was speedily deleted by JzG and overturned on deletion review. The current draft reflects a version that was re-written and is substantially different than the version deleted, but some notability concerns may remain. Procedural nomination, so I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The nomination doesn't provide any reasons - it's just "procedural". It appears that the nominator has not in fact followed the process per Before nominating an AfD. The process in this case should be to dismiss the nomination with a Speedy Keep. As for the book, I consider it adequately notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 school district. (non-admin closure). RMHED (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wenonah Elementary[edit]

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

The only reason I declined speedy on this one was that it wasn't eligible for A7. There's no assertion of notability...and, while not a reason for deletion, if you look at the history, it's quite a mess...JetLover keeps having to remove spam off the page. SmashvilleBONK! 01:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil 5: Wii[edit]

Resident Evil 5: Wii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a crystal ball. No reliable sources to substantiate the claims. Also, even if a Wii version was made, it doesn't deserve its own article and any Wii content should go to the main article. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger garth[edit]

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

This article asserts some notability of the subject but I can't find any reliable sources in order to verify any notability and so it fails WP:BIO. Couldn't find any links on google unrelated to wikipedia, and there's no entry for him on the Internet Movie Database. Wondered if his name was a misspelling but it's the same on his official site. BelovedFreak 01:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bduke (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly (Radio DJ)[edit]

Kelly (Radio DJ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination Moosato Cowabata (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • reason of nomination is unsourced and notability issues has not been met. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 current article that has a mixed Italian / English title, add the found sources to Red onion that already has a section named 'Red onion of Tropea' and create proper redirects at Red onion of Tropea and Cipolla rossa di Tropea with no prejudice against a future expansion if warranted.--10:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Tikiwont (talk)

Cipolla Rossa of Tropea[edit]

Cipolla Rossa of Tropea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability and cleanup issues has not been met since May 2007 Moosato Cowabata (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If the subject is notable then the article should be kept and cleaned up, not deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SNOW (and, I guess, WP:HEY). I think the consensus to keep is quite obvious now, especially now that the article has been rewritten and sourced. This is also a good example of why brand new articles shouldn't usually be brought to AfD (although I'm sure the nom was indeed acting in good faith). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pecatonica High School (Wisconsin)[edit]

Pecatonica High School (Wisconsin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Substub, no assertion of notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: asserts notability. SeanMD80talk | contribs 02:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Which part? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article was moved to make room for a dab, and relevant afd links updated. JERRY talk contribs 01:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The school asserts notability now. The article was all of 90 minutes old when it went to AfD. An editor is currently working to improve it. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just out of curiosity, which assertion in the article did you think was notable? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically just the award. It is a form of recognition, and we should let the article be expanded. Remember, we don't currently have a notability guideline for schools, just a proposal. J-ſtanContribsUser page 19:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was nothing but crap upon creation, it should have been speedied. Jerry has been gracious enough to clean it up, but without this nomination having been brought to his attention, we would still be left with a useless substub. You want bad faith? Check out CAT:CSD sometime. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several other positive, productive methods to bring poor quality articles to the attention of editors. AfD is for deleting or keeping, not improving. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that nominating a poor quality article on a non-notable subject was a positive and productive method of maintaining Wikipedia standards. If I saw a prospect for creating a decent article on Pecatonica High, I would have filled out the stub myself, or at least tagged it for improvement. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't intend to say that nominating for AfD is not a positive and productive method of maintaining Wikipedia standards. As I said, AfD is for discussion of deleting and subtracting is occasionally a positive thing. My reply was intended to focus on just that an article ought not to be brought to AfD to be given attention. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does not have to be unique nor important to be notable. The only requirement for notability is the subject has received non-trivial mention in published independant sources. As to whether the superintendant created the award as a ploy, I can not claim to have the inside information that you allude to. Please provide a reference for that statement. Of the hundreds of schools in Wisconsin, this was one of less than a dozen to receive such an award. JERRY talk contribs 02:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The awards were created in 2005 (and only given out that year) by the superintendent to honor the community garden, the Oconto Falls Performing Arts Center, the Annual Veterans' Day Program, a couple of cities, several school districts, etc. It was a bulk affirmation that is neither notable nor independent of the Wisconsin public school system. In all of the sources you used to compile info about this school, I've yet to see a non-trivial mention of this school or an explanation of its notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC) (e/c)[reply]
Comment: According to the notability guidelines for schools, "High schools/secondary schools are regarded as notable unless encyclopaedic material is not available." I think the amount of data on this school is more than enough to merit an article. Plus, for what it's worth, we're not running a paper encyclopedia here. SeanMD80talk | contribs 02:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can amass a rather large amount of data from various directories about any number of non-notable topics. And there is indeed a dearth of encyclopedic, or even secondary source, coverage of this school. Most of Jerry's information is compiled from primary sources that cover numerous schools (i.e., no "non-trivial coverage"). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you arguing against me or policy? Because from what you just said, it seems like according to policy, this school is notable. SeanMD80talk | contribs 03:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Please re-read my previous comment as it directly challenges the assertion that this article meets WP:N or WP:RS. There is insufficient unique coverage from independent sources to justify any claim of notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I misinterpreted your post. I may have to agree with you about the information about the awards. But we seem to be disagreeing on what qualifies as "encyclopedic material." According to Wiki, if it has enc. material, it is notable. But according to you, the encyclopedic material has to be of notability, which I see as using the word in the definition, or circular reasoning. No, it hasn't been listed in secondary sources, but that doesn't mean that information on it isn't encyclopedic. encyclopedic (according to wiktionary) is "having a comprehensive scope, especially of information or knowledge." SeanMD80talk | contribs 03:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I interpret the school notability guideline #2 as saying, "If it's a high school, and there's real detailed info on it, like more than its address and number of students, then it deserves an article." Which I think is very reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanMD80 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(De-indent, I wrote this reply to your original comment, but it applies equally to the edit.) I was using "encyclopedic" in the context of Wikipedia editorial policies, meaning article content that meets our inclusion and sourcing standards. Not to get too much further into semantics, but the definition you quote from wiktionary is synonymous with "indiscriminate", so that's when the circle breaks. The information added by Jerry may be useful in rounding out the school's coverage if there was a solid basis for asserting notability, but I don't see it providing such a basis by itself. Just as information on special training and accreditation should be mentioned in someone's biography for the sake of completeness, that information is not a substitute for any notable achievements or non-trivial coverage. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely didn't mean indiscriminate info, I'm sorry if there was confusion, but I still disagree-- You said that encyclopedic meant "article content that meets our inclusion and sourcing standards." The policy basically specifies that for the article to meet our standards of inclusion, it must be a high school and be encyclopedic. Substituting your definition of encyclopedic, we can complete the policy by saying, "For the article to meet our standards of inclusion and sourcing, it must be a high school and meet our incluion and sourcing standards." This is using the word in the definition. SeanMD80talk | contribs 03:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right... Well, I'm always one for redundancy. The basic problem with the article, abstaining from any use of the word "encyclopedic", is that it doesn't identify Pecatonia High as an interesting, unique school that has received substantial independent coverage. There's a bit of a problem with nominations like this, since any crap article (and sorry, but it was utter crap) gets listed on the school-related afd list, whereupon a well-meaning editor comes along to fill the article out. The problem is that this editor is often of the mind that school's are automatically notable and that any info found on the school, even if it is primary source promotional fluff, means that it is notable. Other editors who comment on the deletion discussion take a brief look at the article, see proper formatting, some text, and outside ref links, and make the assumption that a certain mass of verifiable info equates to a claim of notability. If you take a critical look at the assertions and sourcing, I don't think that any claim currently presented in the Pecatonica High article makes the school independently notable. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not disparage other editors' views and their review of the article. Despite views being different, it is just as likely that they have read the article carefully and done additional research into the subject as much as you have. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I'm not convinced that all editors who offered their opinion have done their research, I don't want to single out or criticize any user. Views on the issue of school notability differ widely and I'm sorry if you felt disparaged by my remarks. The problem I wanted to bring up was one of uneven standards. For every school article valiantly rescued by efforts of editors who watchlist school-related afds, I've seen dozens of school articles in irreparable states of mediocrity. Many such articles will never improve and are subject to constant vandalism from their students. A consensus for keeping all school articles, or for accepting liberal notions of notability, will, in my view, result in spotty overall coverage. A minority of articles would meet Wikipedia quality standards and the majority would become either bare to the point of being tantamount to directory entries or filled with unverified info accidentally left over when reverting vandalism. However I want to make it clear that I did not nominate or comment here in bad faith, my primary concern remains with the merits of Pecatonia High and the available coverage. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC) (e/c)[reply]
  • I suppose we disagree. The article, 1½ hours old, when nominated, was definitely a poor stub but it did say the subject was a high school and gave its location. That, in my experience, is usually enough for others to expand and publicly-funded schools generally get significant coverage in reliable sources. If there are terrible school articles out there, then there should be a place to list them for repair and release those interested in school articles from AfD rescue to work there instead. If all we were concerned about was the chance of vandalism, then many good articles would have been deleted out of fear. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anetode, I don't know why you keep suggesting the subject of an article has to be unique to be notable. We would have a very small encyclopedia indeed, if this criteria became policy. And now you have added interesting. I find THAT interesting. The editors who have commented here did not say I glanced at it for a few seconds and it has the same sillhouette as a good school article, so let's keep it. They all say the same thing... the article is more than a simple list, and it is a high school,and Jimbo has said here that if it exists, it is a high school, and it has more than just a listing format entry, then it should be kept. You see there is actual guidance on these things. Nobody said it has to be unique, nobody said it has to be interesting, nobody said important... just had to have content, encyclopedic content, if you will, and can be proven to exist. These awards prove it exists.... be they boring, common, and unimportant or what-have-you. It is a high school. JERRY talk contribs 04:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry, I take issue with the coverage used in your cleanup. I don't think that referencing a one-time award distributed as a promotional gesture by the superintendent qualifies as using independent coverage to establishes notability. The same goes for the other assertions made in the article. I would appreciate if you would care to comment on the criticisms enumerated above. This is not meant as a personal criticism, I am quite impressed by your willingness to improve an article. Please note that I am familiar with the guidance offered for school articles, both from Jimbo and the content policies. The guidance doesn't point to a clear consensus to keep all school articles, nor to a special exception from meeting the general standards of notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that you do not approve of the recently added content. While I agree that this content does not define notability for the school, I do maintain that it provides a certain fullness, a certain roundedness, and the certain je ne sais quoi that an article has to have to be more than a mere listing. While the WP:SCL is not de jure (has not been officially ratified), it has the effect of being in force, de facto, in that over and over again articles get nominated for deletion, and the same outcome prevails. High school articles are almost invariably kept. They are the kind of institutions that have a place of importance in their communities that certainly means that sources will be found for them. One only has to look. It is a matter of convenience to assume that high school articles are notable, in order to avoid all this wasted time. We collectively write thousands of words about how 50 words need to be deleted, and to what end? A this article survived AFD banner on a talk page. Nearly every single time. The bright lines provided by WP:SCHOOL are convenient, and they are very much in effect, ratified or not, in daily AFD discussions. This AFD is yet more proof. JERRY talk contribs 05:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, while you agree that the current coverage does not define notability for the school, you maintain that it is proof for keeping all school articles? I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with an approach which dictates that all schools are notable on the grounds of convenience. Although I do sympathize with your observation that all parties have wasted much, much more time discussing this school than could possibly be seen as productive. Frankly, I don't think that messy AfD discussions are too high of a price to pay for preventing the existence of articles on non-notable schools. That position ignores the attendant difficulties of maintaining a worldwide directory of school-related articles and demanding consistent breadth, quality, and protection from vandalism. Nonetheless it is clear that there is a determined contingent of editors bent on preserving such articles through afd test cases. Since my assessment of this article appears to be the minority view and since many participants apparently have their minds made up on the whole school issue, I am going go find a more productive way to use my time. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this issue. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that another de facto policy, "Jimbo is always right" is backed up by a quote (linked above) which might as well be written for this very dispute. Regardless of which-policy-can-be-interpreted-this-or-that-way, Jimbo clearly says that "It is a reasonable thing to do... to relax and accomodate" the article in question. SeanMD80talk | contribs 05:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
De-indent for a quick note: As I recall, Jimbo recently made another statement on school articles, one less favorable of the live and let live approach. Of course neither statement should be used as an excuse not to think for yourself. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, pur-lease. We thought for ourselves for a long time, and now were showing that other people, who matter a lot, think like we do. I'm not interested in turning this into an ad hominem argument. I think we should stop, agree to disagree, and let somebody come and decide this. Both parties seem to have exhausted their points and it's getting late. SeanMD80talk | contribs 05:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One should only bring things to AfD that you don't believe can establish notability.
  • One should tag articles for notability before you bring them to AfD and wait a while.
  • Unless it's a speedy case, I don't see the justification of ever bringing an article for deletion that's 90 minutes old.
Hobit (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, WP:BITE doesn't apply. This does, from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an AfD page, you know, the main page for AFD:
Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Noroton (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take offense at your insinuations. I think you are confusing vigorous disagreement with disruption and I assure you that it was not my goal to annoy editors or put forth a frivolous nomination. Condescending to users for having the gall to nominate an article they don't see as meeting WP:N is not helpful either. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bduke (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PBOC Motorsports Club[edit]

PBOC Motorsports Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nominated for afd for failing to address notability issues tagged since May 2007 Moosato Cowabata (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tubman Elementary School[edit]

Tubman Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Substub, no assertion of notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Withdraw nomination, the cleaned up version offers a decent historical account of the school and the national recognition of its principal's accomplishments offered substantial independent coverage. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it doesn't make any assertion of notability.Pnswmr (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. SeanMD80talk | contribs 01:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Keep: Another one of these, "We should have given them the time of day first" instances. SeanMD80talk | contribs 04:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the article has been sufficiently improved to assert the notability of the school. Mh29255 (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Most of the concerns of the delete side should be discussed in talk Secret account 15:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depression and natural therapies[edit]

Depression and natural therapies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:POVFORK from the Clinical Depression article. Discussions in both article agreed that this was an inappropriate fork, however a discussion on merging relevant info into the Clinical Depression, resulted in no consensus because the CD article is already fairly long and already covers the topic in Clinical depression#Other methods of treatment. Only link to this article is from Antidepressant as a see also. Collectonian (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the information was neutral and accurate, it would be helpful, however this article is not. It pushed an anti-medication view, and it is unlikely this article could "save lives." The article has several extremely fringe theories and a lot of is poorly sourced. The coffee section, for example, is sourced from a single "prospective" study, not a full study or clinical trial. The study also looked a very specific group of women aged 34 to 59 and it does not specifically look at people diagnosed with clinical depression. The way the article is written and reinterprets this source falls squarely under original research. Collectonian (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment They don't have to work to be notable. We have articles on snake oil, mesmerism and unicorns, because they are notable. Any "extensive coverage" by "reliable (secondary) sources" ought to establish notability for a topic. After all, imagine there was an influential, scientifically rigorous empirical debunking of a "natural therapy", that's no less relevant to an encyclopedia than a double-blind study demonstrating effectiveness. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so there'd be no objection to me writing 'there is no evidence that this substance has any effectiveness for this complaint' after each instance then? The secondary sources should be proper medical journals and sources, otherwise they have no value - just as blogs or other self published sources have no value for references on other topics. Encyclopedias shouldn't be in the business of pushing misleading medical information. Lots of drugs are derived from 'natural' substances, something either works or it doesn't, it's either medicine or it isn't. The 'cures' discussed here will have test results and discussions in medical journals if they're legitimate, if they don't then they're not. This natural therapy stuff is just bogus snake oil salesmanship. There are a few sources given here for Reiki for instance, and while I'm happy to concede that can have a placebo effect (especially for something like depression) there's no way that this is medicine. Nick mallory (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's totally appropriate, probably necessary even, for the Scientific Point of View to be presented (double plus if supported by WP:RS), I'm just saying that if the SPOV is "this is bunk", that's not grounds for deletion. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nick's objection is not only irrelevant but it is baseless as the article already contains references to papers in medical journals. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the sections are referenced from peer reviewed journals. Just because a journal is about the topic of science, or what one purports to be science, does not make the reference a peer reviewed (and hence truly a scientific) journal. Given the nature of the article, I would think that is important in terms of meeting WP:V. Otherwise, it becomes a claim that could be answered in any published source including TV Guide or People. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are reaching in an unscientific way. The article references plenty of appropriate and respectable sources, not the TV Guide or People. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed they were .... only that TV Guide and People were also not peer reviewed, as it appears some (not all, some) of the references here are - again to emphasize, my concern is not with every source). In a scientific article, the sources should come primarily from peer reviewed sources, as those are the standard works used to support scientific findings. If this is not a scientific article, then appropriate notices should be placed in appropriate places as to not confuse people who might be led to thinking this was scientifically supported. I think that is all Nick was saying. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the above comments betray plenty of prejudice, eg the statement that these therapies are "snake oil". This is very much a POV which is very biased. Someone said that these treatments are not medicine, but something doesn't have to be medicine to be worth writing about. Remember, the point of an article is not to prove a subject, but simply to tell people about it.

Sardaka (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - However, in an article that is using a scientific definition as its basis, one would expect what follows to be scientific in nature. That is not wholly true with every part of this article. The term "snake oil" is not a put down, in as much as it is applied to something that purports to be one thing, and is in fact not. This article starts with a scientific definition, and then goes into a mixture of scientific and non-scientific claims, without differentiating. All I and others are proposing is: if it survives deletion, the non-scientific parts either get scientific references, or get warnings that they are not supported by the scientific community. I don't think there's anything POV about that. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, if enough people object to the word "natural", we could instead call them complementary therapies, which I have found is widely accepted.

Sardaka (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Story Mode Federation[edit]

Story Mode Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable "wrestling federation". No sources and no assertion of notability, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day -- bulletproof 3:16 01:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is nothing really to merge anywhere.Bduke (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers in Tokyo[edit]

Flowers in Tokyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unencyclopedic in scope and title. Circeus (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Canley (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Concerned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I doubt the notability of the webcomic; the only external source is an interview with Joystiq which is viewable on the comic's site anyway. For full disclosure, I have read the comic. Will (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be helped. It's generated by the Special:Prefixindex function, so any page that begins with Concerned and has been up for AfD will be listed. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 06:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry (characters)[edit]

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

Given that all this information is readily available at Tom and Jerry, and this can only end in fancruft, "is this article really necessary?" FuriousFreddy (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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