< January 5	January 7 >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was Keep - As the episodes of Star Trek have been seen by millions of people, they are all indisputably notable. The Rules of acquisition have come up again and again, and are a central aspect of the Ferengi way of life, and are prominently featured in dozens of episodes. They are also the basis for the title of a popular Star Trek book. This doesn't seem to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) guideline, but at this time the status of that guideline is under dispute - but more importantly, consensus trumps a guideline. Reliable sources is also a guideline, and the community can overrule it. It's not a trivia section as per WP:TRIVIA because the items listed forms a logical group. The article is not indiscriminate, as its subject matter is a specific well-known set of items. The consensus is overwhelmingly to keep, and no policies have been cited that are being violated by the article, as far as I can tell. The Transhumanist 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of Acquisition[edit]

The article has very limited notability, and the useful information about who created the rules I have moved to the main Ferengi article. As the rest of this article is just a repetition of the Rules from the various television shows, it is duplicative with the plot sections of the various shows in which they were featured, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This fictional code of "ethics" has sources available to establish real world notability. the article is not in seriously bad shape to begin with. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what of its lack of any reliable secondary sourcing, which is crucial to establishing notability? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, almost all sources are episodes of the show. No out-of-universe notability is established. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm uncomfortable with "almost all" sources being primary. Doesn't that mean that some sources are secondary? AnteaterZot (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Ferengi. This is just a list of trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT, ie actual policies. -- Masterzora (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting WP:RS, since the article has none. Besides, the one thing to keep, the actual writers of the rules for the show, is in the article on Ferengi, the rest of this list is totally unneeded. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note that I only listed *actual policies*, which WP:RS isn't. The article does indeed pass WP:SOURCES, a section of WP:V, which I already listed it as passing. -- Masterzora (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article satisfies WP:V and WP:NOR. Although unnecessary to satisfy Wikipedia policy, concept has out-of-universe notability (for one thing, it was referenced in last year's HMC graduation speech). --Goobergunch|? 04:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't, as it has no sources other than the TV show, which is inadequate. We need multiple out of universe references, otherwise there is no need for a whole article separate from the Ferengi article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google Scholar search came up with quite a few papers referencing the Rules of Acquisitions. Sadly, I can't incorporate these into the article because I don't have journal access until I go back to school on the 20th, but they do exist [1]. --Goobergunch|? 06:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per Masterzora and Goobergunch above. -- Prototype27 (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit. --Goobergunch|? 08:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Note Still the only edit, created on the same day of AfD... (sniff) I smell Meat!

Keep, as I suspected, and as Goobergunch has so ably demonstrated, secondary sources exist. In fact, these are in peer-reviewed business and economics academic journals. There are books as well. This article, if cleaned up and expanded, could grace the main page someday. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be a significant number of references to real-world Rules of Acquisition out there, e.g. Google Books. The Ferengi version is obviously satirical and the article might usefully be developed to highlight the ethical and economic background. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and redirect/delete. It would be bad to lose it because all of it is sourced, but the rules list seems to have a very limited real-world notability indeed, if at all (outside the Star Treak universe). – sgeureka ^t•c 12:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no valid deletion argument posed. Cburnett (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Masterzora's argument. The encyclopedia would be worse off if this article is deleted, and Goobergunch has demonstrated additional third-party sources. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or MERGE Really? Is everyone in here a TRekkie? Come on guys. Listcruff? Trivia? Should be on TRekwiki???? Only trekkie boobs want to see this on Wikipedia. Let's get back to writing articles instead of hitting the remind button 1000 times to record every piece of dialog from an entire Star Trek episode. MiracleMat (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no valid reason given at this time for its deletion (BTW, calling other editors "boobs" isn't exactly WP:AGF or WP:NPA — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or reluctantly Merge Nobody has come up with a really good reason to delete it. It's not an insignificant article in as much as there is a lot of content in it. Why delete for the sake of it? If it can't be kept, why not merge the content of the list into the Ferengi article. And before anyone accuses me of being biased, or anything else, yes, I have worked on the article. Rmkf1982 ^Talk 15:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject, multiple references, no real rationale for deletion. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ferengi Seriously folks... This is a list of rules from a fictitious race in a fictional TV show. Does it really need it's very own article? It's rules from the Ferengi... put it with the Ferengi! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs) 19:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PAPER. And the TV show isn't fictional, it's very real. :) Contrary to the general movement of squashing fiction (TV, movies, etc.) currently abound on wikipedia, an article's content shouldn't get "special" treatment (i.e., merging) because it's about fiction. And it being fictional is entirely what your point is about. Cburnett (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has achieved notability. JJL (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted. IrishGuy ^talk 00:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skinslappin[edit]

Possibly a neologism, I've never heard of this word before. Either delete or if a legitimate word, transwiki to Wiktionary Mr Senseless (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to tag it for CSD G1 but you AfD'ed it quicker. Delete as neologism. NF24^{(radio me!)} 23:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely detele this. -Street20 23:48, 06 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G1 Stwalkerster [ talk ] 23:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G1. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:53, 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 result was Delete --JForget 02:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metaskriptz[edit]

Non-notable rapper, fails WP:MUSIC. WP:COI violation. This article has been deleted once, has had a db tag removed without explanation, has been userfied, and is now back again, but still no notability has been provided. Corvus cornix_talk 23:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for failing WP:MUSIC entirely. Only hits were for MySpace and forums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, MySpace band #89720356. --Merovingian (T, C) 02:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone, could easily be an A7. MySpace band? It says he's a rapper.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim to fame, only refs are myspace --T-rex 00:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete per nom. NO self-promotion!!!! MiracleMat (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and has no WP:V other then myspace.--Pmedema (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. --Canley (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Placid 2[edit]

Delete unsourced article about a movie that has no demonstrable notability, see WP:FILM Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google search turns up enough for sources (though being unreferenced is NOT a reason for deletion), which I have added. I have also expanded the stub a bit, better fleshing out notability. The sources that I used also provide reasonable information for a plot summary, but that can be added later. LaMenta3 (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — while I appreciate the vigilance, I believe the nomination is a bit hasty given that the article has existed for three days. LaMenta3 appears to have begun addressing concerns about sourcing this film. As for notability, I don't think one can question its distribution (both over the Sci Fi Channel and on DVD) and it has been reviewed by both Variety Daily and TV Guide (at least), which should be sufficient for a TV-movie-turned-DVD-release (per WP:NF). D. Brodale (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article needs work but it is notable and meets the requirements for a film being listing. Collectonian (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with the notability based on broadcasting on TV and the review in notable magazines. --Ubardak (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep due to the notability clearly being established. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bitch Muzik Vol.2[edit]

Prod removed by article's creator and sole author. Prod read: "One unreferenced passing comment does not grant notability. If it hasn't been officially announced and this is all the info there is, then it isn't notable. see WP:CBALL" --Icarus ^(Hi!) 22:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, incomprehensible, and not even released yet.... -RiverHockey (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-nocontext. JuJube (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom and every reason stated here. MiracleMat (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Weary[edit]

Delete bit part teen actor sourced to imdb & myspace, nn fails WP:N & WP:BIO Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, myspace and imdb are not reliable sources. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, actor who portrayed a significant character in a core family on a significant soap opera. Not a bit part at all. Corvus cornix_talk 23:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all -- this article is insignificant and trivial. It should not be in an encyclopedia. There are no credible sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.3.125 (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial media coverage and sources such as TV.com or IMDB aren't reliable. Addhoc (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not so trivial. If the character has a large wikipedia entry, likely the actor who plays him should have an entry too. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A quick look around Google revealed plenty of sources that establish the subject as notable, with entries on TV.com, Soap Opera Digest, AOL video/CBS, Daytime Emmy Awards interview and many more. The Transhumanist 07:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tv. com isn't reliable Secret ^account 21:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Discussion reopened; closing statement by non-admin closer added as opinion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the references provided in Jake_Weary#References and in the comment by The Transhumanist above provide evidence of sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources as to establish a presumption of Jake Weary's notability per the general notability guideline. Such a presumption, being established through objective evidence, outweighs the subjective assertions of non-notability presented by editors supporting the deletion of this article. John254 14:17, 12 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, John254 16:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep, though the article needs to be fleshed out. There is more notable information about him, including the controversy that occurred when he left his role. And more detail is needed about his music career. (Will try to add these items myself). NickBurns (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teragram Corporation[edit]

Delete nn company fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CORP. KM World, a widely read trade journal, has named Teragram among the top 100 companies in Knowledge Management (see ref in article). Their software is used by major search engines and others. Yes, it is a small company, but WP:CORP explicitly says "arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations". (By the way, I am not and never have been employed or otherwise engaged by Teragram, but I respect their work.) --Macrakis (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This isn't a completely obscure company, but its visibility to the general public seems rather low. Being one of the "top 100 knowledge management companies" is kind of like being one of the "top 100 candlepin bowlers" - it's an obscure niche, as far as the public is concerned. I would be more impressed with articles on it in general business journals. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that "visibility to the general public" has ever been a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. We have villages with a population of 114, obscure and obsolete software which was never visible to the general public, and today isn't even visible to the vast majority of software practitioners, a recently established group of fungi, etc. etc. I don't think you'll find any of these in Business Week, National Geographic, or Scientific American. --Macrakis (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and they've also been named as one of the top 100 digital content companies. This is not candlepin bowling. The appropriate place to find notability for a company like this is in the relevant trade press. --Macrakis (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the sources are a bit thin but indicate notability, however some more sibstantial sources would be good. (tagged with refimprove) -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Whpq. The Transhumanist 08:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. jj137 ^♠ 02:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Ness[edit]

Nom under WP:NN. Non-notable individual who won some kind of a competition to shoot a bear, and there was apparently a bit of a media storm about whether shooting a bear should be a competition prize. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the MAWF article already has a section on the hunting controversy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it noted already in the Make a Wish article then no reason for this event of low-notability to be re-covered. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not temporary WP:N#TEMP. Gaffertape (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. Legal activity causes moral quandary, news at 11? --Dhartung | Talk 00:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above reasons and WP:BIO1E Ohmpandya (Talk) 02:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better Halves[edit]

Article has no reliably sourced evidence of notability. Tagged with ((notability)) 23 November 2007 with no improvements in the interim. I initially tagged the article with ((prod)) stating: "Article lacks evidence of notability, consisting of plot and trivia", but immediately returned and redirected the article to List of Heroes episodes#Season 1: 2006-2007 as more apropos. Redirection reverted by Edokter (talk · contribs): "Revert redirect/contest PROD. Please send to Articles for Deletion." Per user's request. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Note that I did not "request" listing the article here, just suggesting that nominator list it here because I contested the initial prod (I should have used the word 'instead'). Article is subject to improvement though. — Edokter • Talk • 22:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what we have here is no more than a plot summary. JohnCD (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs improvement, but this can and will be accomplished through the addition of information sourced from commentaries and third-party reviews. Deletion is not warranted (and was not Edoktor's "request".). --Ckatz^chat _spy 00:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the notability by reliable sources is available, then the article does not reflect this. Having done a modicum of research, the Heroes season 1 DVDs do not have a commentary for "Better Halves" to use for reference. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Heroes is notable enough for each of it's episodes to have it's own article --T-rex 00:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How so, if not evidenced by the article? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look Here Heroes (TV series)#Reception --T-rex 19:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right, Heroes easily passes the bar for meeting the Wikipedia notabilith requirements. I don't see how that applies to this article, though: Notability is not inherited. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I will echo what I wrote at the Heroes WikiProject discussion page: All—yes, all—Heroes episodes are notable enough to reach featured or good status, however, WikiProject members are either too busy with other projects or too busy in real life to clean up the articles. Thus, I support redirection. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reread WP:INHERITED and look at what it actually says. If the article needs clean up is irrelevent. The question is if the topic is notable, and can be sourced, and both are true for this topic. --T-rex 23:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ckatz. The article needs cleanup, not total deletion. --Piemanmoo (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The general dissention is that the article needs improvement, and should be kept. All failing articles "need improvement", but if the article is not, or cannot be brought to meet the muster of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it shouldn't be kept. Having been tagged as lacking, the article was not improved or worked upon to correct its deficiency, nor even since the initiation of this AfD. I found no evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject to meet the notability requirement either inside or outside the article.
Secondly, I prefer/advocate the redirection of the page as I attempted to do initially (see above). a) This would preserve the integrity of internal links pointing to this page and b) would preserve the history of the page, so that should the requisite real-world resources for notability come out, further editors can restore sections of the original article w/o the duplication of effort. However, as noted initially, my redirection of the page to its appropos target was reverted, and I was pointed "to Articles for Deletion" instead.
Failing redirection, the article does not meet the notability guideline for articular inclusion. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of Heroes episodes. No assertion of real world notability and the article fails WP:EPISODE and WP:FICTION. Notability of the series does not descend to its episodes. Article has been tagged for Notability issues since November, so there has been ample time to provide any possible notability. As pd_THOR also noted, no one has made any attempt to do so even after the AfD. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to List of Heroes episodes to allow transwikiing and because you never know if companion guides come out for production details etc. Heroes is a fine show, but the absence of audio commentaries doesn't fare well for keeping the article any longer. (I know it has been discussed since at least October that the wikiproject will try to fix the episode notability problem alone, but maybe a push is needed to find an acceptable new form for the episode presentation.) – sgeureka ^t•c 08:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets our core policies. Catchpole (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is possible to write a verifiable, neutrally written article based on reliable sources on this subject. Articles that would exist in a specialist encyclopedia (say a Heroes encyclopedia) should also exist in Wikipedia. Catchpole (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Verifiability and neutrality aren't presently problems with this article; and while it currently lacks reliable sources for one section, it was primarily nominated for deletion because it lacks any evidence of meeting the notability requirement.
      Secondly, I don't understand where you're coming from with the assertion that Wikipedia should have equitable articles as any specialist encyclopedia. I'm pretty sure there's no basis for that; am I misunderstanding you on this point? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have to come to the view that the emphasis placed on notability in these discussions is a red herring, notability is useful for speedily deleting articles on your neighbourhood band or your best friend's hot older sister but not for subjects which can be trivially verified. For the second point, this follows from Wikipedia is not paper and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Catchpole (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Here are two relevant quotes from your link - Not paper: "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars." and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DUMPING GROUND FOR RANDOM INFORMATION". TTN (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary with no real-world context. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ckatz and Piemanmoo. Rewrite the article, don't simply delete it. dposse (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been tagged needing work or a rewrite since 23 November; is the notability there for it to be written into the article? Having not been, and having not found it, rewriting the article won't make so. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is just a large plot summary that is already adequately covered on the episode list. There is currently nothing asserting improvement, so there is no need for an article. TTN (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other delete arguments. Not notable. --Jack Merridew 12:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect. Months ago, I put up notices on the project page that we needed to clean up the articles. It didn't get too far, and nothing has provoked the project into really getting a move on. This article shows one particular piece of notability, that it was Larter's submission for award consideration. That's hardly enough notability to stand alone, as so many of the first season episodes have that level for one cast member or another. Merge back to the list of Episodes. ThuranX (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect The question is simple: can sufficient real-world notability backed up by reliable sources be asserted for the topic? Answer: no, based on all available evidence. Hence: no article per WP:N as explained at WP:FICT. There is no argument made above in favour of retention that responds directly to this problem. CKatz makes the claim that article ... improvement ... can and will be accomplished through the addition of information sourced from commentaries and third-party reviews, but there is simply no evidence whatsoever that this individual episode aspires to the kind of substantial real-world impact that we use to determine whether episodes should stand on their own or not. As for the other views, they are largely an assemblage of ATAs. Eusebeus (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails notability. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The television episodes guideline states "if the article(s) contain little content, consider merging or redirecting them into another article…" The episode is notable as critical reviews, cast or crew interviews and behind the scenes featurettes are available, however editors voting "keep" have failed to demonstrate that they can add real-world information to the article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it's stupid to delete building blocks like this. It's an article, but there's this all or nothing reasoning that articles that don't include everything from a wish list just aren't good enough. Only a "complete" article will do. Well, where does collaboration come in if articles have to meet "completion" standards from the get go? Why waste what's been done so far just because the rest hasn't been added yet? I think we should WP:IAR and leave the article in place so that eventually someone can add the missing items. Look below, the article is part of the way to including all the items on the WP:EPISODE wish list:
- A brief summary of the episode's plot (see below) Done - but could go down the drain via deletionist all or nothing reasoning
- How the episode was received by critics
- Information on production and broadcasting of the episode
- Real-world factors that have influenced the work or fictional element

I don't see how the guidelines provide justification to waste the work that has gone into the article so far. Most of the editors who work on Wikipedia don't know these guidelines anyways. So they keep adding and we keep wasting their efforts. How many thousands of man hours of effort are we wasting with this approach? It's stupid.

The Transhumanist 09:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be arguing the article be kept so as not to waste the time and effort that's already gone into it, which is one of the arguments to avoid. But it also comes from assuming the position that the article can be brought up to standards in the first place, which in and of itself has not been evidenced in either this AfD or the article. You're proposing that an article which does not meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria just be ignored and hope it will ... someday? That's implausable.
Deleting this article would result in the plot summary "going down the drain". That hard work can only be retained by keeping the article. Or asking it be undeleted by an admin should it warrant. Or copied to your userspace. Or watching/reading about the episode and rewriting it.
Ultimately, this stupid AfD process wastes hundreds of hours of work every day (if not more so). But it's instrumental in keeping Wikipedia an encyclopedic resource as opposed to an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm sorry you disagree with that policy, but it is. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per detailed post above me. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the can be improved and real world content can be added. it just may take some time for a project member to commit to the task.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No Consensus. The article is kept without prejudice to re-submission. --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Medic Droid (band)[edit]

Does not assert notability in any way. Claims of an international tour aren't backed up by any reliable sources; a search for sources turned up bupkis. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found one Google News listing for a show in New York, and they have shows in Arizona, New Mexico and California listed on their Myspace page. But, I don't find any other chatter about the band that would classify as WP:RS, so it's kind of hard for them to meet WP:MUSIC at the moment. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 05:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Charted on the iTunes top 50 dance chart. Therefore Meets criterion 2. News article on the band from MediaPredict and Arkansas Times, so probably also meets criterion 1. Snellios (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ward3001 (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Above media references are either trivial or not from a reliable source. iTunes chart is not from a reliable source, either; even if it's correct, I don't know that #26 on the iTunes Dance Chart qualifies as a hit. Fails WP:MUSIC. Seems like they're bubbling under in the hype department which may or may not see them breaking through (i.e. past MySpace popularity into Popular IRL)—if they happen, the article can easily be re-created. Precious Roy (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:MUSIC is very clear. If any of the criteria provided in the guideline are met, then the article meets notability. Criterion #2 is "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." Per Snellios below, the band at one time ranked #26 on iTunes top 50 dance chart for the U.S., and that's a national music chart. Note that once notability for the article has been established, Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. Nobody below bothered to actually add the reference to the article, and so I'll transfer it from this AfD discussion myself. The Transhumanist 10:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Controversial non-admin closure overturned, discussion reopened. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Transhumanist. John254 14:23, 12 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, John254 16:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per nom. None of the references above have actually been added to the article as yet; the Arkansas Times article is just a gig listing, and therefore inelegible per WP:BAND; I'm not sure that MediaPredict counts as a reliable source, and all the article says is "if this band goes on to become successful, they'll be worth money", which seems to imply that they're _not_ successful as of the article date; and the purported iTunes charting is not backed up by the URL cited, which just gives the current chart. Whether or not iTunes charting is sufficient evidence for notability is debatable, but, even if it is, we're going to need proof that they actually _did_ make the iTunes chart. Tevildo (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -trivial media coverage Addhoc (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The iTunes dance chart is not a relevant national chart, in the same way that top 50 country tracks sold on Amazon isn't relevant. The Billboard singles and airplay charts are, that's national, not just a single retailer. And I'd argue that the niche subsection charts such as Hot Dance Club Play, or Hot Christian Songs don't count either. For a band, these guys have had trivial coverage. - hahnch e n 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one of countless non-notable bands with a MySpace page and an EP "currently being worked on". The iTunes Dance Chart is not what's meant by a "national music chart". The mediapredict.com link is an online betting game where, basically, you can bet on whether or not The Medic Droid will become notable. And the Arkansas Times link is a gig listing! --Stormie (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result is Keep - A strong majority below want to keep it. Notability is established via a Spin reference. There should be enough of the article left after the hype is removed for a stub. The editors interested in this subject can rebuild it from there. The Transhumanist 12:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bats Day in the Fun Park[edit]

Procedural nomination, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 6. The article had been tagged and speedied as not asserting importance per WP:CSD#A7. However, another user restored the article and providing a source from Spin magazine to help establish importance and notability through coverage in a reliable source. This restoration was again speedied through a seeming miscommunication. The deleting admin has agreed that the article be restored and there was agreement that it should be listed at afd. Hiding T 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the Spin magazine source is enough and think the article should be kept. Hiding T 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once the promotional hype is removed, there would be very little left of the article. Deb (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Deb on this. Remove all the self-promotional hype and there is very little left. One mention in a Spin magazine article is not enough to prove notability. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to prove notability, that's guidance. Just edit the article in accordance with WP:EP, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and bear in mind that stubs are okay. This isn't likely to be a permastub and can be maintained in line with policies. Hiding T 22:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also note the event has been discussed in the Aug 25, 2003 edition of The LA Times, the August 21, 2003 edition of the OC Weekly and the August 25, 2007 edition of the San Antonio Express-News and in a September 11, 2003 article on the Fox News website. There is adequate sourcing there for an article on the festival. That this isn't it does not mean the article should be deleted. It should be improved in line with policy. Hiding T 23:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event has been around for several years and just gets bigger.Legotech (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple instances of media coverage.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if the article is stubified, the length is no reason for deletion. Coverage in Spin and the other sources mentioned in this discussion are enough to satisfy notability and verifiability. LaMenta3 (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:RepublicanJacobite -RiverHockey (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not 100% sold on the other sources, but the Spin article is pretty convincing when it comes to asserting notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article needs work, but subject is apparently notable and verifiable. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, establishes basic notability; appeared on a famous artist's mixtape. Also, as pointed out, could use some time for sourcing. I'd support a relisting for deletion if the article's deficiencies are unaddressed after a few months. GlassCobra 17:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Creekwater[edit]

Non-notable rapper, article is sorely lacking references. Artist has released mixtapes but no actual albums, no hit singles. Fails WP:MUSIC. If artist becomes notable some day in the future, article can easily be re-created. Precious Roy (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - if claims in the article can be backed, this is worth an article --T-rex 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep - there is reporting that mentions the subject of the article, and there is indication of notability but more substantial references would help. A quick google news search found this article from the Washinton Post and this article from the Malaysia Star. There are others. Article tagged with refimprove sinde December 2007 so give it some time to be worked on-- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of these is the non-trivial coverage required to meet WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I agree that the sources are bit on the thin side. The article was tagged only last month for improvement on references. So based on what can be found with a cursory search, and lack of time for additional references for improvement, I figure that there is the possibility for this article to be sourceable. Thay why I'm a weak keep with the emphasis on weak. -- Whpq (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 02:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J0HNNY[edit]

Speedy deleted twice but the creator has explicitly asked for an AFD. This does not meet the general notability requirements or those of WP:MUSIC. It is written like a piece of spam as well. I see no harm in an afd and opening this upto other opinions without being bitey. Thanks Woody (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this is little informative and written like a fifth grader. It is not encyclopedic for the most part. I vote for delete Compwhiz II 21:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep If it can be shown that it's the same John Chavez from Vehemence, the article is keep-able, meeting criterion #6 as the former member of a notable group (two albums on Metal Blade is pretty solid notability). However, the article needs tons of work to make it encyclopedic; as it stands it's some serious vanispamcruftisement. Precious Roy (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete having speedy deleted it before, and having fulfilled a request by the creator to restore the article to his user space, he twice used the restored content to recreate the article without addressing the concerns that were explained to him. I gave him a final warning about this, but he still recreated it, so I am blocking him. The article should be speedy deleted as A7(band), because it asserts nothing for notability except a WP:CRYSTAL prediction that the artist will emerge in 2008. JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of writing style it's based on a solo career launched this year - it's less than a week old. Notability may come, but not before the AfD debate is over. Gaffertape (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Jerry. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, yeah, and Salt it this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedily. Since the original editor won't take no for an answer, let this go through the AfD, then if he recreates, it can be speedy deleted and salted. Corvus cornix_talk 23:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Salt if necessary as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The if necessary is what this discussion is trying to decide. Please elaborate what you think should be done. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this discussion was to determine whether the article should be deleted or not? Either way, if the author continues to create the article after repeated Speedy Deletions with the same unsourced content, especially after this AfD, then salt away. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But not speedy, let the editor take full advantage of the AfD process, as is his right. If the final decision is to delete I also think it should be Salted, if this person become notable at some point in the future an appeal can be made to correct this action. OneHappyHusky (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. Per above. --EndlessDan 19:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per above. Ward3001 (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 01:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creovation[edit]

Delete nn neoligism Mayalld (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mayalld. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. Also consider putting Martin Lukes up for AfD as that fictional character is utterly non-notable. JuJube (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. JJL (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete. Defaulting to keep. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 01:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City College of San Francisco Queer Resource Center[edit]

Non-notable student resource center. Prod declined. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source given that seems to speak to notability is 403'd. It is possible due to its SF location that it has more than a local profile, but in general student organizations should be at best mentioned in the school article somewhere. --Dhartung | Talk 21:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Student groups at a single school are very rarely notable and, at best, should be compressed into a sentence or two (assuming it's verifiable) in the school's article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep and Improve" This student center is important because its part of San Francisco City College, where the country's first gay literature course was introduced, followed by the first bachelor's program in Gay and Lesbian Studies. (See "Queer Studies") I have made contributions to the article since I first came upon it and saw the notice of deletion. Since then, I've started my Wikipedia account and learned a lot about the workings of Wikipedia. I'd like to keep improving the article because I think there is a lot of interesting history connected to the Center, and these centers provide students with the chance to connect with others, which in the gay, lesbian, transgendered community, is very important. I did a bit of research on the role of these centers in people's lives and that is something else I'd like to expand on in the future. EdwardLINE1 (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an article on LGBT resource centers generally might be able to be created. That would almost certainly be notable assuming there is published research like you say. General information about these centers belongs in a general article, not this one. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - EdwardLINE1 is willing to work on the article, including its sources, so we should give him some time to see if he can track down references to establish its notability. Remember, we shouldn't WP:BITE the newcomers. (This is his very first article). The Transhumanist 13:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he is a newcomer, it is silly and counterproductive to encourage him to work on an article about a non-notable organization that will be deleted later. I have searched on google and found absolutely nothing to indicate that this center is notable in the least. A search of all English-language news for all dates that uses the terms "City College of San Francisco" and "Queer Resource Center" brings up 0 results in lexis-nexis. Just because the university had the first queer studies program does not make this center notable (notability is not inherited). All that has been added since the deletion nomination is information about queer resource centers generally, which is frankly irrelevant in the article about this queer resource center. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not if he can find sources. The Transhumanist 23:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article could be moved into his user space if necessary. Addhoc (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That article is taking shape and appears notable enough to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. There is not a reason given to rush to delete that I see. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Shirahadasha (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - trivial media coverage Addhoc (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Delta Psi[edit]

While this article asserts that it is notable due to it being the first co-ed professional Recording Industry fraternity, no sources are provided, and two quick Google searches find nothing aside from MySpace and recruiting pages mentioning the group (link 1, link 2). An internal search of the the MTSU University website yields nothing either. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 20:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete, I'm unsure about what its even pretending to be about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josquius (talk • contribs) 21:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --T-rex 00:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be a pretty non notable.Trey (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. GlassCobra 17:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shihan Dan S. Soller[edit]

Non-notable karate practitioner. Seems to assert notability based on "commitment to his students," founding of a non-notable karate organization, and being traveled. Declined SPEEDY so listing it here. Redfarmer (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shihan Dan S. Soller is founder of the Phoenix Karatedo Association, Kyokushinkaikan, an international karatedo organization comprising nearly a dozen dojos scattered throughout the world. His original instructor was Kancho Raymond Elmore, and Elmore's original instructor was Hulon Willis, a pioneer in the proliferation of Kyokushin Karate in the United States. nidanesquire, 1-6-08 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidanesquire (talk • contribs)

Notability is not transfered. He must have notability in his own right and not assume he's notable because of who taught him. Redfarmer (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a few things that might prove notability, but upon investigation they don't go very far. The karate is not notable enough, and I could not find much in the way of academic notability save a few biography pages - I do not think (as the article asserts) that combining two non-notables make a notable. Gaffertape (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as the admin who declined the csd), I find that the Phoenix Karatedo Association has a pagerank in the top 12 for Top/Sports/Martial_Arts/Karate/Kyokushin/Organizations, and there seem to be numerous non-trivial sources for the organization to establish its notability, so it seemed to me that the founder of such an organization would be notable. However, this webpage seems to indicate that the claim that Soller founded the organization is actually false. So unfortunately all that is left would be any assertion under WP:PROF, which here isn't thick enough to make a broth. JERRY ^talk _contribs 12:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shihan Dan S. Soller is founder of the Phoenix Karatedo Association. The Association itself is a direct outgrowth of the Elmore School of Karate; Shihan Raymond Elmore was Shihan Soller's original instructor, and, in an act of respect for his instructor, Shihan Soller named Shihan Elmore as the Phoneix Karatedo Association's first Kancho - i.e., Chairman. Shihan Soller assumed the title of Kancho upon the death of Shihan Elmore in June, 2006, an action that is not unusual among traditional styles of karatedo. -nidanesquire, 1-7-2008

Hulon Willis did found the Phoenix Karatedo Association. He was Kancho Raymond Elmore's original instructor, and Kancho Elmore was Kancho Dan Soller's original instructor. Thus, the Phoenix Karatedo Association grew out of the ryu - i.e., school - originally created by Hulon Willis, but it was not founded by Willis. The Australian Webpage linked above is inaccurate in this regard. -nidanesquire, 1-10-2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidanesquire (talk • contribs) 04:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Snowy delete as obvious hoax. Everything Stan Lee touched in his career has been covered someplace online, so this should turn up results. It doesn't. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanjiman[edit]

Hoax. Googling Ghanjiman returns no hits. Kaaga has more success, but mostly because it's a place in Kenya. Likewise, I've not been able to find either with a quick browse through Marvel and Stan Lee related sites. Finally, I cannot remember ever reading any of Ghanjiman's adventures - and I have spent far too much time reading Marvel comics. Gaffertape (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparent hoax like the user's other creation, Josh shadik. Deor (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, even if not a hoax. JohnCD (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, shouldn't even be vote for delete, should be a quick removal--Him and a dog 21:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - says right in the article that he's not notable. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 23:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it up Who cares if it is not popular it still is real and gives more information to this site —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecoolestguy1111 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Thecoolestguy1111 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the article that is the subject of this AfD.[reply]
- Yeah, who cares if something is a blatant hoax? It's funny lolz. JuJube (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete per nom & comments --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 02:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human Macaws[edit]

PROD removed by originator. This is unsourced, a neologism, not notable, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang. JohnCD (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable neoglism. I restored the prod once so they apparently deleted it again after I warned them. Redfarmer (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. A search turned up basically nothing at all about this term; either way, Wikipedia still isn't a dictionary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely non-notable. Gaffertape (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any article with the words "up and coming" is trash. JuJube (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above, and as WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR --T-rex 00:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, quite weird. Definitely fails several criteria as noted by JohnCD. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Bakhai[edit]

Not really notable engouh. Philip Stevens (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only claims to fame are being an unsuccessful Parliamentary candidate and chair of an obscure local group. Warofdreams talk 20:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I live in the Ealing Southall constituency and I think that Nigel Bakhai is notable enough, because he's doing more work in the constituency than the current MP, Virendra Sharma. I'm not a member of any political party, simply a concerned resident. If you don't believe me, come for a visit, I'll show you round the area and you can see how it's getting far less representation from it's MP than it deserves, and how other local politicians like Bakhai are moving in to fill the gap. If Wikipedia can have a Victoria Beckham article, it can have this. 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liz haas (talk • contribs)

Delete. Fails to meet WP:BIO as Parliamentary candidates are not considered notable enough for their own encyclopaedia entry. - Galloglass 20:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nowhere near notable. Gaffertape (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He wasn't just a parliamentary candidate in a general election, but the candidate who came second in a very high profile by-election. The amount of news coverage that this generated makes Nigel Bakhai notable. In fact, he received more national news coverage during the course of the by-election campaign than many backbench MPs get in a whole parliament. Liberaljon (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, if he were that notable, you'd think a page would have been created at the time of the by-election. --Philip Stevens (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete as a hoax. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh shadik[edit]

I'm calling hoax on this one. A Google search for "Josh Shadik" returns one hit, for a musician. Likewise, although the article doesn't specify the event and trawl through world records for various 100m swimming events in the 40s, 50s and 60s doesn't yield any Josh Shadiks or any variations on the name. Gaffertape (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm with the nom on this one; quite obviously a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparent hoax like the user's other creation, Ghanjiman. Deor (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete- Both the Josh Shadik Page and Ghanjiman are very true, i even have a copy of The 4th Issue of the Jungle Adventures of Ghanjiman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecoolestguy1111 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And we believe you because? JuJube (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because I have this Information right here that shows the records from the 1952 Olympics:

Event Time 100m Free Josh Shadik, USA 55.4 Hiroshi Suzuki, JPN 57.4 Göran Larsson, SWE 58.2 400m Free Jean Boiteux, FRA 4:30.7 OR Ford Konno, USA 4:31.3 Per-Olof Östrand, SWE 4:35.2 1500m Free Ford Konno, USA 18:30.3 OR Shiro Hashizune, JPN 18:41.4 Tetsuo Okamoto, BRA 18:51.3 100m Back Yoshi Oyakawa, USA 1:05.4 OR Gilbert Bozon, FRA 1:06.2 Jack Taylor, USA 1:06.5 200m Brst John Davies, AUS 2:34.4 OR Bowen Stassforth, USA 2:34.7 Herbert Klein, GER 2:35.9 4x200m Free USA (Wayne Moore, Bill Woolsey, Ford Konno, Jimmy McLane) 8:31.1 OR Japan 8:33.5 France 8:45.9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecoolestguy1111 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again... and we believe you didn't just make this all up because? JuJube (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I wonder why every source on the Web says that a fellow named Scholes won that event. Deor (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Shadik didn't actually win the 100m freestyle, he had the highest record though, he got disqualified from the event and did not earn a medal which went to Clark Scholes instead because Josh Shadik did not show up for the ceremony for some odd reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecoolestguy1111 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How conveeeeenient. JuJube (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What the bloody hell was The Church Lady about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecoolestguy1111 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Fatality (Mortal Kombat), the basics are already covered there. GlassCobra 17:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brutality (Mortal Kombat)[edit]

Very minor gameplay element, fails Wikipedia:Notability. Master Bigode (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge into Fatality (Mortal Kombat) Pundit|utter 19:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fatality (Mortal Kombat), definitely not notable. --– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 22:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Negligible distinction between the two. Xymmax (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per everyone. JuJube (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Not notable on its own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Fatality (Mortal Kombat), per my comment at Talk:Fatality (Mortal Kombat)#Merging Brutality Page. Pagra shtak 15:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep; this article has a good deal to say about brutalities, while the fatality article has only a single paragraph, but is as a whole reasonably lengthy. I think this warrants coverage beyond the scope of the fatality article, assuming sources can be found to confirm the information in this article. If sources are not added, then merging would be acceptable (but not this entire article). Everyking (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a standalone this unsourced article doesn't cut it. I don't like to use the word cruft but I certainly feel this artice is excessively wordy in a way that could be of little interest or education to a non-fan. The basics are already covered in the Fatality article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable aspect of evolution of the fatalities in the Mortal Kombat games, which are arguably the most influential fighting games of all time, and this information is easily verifiable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. PeaceNT (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Body[edit]

Non-notable porn actress. Fails WP:PORN. Lots of Ghits to sites selling her videos. Redfarmer (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two foreign-language Wikipedias have a page on her. Does the English-language Wikipedia have stricter rules regarding article creation on the subject of pornography than the Spanish and Italian ones? --Chatzaras (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, pertaining to Chatzaras comment, if I spoke Spanish or Italian I'd support the same decision, deletion. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. To answer the above question, yes, there's been a change in the porn notability requirements. You'll note that many of these having been coming through Afd of late. Xymmax (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Body Double, the source of the name. Otto4711 (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any evidence of nominations or awards or mainstream coverage to satisfy wp:bioVinh1313 (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What happened to the talk page of the article, why was it deleted? The article as it is, is a joke, it's not even a stub. But I believe Holly Body definitely is notible enough. There are not many awards in world of porn, there is no way you can use same notability criteria for porn actors and nonporn actors. There are people on wikipedia that are 1% (literally) as known as Holly Body. Also keep in mind, that she is a porn actor in decline. Her top popularity was long time ago. So can I vote for Delete only on basis that the article is not even a stub and nobody is showing desire to improve it? (or at least it seems so, that's why I asked about the Talk page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JTrdi (talk • contribs) 01:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Dal[edit]

Non-notable DJ. Article does not sufficiently assert notability. Prod removed by author without reason. Zero pages link to the article. Another user added notability, orphan, and unsourced tags to it. Article has no independent references and is uncategorized. Now there are independent sources, but neither seems reliable or useful. Reywas92 ^Talk 18:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. References provided in the article are not considered reliable for the purposes of establishing notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if I'd got there first, I'd have speedied it. Deb (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heath McKnight[edit]

Seems to fail WP:BIO. Mentioned or quoted in passing in a few news stories, but nothing substantial. Jfire (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Upon looking into some of the films that he has produced, I noticed that they are mostly low budgets with no name actors in them. If the creator of this article can cite references of outside sources (IMDB excluded) that show significance of any of these films (i.e. an award at a film festival), I will gladly change my vote. TGreenburgPR (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has several production credits, but per above, they're mostly non-notable low-budget affairs. No sources could be found in a thorough search of Google and Google News; most hits seemed to be for an unrelated person. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. PeaceNT (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannine Robinson[edit]

biography of the author of a book and founder of a website, both about "self-empowerment", neither notable. Pseudo-advertising. jnestorius^(talk) 18:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete contingent on the article failing to be made into something useful. As it stands right now, this article is blatant advertising. I also notice that the editor who created it has no other contributions which to me always suggests conflict of interest. Trusilver (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Axl (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- advertising --T-rex 00:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My inner wisdom says Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. The arguments for deleteion were generally that there currently aren't any reliable sources in the sense of academic or journalism-type sources that cover it in any depth. The argument that Mind map-related software is a new field rendering it hard to find secondary sources covering individual products in depth is noted, but this argument tends to cut in favor deletion rather than keeping. The WP:N and WP:V policies tend to favor waiting until new fields receive secondary coverage at the detail level before providing articles at that level. The subject can still be included in a general article on mind-map related software. --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cayra[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cayra

Non-notable, beta software. Article has been without sources since creation in Nov'07. Ronz (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Please see #Discussion below. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – Rather than delete how about a merge to Mind Map under a sub heading “Software”? Seems like a natural fit. Shoessss | Chat 18:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed in List of mind mapping software, but will be removed if Cayra is removed per the list inclusion criteria as discussed in WP:LIST and Talk:List of mind mapping software. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources from which notability could be judged, as argued by some participants at Talk:Cayra. There is no exception for software products from the sourcing requirements that apply to all articles. (Look through this article's references and see if you can find any newspapers, magazines, or edited web sites of known reputation such as www.zdnet.com or www.cnet.com). Killerstartups.com is an internet popularity poll in which anyone can vote, not normally accepted as a source. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Without rebuttal or a discussion to the arguments made which support this article's notability, or a reason why 3rd party references are illegitimate, there is no reason to delete this article. Not one person asking for delete has presented a reasoned argument why this software is not notable. Wiki's mandate is that reason trumps all else. The full argument for keep is found in the talk page of the article itself. I just have to say that's it's a little amusing to see EdJohnson complain above that "Killerstartups.com is an internet popularity poll in which anyone can vote". Remember, Killerstartups.com is used to establish notability, WP:N not to verify potentially disputed facts, WP:V . But creating a forum where people voice their opinions is just what we are doing here. So by EdJohnson's own logic, this forum is meaningless and none of our voices matter, either.wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)wikiwatcher9999[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Jmlk 1 7 00:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Information easily verified from project website. Sources to determine notability are too subjective in this field to tilt the scale either way i'm afraid. Sources provided are sufficient to extend leeway to the project. In other words, come up with something fast or this is going down. Lsingel (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This comment above is the very first comment made by the new editor Lsingel. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note And this is germane for what reason RONZ? Is it what appears the obvious reason- you're insinuating sock puppetry- or some other reason? Please tell us why you made this edit beneath Lsingel's entry. I was a longtime wiki user before I jumped in because I saw what was going on and I have had a near vertical learning curve about how all this works in attempting to keep up with the procedural maneuvers you've employed to have your way. Your actions effect a lot of people, some of whom can be expected to get fed up and come wading in also. But more to the point, once again, for possibly the 20th time, editor RONZ has sought a means other than rational debate about the facts at hand to force his views. You falsely accused me of sock puppetry earlier in this process. You falsely accused me of not meeting the requirements for the arbitration process we are now legitimately in. You have done everything but behave as wikipeidans are expected to. I have no problem with you. I do have a problem with your editing and your insinuations and attacks on other wikipedians.wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999[reply]

This is standard practice in AfD discussions, identifying new editors that are contributing to the AfD.

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_Wikietiquette for further information on how to participate in an AfD. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on grounds of notability alone. TheRingess (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; sources do not appear to meet WP:RS and a search for some better ones has not come up with anything. nancy ^(talk) 19:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikieditor9999 has left a note on my talk page asking me to come back here and "defend my postition". I think that my !vote was fairly self-explanatory, however if anyone unfamiliar with WP:RS wants more detail on the deficiencies in the cited sources there is an excellent analysis on the Cayra talk page nancy ^(talk) 10:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. No reason this article can't be recreated if proper sources ever exist to establish notability, but they don't appear to now, and until they do, this article fails to meet the standards. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No assertion of notability; software is not even out of beta. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per arguments above (WP:NN) and here. Article is WP:OWNed by a WP:SPA newbie who dosen't seem to understand (or perhaps doesn't want to based on arguements below) fundamental Wikipedia policy and wikiquette as well has is very threatening in nature. Shot info (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have compiled relevant information regarding SPAs that have edited the article here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources, only trivial information available in the non-reliable ones. Plenty of time and effort appears to have been wasted in trying to acquire references. I'm actually surprised at the patience displayed on the article's talk page. Kuru ^talk 02:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 1. Simply because there will be reliable sources, I'm sure. The press is recognizing this software, a bit slowly maybe. I have added references to more articles and cleaned up the mess made out of 'external links' section. What's the hurry about deletion? Especially if 2. There're people who think this software is notable, this issue matters to them and they're ready to defend their point of view (and they are NOT this software creators!).. Wikipedia project is about people, isn't it? So why are we not listening to people? Zabriski (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Zabriski is the article's original author. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Zabriski is mentioned on this discussion's talk page as one of the SPAs editing this article. Zabriski, I would ask that you to consider "listening to people" yourself. We have guidelines and policies for a reason, and WP:N and WP:RS are pretty big ones. FreeMind has on the order of 300,000 users. Cayra does not. Zabriski, I'd love to keep this article if it conforms to policy and guidelines, but it doesn't meet our standards. If you can come up with a way to make it meet our standards, that would settle the matter, but "there will be reliable sources" is not a valid "keep" rationale - Wikipedia is not about predicting the future. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe you're right. I guess I'm defending this article because it was my contribution to Wiki and it'd be sad to see it go.

I created the article because I saw a lot of interest in this application from the users of mind-mapping software. And more and more people nowdays prefer to ask Wiki rather than Google. Besides, you say that FreeMind has more users, well then please point out somewhere in Wiki guidelines how many thousand users you need in order for the software to be recognised as notable. (I'm writing this just because FreeMind article has no reliable sources either, that's all). Thanks for staying cool-headed in this discussion. Zabriski (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the relevant discussion at Talk:FreeMind#Notability. Please also keep in mind that the existence of the article FreeMind is not a valid rationale for keeping this article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least Wait. This area (mindmap software) is relatively new and seems to be fast-growing; the idea seems a development from stuff like Visio, but aimed at less formal applications (brain-storming as opposed to flowcharting). The Cayra site itself is professionally done and the displays they render are certainly nice. There are independent reviews (I found some blogs that have prior histories reviewing other mindmapping software). And they seem to be the only ones aiming at the .Net framework (which I despise, myself, but obviously it's still relevant). I concede it's only Beta. So at least a brief article with the links is more helpful than not. However, there is another issue: the Irresistable Contributor (Wikieditor9999, whose English may be suboptimal) meeting the Unmoveable Editor (Ronz, with whom I myself am currently involved in a dispute). IMO it would be premature to nuke the article while other editors (Anthon01 and myself) are in dispute with the nominator for deletion, on the same subject (unfair debating practices) as the articles main contributor (9999). OTOH the RfC is not getting any attention currently. Pete St.John (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I have moved this discussion below the main set of !votes in order to maintain readability. wikiwatcher9999's comment immediately below refers to the initial delete rationale provided by Ronz above. Note also that comments not directly relevant to the deletion discussion have been moved to the talk page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note The above statement by Ronz is false. non-Notable is a POV from Ronz; notability as per WP:N is listed in article. Ronz should read the beta article to better understand the meaning of the words he uses. Article has been with sources, except at that point where Ronz unilaterally removed all content from page, after which he flagged it for not having sources. See cayra talk section for timeline and details. wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999[reply]

Actually, the sources you added are not reliable, independent sources, which are what is required. The content he removed (lists of features, etc) read alot more like unsourced advertising clipped from Cayra's website than an encyclopedia article (although, to stem an edit war, he has been mature enough to stop removing the content). As for your allegations that Ronz is making "false" statements, let's check. This software is in Version 0.9.0. Versions that start with 0 indicate beta versions, that's a standard versioning convention. It is still under heavy, fundamental development, as beta software would be. Please check your facts before you accuse users of presenting misinformation in bad faith - you are wrong on both counts. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the source's reliability, Cheesaer1, that is what is under dispute. Your asserting that they are not is called "assuming the consequent", or trying to prove the conclusion by assuming it is true. This is a well known logical fallacy. Please note that your posts will be taken more seriously if you don't argue using logical fallacies. As for the removal of material by Ronz and its nature, actually, here's the the original version: [[2]] and here's the version after Ronz was done with it, and which he flagged. [[3]]. As for tis beign beta, where I work it goes alpha, then beta, then released versions leading up to a 1.0 release. So you stand corrected by a professional software developer. If your shop does differently, it is helpful to keep in mind that your opinion is not the epicenter of all perspective, but see my comment about assuming the consequent earlier. Thank you for participating in this forum by the way. wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999[reply]

So you have a conflict of interest in this debate, given that you most likely are a developer on the Cayra project? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seicer, wikiwatcher9999 is NOT a developer on the Cayra project. Trust me, because I am part of the project :-)

It's quite a dispute here, too bad I've found out about it just today( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia sova (talk • contribs)

Odd. You seem to be contradicting a well sourced article on software versioning. Versions 0.x are universally beta version. Furthermore, your assertions of being an expert or source of information regarding software versioning conventions are irrelevant because you are not a source of reliable information. Nor am I, although I could tell you that my best friend, a professional software developer sitting not 4 feet from me at this very moment, agrees with what is stated in software versioning and disagrees with your assertion that 0.x would normally denote anything other than betaware. The only way your assertion that 0.x is not betaware could be taken as reliable information is if it were true in this specific exception to the general rule, and the only way you would be able to establish that is if you had information specific to the development Cayra. Which may be a problem, as Seicer has said. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just being pedantic, but a 0.x version does not denote a beta. It generally denotes a pre-release version and as such might be an alpha. In any case, its an odd dev shop that would deviate from a well established convention on the numbering. -- Whpq (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes, clearly, but it's still at best beta. I appreciate you catching that technicality (thoroughness is always good), but of course, that only opens up possibilities that make it even less likely for the article to be kept (although it's pretty clear that Cayra is past alpha). --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is specifically NOT well sourced as of today Jan ( 2008, when it starts talking about versioning, I have worked at MANY shops and that is NOT ALWAYS the the versioning process, although it SOMETIMES is the versioning process. Not only did you get the reality wrong, you cited a bad article to boot. But you know how it is, you can't trust anything Wikipedia says. Now I know why.69.137.246.27 (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999[reply]

I would ask, once again, that you keep your comments on-topic. Disregarding your irrelevant points about Wikipedia, I'll point out that the article is not tagged as improperly sourced. The article software versioning is only tagged as requiring clean up. Please do not misrepresent such things. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. PeaceNT (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unmistakable[edit]

AfDs for this article:

"Unverifiable" is more like it. I couldn't find a single source that could verify the track listing, or anything else about this album besides its lead-off single and initial release date -- and I don't think that either of those is enough for a whole page on the album. Given Jo Dee's recent lack of hits, and given Curb's track record (still waiting on that Amy Dalley album), I would be deliciously surprised (couldn't resist) if this ever saw the light of day at all. (Update: Apparently it's been shelved.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't even find any information about the album on Curb Records own site. With no references, I'm going to have to say it's time for this article to go. I also can't help but notice that this article is the editor's one and only contribution to the encyclopedia - smells a little like COI to me. Trusilver (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Interestingly enough, for an unreleased album, has received reliable, verifiable and notable coverage as shown here [4] and here [5]. Shoessss | Chat 18:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I just don't see a reliable source that is specifically about the album in question. This says that the album was shelved, but only mentions it in passing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the additional articles shown, I believe you will find enough for a keep vote. Thanks Shoessss | Chat 18:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already have looked at all the Google News sources. Some featured unrelated use of the word "unmistakable" with no mention of the album; the rest were only passing mentions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of everyone - since this is a discussion and not a vote - you should link them, because personally I'm not seeing them TheBilly (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just for the record, these three articles are the only Google News hits that actually refer to the album itself; all of them do so only in passing. The other Google News hits simply use "unmistakable" as an adjective to describe something else in the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I meant to reply to "Shoesssss" there but I must have typed too many ":"s. I meant to ask him to link the non-trivial mentions, since I wasn't seeing them TheBilly (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The mentions referred to above are trivial mentions. They're basically "this woman works really hard. She was working on a new album and reluctantly shelved it". There are no secondary sources presented which focus on the album or give it significant attention TheBilly (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blogspot, You-tube, the artist's own web page... the only reliable sources I can find just mention the album in passing, with little or no real information. I don't see anything non-trivial. Could certainly be re-created after the album is released and reviewed by real sources. Kafziel ^Talk 21:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The track listing is unsourced and there is little to suggest this is going to ever be any more than a stub. Not enough coverage for a notable album. Most of the info is already adequately contained in her main article. --neonwhite user page talk 02:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; notability & WP:RS issues. Eusebeus (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the references found are mentions in passing in the context of a larger article about the artist. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete all. PeaceNT (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primeval: Anomaly Activity Book[edit]

None of these books (a children's activity book, a poster book, a trivia book, a funfax and a glow-in-the-dark sticker book) pass the notability criteria for books. A previous redirect to List of Primeval books and novelisations was undone by the article creator.

Primeval: Stats & Facts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Activity book (Primeval) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Primeval Funfile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Glow in the dark sticker book (Primeval)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Brad (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all for failure of WP:BK; the first book turns up no Google hits besides the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:BK and nom. I'm going to go grab all of my daughter's coloring books and make one sentence articles about them all!...erm...no. Trusilver (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:BK. It would be different if these were novelizations, but they most definitely are not. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change all to redirect, no need to delete, just go and change them.--Him and a dog 21:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of Primeval books and novelisations; these publications do not seem to satisfy WP:BK. Which is effectively a merge, as all the information is already there. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for failing Wikipedia:Notability (books). --English as tuppence 15:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fails WP:BK Mayalld (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. PeaceNT (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Situations EP[edit]

Article about an Unverifiable Music Album UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 02:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's not even proof that this EP exists. No sources, and I doubt anyone's going to try to expand it. Tim meh ^contribs 04:41, 31 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, Hut 8.5 16:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. This will probably get an article once the EP gets reviews, but for now, I can't find anything solid about it online. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. PeaceNT (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media portrayals of Indigenous Australians[edit]

Contested prod. It's natural to sympathise with the basic premise of this article but basically it's a non-neutral essay not a balanced encyclopedia article. Fails WP:OR - the author's first posting of this article states "pasting in an old term paper i wrote". Fails WP:SOAP because it's an opinion piece and lacks a detached and balanced analysis. andy (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is an essay. I would recommend, though, to push this AfD through a long time, and give the user at least a week or so (I've seen AfD's that went way longer than that) to get it into a decent article. It does appear as though the write is working to make it encyclopedic (at least that was stated in the initial edit comment), and there is the possibility of it being a satisfactory article. Considering that we have Pop culture impact articles throughout Wiki, among many other questionable pages, I think it's reasonable to allow the user a few more days of discussion here. There's no reason to rush the process and we can demonstrate our collective Good Faith by taking our time on this one. VigilancePrime (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not an essay. I suggest reading the article rather than thinking that just because the editor copied it from something xe wrote earlier it must be an essay. It's a sourced start for an encyclopedia article on the subject of medial portrayals of Indigenous Australians. AFD is not cleanup. Please read Wikipedia:Article development Uncle G (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest reading this edit summary and this edit. You have a neutrality dispute with an article that cites two books and five academic journal articles discussing the exact subject at hand. As Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs) said, you are welcome to add more content if you find sources that disagree with the ones already cited. But that is a matter of editing, not deletion. Please read and familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. We don't delete articles because they are not yet perfect. This article is not original research, since it is based upon sources that have discussed the subject — sources that have been cited by many other people, I noticed when checking them out. It is verifiable. Whether it is neutral or not is not a matter for AFD, since clearly the scope of the article is neutral. Neutrality disputes should be solved by finding sources that present the opposing point of view, if they exist, and using them to improve the article. AFD is not cleanup, and is not a big hammer that editors can substitute for actually finding sources and writing. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Speaking of big hammers, here I am.) Keep; the subject matter does indeed seem to be notable. POV does seem to be an issue here, but that's a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm the author of this article, and I think that it's possible it's not entirely balanced but should be kept nonetheless because it is notable and summarizes existing research. I wrote that I was pasting something I wrote earlier solely so others wouldn't suspect a copyvio when a finished, unformatted article was added. When adding this, I strove to delete any of my own conclusions and leave only what other sources had said. It's possible other sources I haven't read or don't cite say something different (I wrote this for a college class maybe three or four years ago so I don't remember) but as it is it's sourced and notable, and is a good start for additional research. The appropriate cleanup tags are already on the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it does read like a summary of academic research (which a google scholar search reveals seems overwhelmingingly in line with the broad tone of this article), if a little essay-like in style. Perhaps a section on how the media themselves see their portrayal would help. But style or possible POV issues aren't reasons for deletion. Mostlyharmless (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable subject back prior to settlement of Australia. Any issues with the article are for cleanup and associated tagging not deletion - Peripitus (Talk) 00:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic, it just needs improving so a larger perspective is gained rather than using the views of a small town newspaper editor to characterise mainstream media opinion. Mention of the role of the national broadcasters in turning negative perceptions around would be a big start not to mention coverage of persons such Noel Pearson and Tania Major, as well as sportspersons such as Michael Long and Anthony Mundine and artists such as Deborah Mailman. Not all coverage is positive but they don't fit into the strait-jacket this article imposes. This can be fixed, however and the article should be kept. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revise as per suggestions above--Matilda ^talk 23:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't seem problematic, is a notable topic. Agree with suggestions made by others, particularly Mattinbgn. Orderinchaos 04:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. PeaceNT (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TCS Concordia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/A-17 Broadsword heavy bomber

Articles for deletion/TCS Concordia (2nd nomination)

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: Previously considered at AFD as part of a massive multiple nomination. PROD nominator states: "Does this series of ships have any real-world notability?" I would answer this with an echoing "no". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:17, 31 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, Hut 8.5 16:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlikely secondary sources exist to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I liked the games just fine, but there is nothing about this article that asserts any sense of notability. There is a perfectly good Wing Commander wiki out there to put all of this fictional material. Trusilver (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:FICT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin close. LaMenta3 (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human (Star Trek)[edit]

This article is a just duplication of the history of the United Federation of Planets and the Star Trek Earth history article, sprinkled with OR, and should be deleted for lack of notability outside of these which already extensively cover this topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow. That was both funny and painful. Absolutely dead-on with the WP:Original Research part, and how is a Star Trek Human different from a "real" human? Anything that's Trek-specific should be in the Federation article (as the Federation is plenty human-centric within Trek). The list of tags that could be on that article is nearly unending. VigilancePrime (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Memory Alpha Doc Strange (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VigilancePrime. Any relevant info should be in the Federation article if it gets sourced. Tim meh ^contribs 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The basis of nomination seems erroneous. The United Federation of Planets is multi-species not just human and there doesn't seem to be an Earth (Star Trek) article. This article actually seems to be part of a set covering the major species of the Star Trek universe - Klingons, Romulans, etc. Given the notability of the fictional universe and its many works, it would be silly for the Humans to be removed from this coverage. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of it is OR anyway, the second half for sure, and I'm not holding my breath for references. And as notability is not inherited, every article needs to have referencing to justify notability, and this has none. Besides, the salient points are already covered in the United Federation of Planets article; humanity has war, space travel, organizations leading to UFP, is all already covered in these articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well Earth governments (Star Trek) is the article I meant, and that covers most of the human history aspect, all the "biology" stuff is unsourced and probably OR. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The biology stuff is obviously based upon particular episodes. Sorting that out is just cleanup, not a reason for deletion. If you want a stack of sources to sort through, here's 831 from Google books. Given that humanity and its place in the universe is central to the Star Trek series, it seems a perfectly reasonable basis for an article which could be readily sourced from all those books. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Come on, you know we need actual references to close the AFD, showing google searches don't really help. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Try looking at the very first hit in my search link above: Star Trek: The Human Frontier. That's a complete book on the subject. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Well, no, that's not actually a requirement. The basis for a keep is consensus that sources exist that make the topic notable. Cleanup is a valid AFD destination. --Dhartung | Talk 21:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs a lot of work but I can see a place for a article on humans in the ST universe. The second half isn't OR is it? Its all episode references.--Him and a dog 21:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources have been shown to exist, and AfD is NOT cleanup. Remove OR, tag for references and cleanup and move along. LaMenta3 (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep among the more notable species there, so worth a separate article. Probably 95% of the books on ST talk about them, most ly in some detail. DGG (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not because humans are unimportant in the Star Trek series, but because the article is synthesis (and original research). I could find many sources that mention humans is Star Trek, but I could also find many sources that mention oxygen. Does that mean that Wikipedia needs an article about oxygen in Star Trek? No. Many other articles exist to place humans in context within the Star Trek universe. Additionally, I suspect the purported sources are about "human nature", not humans. (You know, Data wanting to be "human" and so forth.) AnteaterZot (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. AFD is NOT cleanup, and statements like this from the nom lead me to believe he does not have the proper mindset at all when it comes to mass-nominating all of these articles for deletion. The typical opening argument for AFD from JS usually states the generic WP:N guideline or WP:FICT disputed guideline issues, but subsequent posts against his detractors tend to lead to him attacking the quality of the article alone and making arguments regarding WP:WAF and WP:RS guidleines, which is completely different from what the AFD was supposed to be about. A lot of these articles only need a cleanup tag, but instead AFD is clogged up with articles because despite their notability, they're 'poorly written fan pages' and just have to go. SashaNein (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one wasting time attempting to libel my efforts to eliminate non-notable articles. And as about 95% of my nominations for deletion have been accepted, I don't know what you are talking about "not having the proper mindset", as though cleaning the encyclopedia makes you a bad person. And "disputing" the fiction policy doesn't mean it will change in any substantive way, if at all, so lets not pretend it doesn't exist. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not cleanup. Please do not dismiss everyone in the last two weeks that has told you this simple truth. A few examples

[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] SashaNein (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - I am happy to report that notability, to at least a minimum extentm has been established, and that was the nominating concern. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...You could've asked for this, first. --Kiz o r 10:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? That was the problem, it had established no notability, and now it has, and I thus withdrew it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, no content worth merging. GlassCobra 17:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unas language[edit]

I am an SG-1 fan, but this fictional topic is nonnotable since even the Unas (Stargate) aren't that notable, it's completely unsourced, dictionary-like, and it basically contains nothing that I could use for a merge. The article somehow never got a ((stargateproject)) banner for its talkpage despite its 2.5 years of existance, and it was/is not included in any Stargate category (I just found this article by accident). I expect the result to be rather obvious, but I think the age of this article requires AFD rather than a PROD. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Huh? It is a dictionary and better suited to a Geocities page. I mean really, this isn't SG-Wictionary. I can see a little info that may be pulled into the species' article, but not a listing of words. I would imagine that this is one a webpage somewhere and that would make a great External Link from the other page. VigilancePrime (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Most of the "dictionary" looks like OR (not everything is translated on the show, I'm guessing most of the dictionary is guessed based on context), but the rest of the article could probably be merged into the main Unas article. --Tango (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not so much to filter out the OR, but to know what is OR so that it can be removed. There are no sources, so for all I know (and my fan knowledge doesn't help in this particular case), almost all of it is made up, and I am reluctant to transwiki and link there because there is still a significant amount of OR in there. It's better to start new (on wikia, not wikipedia) and properly source then. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would completely delete the dictionary part, as you say, it's not reliable enough to transwiki it. --Tango (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Absolutely no place for this on Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Ratman9999 (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not even sure this would belong in a Stargate-specific eneyclopedia, and certainly not a general-interest one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge non-OR content into the Unas article, and perhaps the Unas article should be merged into Goa'uld, depending on what that would do to the length. If it would make the resulting article too long, the Unas article is reasonable as a fork (though I suppose that's not the discussion here). LaMenta3 (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of un-Goa'ulded Unas would be out of place in the Goa'uld article. I think Unas should remain a separate article, there is quite a lot to say about them. --Tango (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I don't know anything about either Unas or Stargate, but based on what I read above I suppose it might be an idea to create an article Languages of Stargate or something instead of having articles about individual languages. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 00:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would sound like a good idea if it wasn't that basically everyone in the Stargate universe speaks English. :-) But I was completely into the written Stargate languages some years ago (I was the pitiful individual who accidently discovered the Ancient Alphabet after all[14]), and I can guarantee that an article like that could never establish notability as needed per WP:FICT. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stargate is an odd one when it comes to languages. While everyone speaks English, linguistics is a major topic on the show. One of the main characters (Jackson) is a skilled linguist and many plots revolve (at least partially) around him translating things. I think it would be possible to do an article on the languages in the show, however I think it would be better to have each language discussed in the article about the people that speak it. --Tango (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not voting but agree in principle that this doesn't seem to belong here in its current form—but it's cool and I don't want to see it just trashed, either. Assuming there are no copyright issues, etc.; I think this might be a good candidate for a small dictionary in Fiction Wikia. CoyneT ^talk 02:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki if possible if its listing is not a copyright violation. Collectonian (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Stargate has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Is a Yuppie Word[edit]

nominate for deletion non-notable song T-rex 16:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable song. Macy's 123 review me 17:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete non-notable. Ratman9999 (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect all to The_Onion#Reporters_and_editors. Editors may wish to Merge information to expand this section of the redirect target. BLACKKITE 14:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Anchower[edit]

The article demonstrates no notability based on reliable sourcing, and as such it is just a repetition of the content of various humorous letter written by this character found on The Onion. As such, it is just duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons mentioned above, as well as failing WP:FICTION:

as well as these two:

Delete - The second sentence started the dive of the article. Judge above's reasons are best and I echo them. Recreation, non-notable, etc. Not to mention tone and content. VigilancePrime (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not assert notability. --Charitwo ^talk 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and then redirect to The Onion#Reporters and editors. However, if this article can be reworked to show real-world notability for this character, I may reconsider, particularly given that Wikipedia has articles about most of his fellow fictional Onion columnists. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - notable columnists from The Onion, some running for 10 years. --David Shankbone 19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But do they have any real world notability? (Remember, all these are fictional columnists.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. And they were notable parts of The Onion. I see no reason to delete fictional characters when people have taken the time to create their subpages. The Onion's page would be too long with these included. There is no harm in keeping them, and they individually have a lot of fans. --David Shankbone 18:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone can scare up some sources to show that real world notability, WP:FICTION says they need to be merged back into the main article or into a single article on all the fictional writers for the paper. I haven't been able to find sources that show real world notability. If you have found such sources (rather than just assuming notability), I'd be thrilled if you would add it to the articles. (And just for the record, I do subscribe to The Onion's RSS feed and enjoy it very much.) --Fabrictramp (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: The related pages (Jean Teasdale, Jackie Harvey, etc.) were nominated more than two days after the original nomination and thus most of the recommendations submitted did not necessarily take them into account. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main Onion article (all of them). - eo (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - trivial media coverage Addhoc (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ericorbit. There is some useful information, but they are not notable by themselves. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - PeaceNT (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torrey adams[edit]

The references for this article are either self-generated or self-serving and none seem like reliable sources. The article also seems to be as much about a company as about an individual, and whatever notability attaches to the company (not much, seemingly) has been asserted on behalf of the individual, it seems. This was a contested speedy and if there is notability here, I'd like to see the AfD process sort it out. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and a lack of reliable sources discussing the subject (only a couple of trivial third party sources on Adams or his company). This is a non-notable figure helming a non-notable music production company (only two years old, very little to show for it) and the article strikes me as essentially promotional in nature.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and problems with WP:AUTO. Gaffertape (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources, a Google news search turns up one press release which is obviously not reliable -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - PeaceNT (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rokh & tokh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rokh & tokh

An unsubstantiated protologism/neologism, no reliable sources. I offered the creator some time to provide sources and he stated that he would be unable to do so (see Talk:Rokh & tokh) because of the phrase's newness. I couldn't find any English sources but perhaps there are some in another language; if so, I felt this would be a good way to get them into the article. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the article's creator explains, this is primary documentation of the undocumented. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not a primary source. It is not a free web host for people to employ to write up documentation of things that haven't been documented yet. Everything in Wikipedia must have already been properly documented outside Wikipedia first. The places for documenting the undocumented are magazine articles, papers, books, or even simply one's own web site. Uncle G (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism and even the "infamous 'rokh & tokhers'" don't seem all that infamous. Gaffertape (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "Rokh & tokh" is either a neologism or a hoax or just a variation on breach of promise in some unspecified language. Furthermore, this article has serious WP:BLP problems. In no way does it belong in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' I have removed a section of outrageous BLP violation. first one set of names added by the orig. editor, one know for vandalism edits to various articles on India. (then changed to another set of names by an IP editor.) Casts extreme doubt upon the entire article. I wouldnt object to a speedy as vandalism. DGG (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zatch Bell! chapters[edit]

Strong delete. Unencyclopedic content. Nothing to be salvaged here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To clarify: This is a list of chapters in manga, not a list of manga. Please bother to click the article before commenting, thanks TheBilly (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, like the list of episodes this is nescessary, there many articles like this: Naruto, this is an AF Quality article, Bleach, Hunter x Hunter, Reborn!, this article need to be improved, not deleted. --Mastercomputerpro9999 (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a list of manga, it's a list of chapters. TheBilly (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not dissimilar to List of Bleach chapters, which only differs because it has nifty tables and release dates. JuJube (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mastercomputer9999, although not a strong one. Given that there's a lot of manga lists on WP, I don't think this nom was thought through very well. JuJube (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't make personal attacks, thanks. AfD is a debate, not a vote, and if your goal is to keep things you like then personal attacks only weaken your comments and work against you TheBilly (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where's the "personal attack"? Because questioning how well you thought this through is not one. Manga come in chapters. Your response above seem to indicate that you didn't know this. I'm just pointing that out. JuJube (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm very annoyed. Mastercomputerpro9999, you shouldn't make your point with confusing redirects. List of Bleach chapters does exist and there's no reason not to link to it. Changing my vote to Weak Keep since the Zatch Bell article at present is not much more than a list of English chapter names. It needs to be cleaned up to match the quality of List of Bleach chapters, by someone with information on the Konjiki no Gash!! manga (the original version of Zatch Bell). That's all. JuJube (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This confirm what i said: Improved not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastercomputerpro9999 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - What the nominator said is correct, the article is unencyclopedic and there isn't anything salvagable there. BUT, the article could expand greatly, as with the other list pages given above. I think that this is a legitimate comparison per WP:OSE (and one of the lists even had more, next-level lists!) and sets the precedent for this. Someone has another related page ((inuse)) and would do well to work on this list page next. On a note, I don't see a personal attack above either, though I can see where a comment made could be taken as one. Let's all assume good faith here and not take ANYTHING too seriously. It's the internet after all... VigilancePrime (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Quasirandom (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:MOS-AM this is eactly the sort of information that should be included in a manga article, and per WP:SS exactly the sort of information that should be split off from the main article when it gets too large. The article's existence is, in fact, following guidelines. It needs major work to get it from its current unrated state to FL, but that's entirely a cleanup issue. — Quasirandom (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As an aside, the reason individual chapters of a manga are considered significant is because they are published separately in serial form in magazines, and the bound volumes you usually see (if you're not in Japan) are actually republished collections. Whether Wikipedia also should include even more publication information about the serialization (dates and issues where each chapter appears) has been argued in FLC debates. — Quasirandom (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Needs to be improved greatly, but that doesn't mean delete it. You don't need to delete articles just because they aren't up to par just yet. Work on them, and if they can't be improved at all then delete them. But as you can see from Naruto and Bleach chapter lists, they can be improved. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List of books is perfectly alright. However! The names of these articles are quite awful - 'List of Foo chapters' really makes one think that it's just about the chapters (which is as bad as having 'List of scenes in episodes of Anime Foo'), when 'List of Foo books' or 'List of Foo volumes' makes the subject matter much clearer. --Gwern (contribs) 17:43 6 January 2008 (GMT)
Very strong keep Given the history of other similar lists reaching featured list status and the strong potential of this archiving the same, there is no rational reason to delete this list as indiscriminate collection of knowledge. It does need to be reformatted and expanded. See also the outcome of the a similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YuYu Hakusho chapters. --Farix (Talk) 17:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks alright. This may be cruft for some, but it's real-world cruft, exactly what's generally encouraged when fiction is concerned. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mastercomputerpro9999's comments. Page is sourced, it just needs expansion, that's all. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian metal bands[edit]

Redundant band list - content is already covered in Category:Christian metal groups Funeral 15:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Basically a copy of the category with information already stated in other related articles. Tim meh ^contribs 18:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as a useful and sourced list. See WP:LIST for why there may be both a list and a cat. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list is very difficult to maintain, given that labelling a band "Christian metal" is highly subjective. If some clear cut criteria for inclusion were written then I would consider changing my position. Kevin (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant with the category, and serves only to be a constant battleground for addition and subtraction of links from anon editors. Chubbles (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as all of the other metal genres retain their lists, it is unfair to delete this entry. -RiverHockey (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just this list: [15] [16] [17][18] Funeral 17:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Christian_metal_groups Serves the same purpose... listing other genres by bands only produces more argument. Axcess (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Category:A covers the items in this list" is only a poor argument when the list provides information that the category doesn't. This list, even with the sprinkling of references, fails to provide any further information than the category, therefore delete.--Alf ^melmac 18:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lists and Categories can coexist quite happily togeather, so "already covered" is a moot argument. (eg, this list is in this Category). The list seems well defined in scope as Christian & metal music & Christian metal all are clearly definable. Well sourced (even though only 1 source is used... that can improove over time). Although I commend the Nominator for cleaning up all these[19] [20] [21][22] poorly defined lists. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though the article is partly sourced, has an infobox, etc., it really doesn't matter. Christian Metal is and always will be an umbrella term (eg. Extreme Metal). It is not even a playing style, for that matter. And that is precisely the reason why the article is so cluttered, and unreadable. This itself warrants its deletion. Also there is the "duplication of data" argument. Welt^anschaunng 15:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should Metal music be deleted as it falls under the Umbrella of Rock & Roll? Should Rock & Roll be deleted as it falls under the Umbrella of Music? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking for deleting Christian Metal. It would indeed be stupid to have list of metal bands. Welt^anschaunng 11:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or List of music groups for that matter. - Axcess (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Category:Lists of bands being populated by lists is a bad thing ? This would be served well by an Article of the same name, to explain the differences between the different lists. Thats what the advantage of a list is over a Category. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The List in question looks and fits perfectly well in with the rest of the lists that make up Category:Lists_of_metal_bands. It is well defined and it is no more unmaintainable than any other list on WP. Your insistence that it is redundant holds no water as a reason for deletion. As a matter of fact, as an Article, it actually has much more prose than other Articles in that category, and would technically be the least likely to be deleted. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Exit2DOS2000, that although categories may be somewhat easier to maintain, an article list can coexist together and can do a lot more than what a normal category can. Also, Weltan you yourself have been working on the list of thrash metal bands and making it more than just a list so you should understand this part of it at least. Although, I understand extreme metal and Christian metal bands are umbrella terms but being a list they would be going into a territory that is too broad. But this is for all lists, they all have the capability of becoming more than just a list, becoming a list within a list, a chronology, quick individual histories about bands that played the genre or at a time played it and their albums of that style and more possibilities. Just take that into consideration for all lists. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 05:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not against lists in general. I have voiced my support for list of black metal bands, even though it is nowhere near what list of thrash metal bands is. I understand fully the importance of lists over categories [23]. My point here is that list of christian metal bands includes bands from death metal, Unblack metal, Doom metal, Heavy metal, Progressive metal, thrash metal, Metalcore, Industrial Metal, Power Metal, etc. What is common in all those genres, except the word metal? Christian metal bands are related lyrically and nothing beyond that. And, except for the lyrics, for me, its just list of metal bands. The list is a bit unreadable too, as the genres have been placed against the band names. Maybe the expandable list feature could be applied, but still I don't think the list really needs to be. Welt^anschaunng 07:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for now. Debate raises wider issues of whether lists or categories should be used for navigation by readers. Addhoc (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - PeaceNT (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kimchi Crew[edit]

(previously contested PROD) The group does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. I can find no "buzz" anywhere about them. The sources are myspace pages, plus one more link that I can't get to work. Joyous! | Talk 15:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, utterly fails WP:MUSIC. I also added their albums and another related article to this discsussion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all not notable and unsourced. Reywas92 ^Talk 19:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the other link is Kyungki English Village, which absolutely has no connection to this article nor hiphop. User:DanceD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.131.129.142 (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted per A7 -- jj137 ^♠ 02:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Levis[edit]

I think this is a hoax. Two of the five links don't work, the others all lead to the same place and don't provide anything about "Alex Levis", and five minutes' search (which is all I think it's worth} turns up no confirming information. JohnCD (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a hoax to me. STORMTRACKER 94 15:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it's a hoax. Thundermaster^TRUC 15:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's not even internally consistent: in one paragraph it says he was born in Manhattan, in the next he was born in Paris. JohnCD (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax or not, this article does not have much of a notability assertion. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, preferably as quickly as possible. You have to wonder about the mentality of somebody willing to waste time typing in that much nonsense... --DanielRigal (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete according to IMDB those movies don't even exist.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 16:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously fake. --Charitwo ^talk 16:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else, obviously a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. TGreenburgPR (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Per above. Links are not "real" links, no IMDB. VigilancePrime (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hoax. Macy's 123 review me 17:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Fake / Don't delete - I call to Global Productions in London, and Alex Levis is really a "jet setter from NY became singer and actor". Before working for Global, he shot french series like P.J. and Luc Besson movie like "A Ton Image". I didn't know him before but he really exist. So that's not a fake. 19:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC) User:Mikaelitalia

I know that Alex Levis isn't known like Britney or Brad Pitt, but lot's of people know him, not? I made some updates, with the picture from the cd cover, and I change "born in paris" by "born in NY" (i'm not sure, please verify). It's not "Teen Choice Awards" but "Teenagers Awards". He is also a member of the rock band 4Ever. There is videos of him in Youtube. User:Mikaelitalia

Comment. This isn't helping. Being on Youtube is not notable in itself and the rest of the references are pure nonsense. Removing other people's comments and falsifying comment signatures just shows that you are not here to contribute constructively. May I suggest you go and play somewhere else? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There really is an Alex Levis! (halfway down page) see also can we please speedy this page...? VigilancePrime (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he's a respectable professor and nothing to do with the 16-year-old subject of this artcile. JohnCD (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lets suppose for just a moment that this article isn't a hoax. Even if this guy is an alleged "jet setter", he lacks the reference material to deem him notable. Several people who are insanely good researchers have already attempted to gather information on him and came up empty. I have also checked out Mikaelitalia's claim that Levis was part of "P.J." or "A Ton Image", and he's not listed in the cast or crew for either production. Trusilver (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a hoax (well, for now anyway), but still unnotable. per Trusilver. Not listed in imdb pages for works he is proclaimed to be in. Not enough reference material to be notable. I suspect person defending the keeping of this article is using Babel Fish to translate French to English and vice verse. Doc Strange (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unverifiable biography, possibly intended to promote some YouTube videos of no particular significance. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone, not? Hoaxtastic. JuJube (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. futurebird (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - PeaceNT (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian rock bands[edit]

Redundant band list, easily replaceable with Category:Christian rock groups. Funeral 15:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reduntant, already has a category. STORMTRACKER 94 15:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All duplicate information really. Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 15:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason for an article. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 15:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as a useful -- but unsourced -- list. See WP:LIST for why there may be both a list and a cat. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally redundant to the category; serves no useful purpose beyond it except as a battleground for anon edit-wars. Chubbles (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Three reasons 1. Unsourced 2. Christian Rock is not an actual playing style. 3. Unnecessary duplication of data. Welt^anschaunng 15:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant per WP:CATEGORY. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 10:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KauCom[edit]

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: This went through a PROD-dePROD cycle in February 2006 and was PROD-nominated again in January 2008 (diff between PROD-nominated versions). The recent PROD-nominator stated "A good faith effort to find references has failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources in order to comply with notability requirements. The search for references has included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from clicking these links: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Internet has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Could find no reliable sources Shoessss | Chat 14:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to verify article. STORMTRACKER 94 15:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article itself states that the software was not much used. No reliable sources given, and none could be found to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Closed. This is premature, folks. The page is still at DRV. If you find a page restored -- not recreated -- in this manner, be sure to check the page log and the page history, both of which explained the situation in this case. This page may be on AfD again soon, after the DRV, but this nomination is void, having been begun with a deeply incorrect assumption. Xoloz (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mig Greengard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article was already deleted after this previous AfD. Now the page has been recreated but I cannot find the reason for this, nor any significant improvement on the causes that made the article deleted six months ago, so I re-nominate the article for deletion. Please consult the article and the former AfD before giving your opinion. The main issue is about notability according to WP:BIO (no books on him, no coverage into reputable mainstream media). SyG (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Agree – Only articles I could find were from Chess Club and at that only a handful Shoessss | Chat 14:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Yes, consensus appeared to be merge, but is there anything really to merge? Plus, no section to put it in, no reason to mess up an article as a result. Wizardman 16:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Montana Doll[edit]

Contested prod. While I'm sure these dolls are good sellers, there's nothing notable to say about them beyond the mere fact of their existence -- which isn't really worth more than a brief mention in the main Hannah Montana article. Powers ^T 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN toy Doc Strange (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Hannah Montana. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Only logical thing to do :) Computerjoe 's talk 20:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable doll, and there is no purpose in merging; imagine how big the Hannah Montana article would become if we included every product related to the show. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tony. --Ybbor ^Talk 22:19, 30 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, Rudget. 12:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per above Shoessss | Chat 14:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge How ridiculous to relist this article for a more thorough discussion. Make a decision. Mandsford (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above STORMTRACKER 94 15:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jumping Jesus Phenomenon[edit]

Non-notable neologism with no sources, with a bit of original research as a topping. — Coren ^(talk) 20:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All right, we'll do it your way with discussion and all. Zero notability (just because the creator is notable doesn't mean this is), smacks of fancruft. Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep provided it is improved: It does get a lot of Google hits (although mostly blogs) and it is sourced back as far as RA Wilson. It is mentioned in the article on Novelty theory. Of course, it is exactly the type of specious nonsense that we kick out of Wikipedia every day with a casual "db-nonsense", but I fear that it is notable nonsense and we may be stuck with it. What we do have a right to expect is an article that explains it better, without any OR, and some better references. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per a mixture of both of your arguments. If improved with more reliable sources that are independent of the subject I'll change my mind.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per DanielRigal. Ford MF (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Part of a comedy routine. Not an actual attempt at a serious measurement of anything; something off the top of some guy's head. Individual comedy routines do not rate separate articles. Herostratus (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough to merit its own article, and all sourced content could be merged into Robert Anton Wilson's article.--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:55, 6 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. 12:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts: If we keep the article then I think the graph should go as that is sort of OR. If we delete the article then the content could be moved into Robert Anton Wilson. I still think it is a weak keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has no deadline. Articles with no consensus should be closed as such not relisted immediately. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – At best merge into the author’s page. Could find no information on Google Scholar where you would expect a book of this type to get some credit and no hits on Google News where I was hoping to get at least one or two reviews. Regarding a general search on Google plenty of hits but all blogs, Wikipedia mirror sites and such which are not creditable or verifiable by my standards. Shoessss | Chat 14:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Rudget... you can do several things. Keep. Delete. Merge. Redirect. No consensus. Don't worry about what people think about your decision. Mandsford (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Shoessss. STORMTRACKER 94 15:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Shoessss. Fails WP:N. I found nothing from a reliable source in Google, Google News, Google News Archives. Noroton (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS EJF (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable comic theory Mostlyharmless (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above. "The Jumping Jesus Phenomenon"? Daing but that would be a great name for a band... Grutness...wha? 00:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result wasKeep interested editors may merge/edit as they see fit. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biography of Pope John Paul II[edit]

This is completely unencyclopedic. Pope John Paul II should be about his biography, not a seperate article in and of itself. In fact, I have found no other "Biography of" articles here. Since Pope John Paul II's article size is getting to be a problem, we could split it into separate articles on periods of his life such as Early life of Jan Smuts. My user account (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article certainly IS encyclopedic. The subject certainly is notable and verification of the biographical details is not in question. The only discernible reason I see is that there is no other article titled as such (Biography of ...) in Wikipedia - which should not be a a reason for nomination since the Wikipedia is not paper. I hope this does not become a popularity vote as the AFD votes tend to end up parroting each other just like the seagulls from Finding Nemo - mindlessly delete, delete, delete, ad nauseum no matter if its right or wrong.... --Eqdoktor (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree delete it An article should not be titled "Biography of....", that is as you said unencyclopedic. Ohmpandya (Talk) 00:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary fork. Ford MF (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already in Pope John Paul II Doc Strange (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually not all of it. It is missing a bit, that's why I suggested splitting into sections. My user account (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename and edit: I suggest that the article be renamed as Early life of Pope John Paul II and edited appropriately as such (removing the later details already covered elsewhere). Notability is not an issue, just duplication of some details. The Wikipedia is not paper - I don't see the burning need to delete the article just because its unique within Wikipedia. --Eqdoktor (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is, actually. Pope John Paul II should be where the info goes, not a second article. Notability is an issue because the specific Biography of Pope John Paul II is not notable enough to merit its own article per se, though the info should be covered in the Pope John Paul II article. My user account (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on current format, but allow creation of an "early life" article instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Main problem is the title of this article and the existence of an alternative article. There is much good content here. The parts of this article that are good text are worth conserving should be merged into the existing Pope John Paul II. If the Pope John Paul II article is then thought to be too long, sub-articles can be spawned form it (it is quite long already although I am not sure that I personally mind long articles very much). Gaius Cornelius (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge - Far more useful at Pope John Paul II, but the article itself could be an expanded version of the main article. Kilo•T 16:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the useful information into Pope John Paul II, per above. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: There are over 1,000 published biographies of this man. I'm thinking that a separate article is not necessarily unwarranted. That being said, it doesn't seem like there is enough unique info to warrant a separate article. If it did, I would support it. For now, I agree that it should be merged. Phyesalis (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main article. Avruchtalk 03:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is what Pope John Paul II is for. The present article is an unnecessary fork. Goochelaar (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this unnecessary and improper fork. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is unencycopedic. Tavix (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. This looks to contain a surprising amount of valid content, but it rightfully belongs in Pope John Paul II. It's going to be a large job. --Lockley (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: main article of John Paul II is long enough, its good to have his Biography seperated--Drhlajos (talk) 18:02, 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. 12:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – Have to say a nicely written article. However, with that said, Wikipedia already has a “Biography” on this Pope at , you guessed it at Pope John Paul II. Since we are not limited by size, unless Wikipedia has recently placed limits on how long an article can be, I say merge. Shoessss | Chat 14:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful into Pope John Paul II; if that's considered too big it could be split somehow, but a parallel "biography of" article is not the way forward. JohnCD (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SIXTEEN people registered their opinions the first time around... and it has to be relisted for further debate? You've got to be kidding. Do you plan to do this with every article? Mandsford (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Mandsford. Relisting is not needed when so many people have submitted recommendations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pope John Paul II article. STORMTRACKER 94 15:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The editors who think that this is a fork have not looked at the article, what links to it, or its history. This is a Summary style breakout article of Pope John Paul II#Biography, and was created as such. The overall structure of the parent article didn't develop in the way that it was expected to back in 2005. Multiple sub-articles were broken out of the Pope John Paul II#Biography section, from the individual sub-sections, rather than a single one. But this is easy to fix. Simply rename the article to Early life and church career of Pope John Paul II and refocus it to be a summary-style breakout sub-article below Pope John Paul II#Early life and church career (merging those two sections), moving the content dealing with the other parts of the biography into the other biography sub-articles (Health of Pope John Paul II, 1981 Pope John Paul II assassination attempt, Funeral of Pope John Paul II, and so forth). That requires nothing more than the rename button and the edit button, which every editor with an account has. An administrator hitting a delete button is not required. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pope John Paul II, but keep all or nearly all the content of this article and, for space reasons, split off other parts of that article, leaving summaries. All the content can remain, in other words, but the forking should be done with subjects, not with biography. The reason is simple: We're not here to confuse readers. We name biography articles by the best-known name of the subject. If we do otherwise, then we just create confusion to no good purpose. The most radical forking could be Papacy of John Paul II, but the subject is best covered by continuing to fork smaller topics because the subject is so important and sources are so numerous. Uncle G's suggestion is something I could agree with, if there is precedent. If not, this will be the first of many partial biographies in Wikipedia, and I'm not sure we want that (we'd be getting deletion discussions on Early life of Roy Rogers, Early life of Margaret Thatcher, Early life of Charles Darwin ...) Better to have new articles on Cause for canonization of Pope John Paul II, Pope John Paul II's relations with other denominations (we already have an article on his relations with the Eastern Orthodox Church), Social and political stances of Pope John Paul II, List of works by Pope John Paul II, etc. etc. etc. There is, of course, a Category:Pope John Paul II. And by the way, some of these sections are enormous and could be cut back to three, even two paragraphs. Do we really need so much information in the JPII article -- now -- on his health, when we've got a whole article on that subject? Things like that can be cut down drasticly from the main article, leaving room for biography material. This should be the one article where readers can get a concise overview of the subject. Noroton (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I read through this article and have not found anything in it that isn't already sufficiently covered in its parent. Lets remember that we are writing an encyclopedia which means that as Noroton above stated - we should be providing a concise overview. If you want more information than this, there are several excellent books on the life of John Paul II. Trusilver (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Object. I strongly object to the use of AFD in a clear-cut content discussion. This doesn't seem like the most effective application of WP:SUMMARY that I've ever seen, but it's absolutely not a discussion for AFD. There's absolutely no reason to remove the revision history from this valid content. This should be speedy closed, and interested parties should resolve how to use WP:SUMMARY at talk:Pope John Paul II. --JayHenry (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krozka sharpe guitars[edit]

Non notable company. Harland1 (^t/_c) 12:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Sorry to say, just not there yet. However, I would tell the author to archive the article. I would expect to see this piece in about a year or so. . Shoessss | Chat 14:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nn company that fails WP:CORP. STORMTRACKER 94 15:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references to verify notability. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Island Troll Tribes[edit]

Non-notable player-created content for a game. Doesn't assert notability, fails WP:GAMEGUIDE. I would speedy it except I'm not sure of the category. (can db-web be used?) TheBilly (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm honestly not sure whether db-web applies, as this isn't technically web content (it's solely distributed online, but primarily through Battle.net, not through a web browser). Nevertheless, this is hardly an article so much as it is a list of statistics about the game. Out it goes. Zetawoof_(ζ) 12:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Nothing more than a game guide. Shoessss | Chat 14:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a guide. STORMTRACKER 94 15:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Ok I created this article (not finished yet) just to make sure a lot of people interesting in it can find the info, because some time ago I couldn't do it and spent some time figuring the things out. If you think it is unappropriate for the wiki encyclopedia, then you're free to delete. sir.Deon 20:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete user-created content like maps, mods, and the like are almost never notable, and I don't see anything in the article that would sugest this is some rare exception. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear notable, and Wikipedia is not a game guide. Pagra shtak 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to the WarCraft wiki. User:Krator (t c) 21:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone can copy content from Wikipedia to other sources, as long as they comply with the GFDL. The Wikimedia foundation does not have a Warcraft wiki project, so that suggestion isn't relevant to a Wikipedia deletion discussion - TheBilly^Talk 21:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete, since none of the articles contained a substantive claim to notability and all were created to advertise the subject. All have been previously speedied. All are the work of single-purpose accounts.

Chris Frangou[edit]

This article, although apparently well referenced, concerns me. The idea of a notable bass player, at 16, strikes me as improbable, though of course not impossible. I have my doubts over the provenance of the sources; they appear very specific but vague at the same time, e.g. "Hudson, 2006 p. 142." What is this? "Audio Mag" also appears dubious.

The creating author was Chris funk bass (talk · contribs), perhaps this is a autobiography. I would like to assume good faith, but it appears to me an article on a plainly non-notable subject cleverly written to avoid deletion. Mattinbgn\^talk 11:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages about groups that Chris Frangou has supposedly performed with and are also written by User:Chris funk bass. I have the same concerns with these articles as above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I should have realised something was amiss when I removed the "superband" descriptor for the John Smith Quintet. --WebHamster 12:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – All hits are Wikipedia mirror sites or MySpace type. Shoessss | Chat 14:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as non notable bands/musicians. All fail WP:MUSIC, no reliable sources are given. STORMTRACKER 94 15:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dj yours truly[edit]

Self-promotion, fails to meet critera at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Subjects claim to fame, club hit "It's Teazie" gives me zero hits at Google. Thuresson (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – MySpace does not make for notability. Shoessss | Chat 15:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, nn musician that fails WP:MUSIC. STORMTRACKER 94 15:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, no sources. --Charitwo ^talk 15:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, no sources aside from MySpace. If the song mentioned was a "club hit" it wouldn't have zero google hits. Methinks this is a self-promotion Doc Strange (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I do not believe this should be deleted it is not self promotion...it wasn't a club hit in the sense of made the radio and made him millions...however more in the sense of when played in Ybor clubs everybody came to the dance floor. Obviousley DJ Yours Truly has not made it to the big stage yet, however, he has seen some local fame. Everything in the article was taken from an Interview which will be also published in an online blog. He does not have a true website. Which is very common lately due to myspace being free. Whomattgross (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You should get yourself acquainted with WP:MUSIC and WP:NOT. If it was only one club that said song was popular at, this doesn't make it notable. You state that everything in the article was taken from somewhere else. This is called plagiarism and is a no-no on Wikipedia. He has also not made it to the "big stage" yet, which also means he's NN. No other sources but the interview, no All Music Guide and only a small handful of relevant Google hits. This means he's not notable. Doc Strange (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-Up Comment. These are some of the WP:MUSIC criteria: "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart". This artist does not. "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources". Nope. "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." Nope. "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Nope. Doc Strange (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply This is not plagiarism because I wrote it word for word in an interview with the artist. I didn't realize that the only way you could be put on wikipedia as an artist was if you were an accomplished artist. However just because you haven't made it there doesn't mean you don't have a story.

One that doesnt belong in an encyclopedia. --neonwhite user page talk 02:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Above So this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia...but the term Pull my finger does? okayWhomattgross (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment other stuff exists is not an argument for keeping something Doc Strange (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nn, probably self promotion. Would also support the deletion of Pull my finger per Whomattgross. -RiverHockey (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiSuck it's not self promotion i'm not DJ Yours Truly but i understand that you guys don't want it here...for further proof that I am not DJ Yours Truly [24] oh but i know how you guys hate myspace w/e —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whomattgross (talk • contribs) 08:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, though cleanup is certainly called for.--Kubigula (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss BG[edit]

Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty much for all of the reason listed in the tags I listed (quite a few). Among others: few sources, reads like a fansite (even saying "I like the show"), poorly written, no assertion of notability, and many other problems. I'm not sure that the article could be salvaged in its current form. I don't think the creator of the article intends to improve it since their only edits were creating the article (and that was back on July 4), i'm surprised an article this bad has gone unoticed for over 6 months. TJ Spyke 09:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I’m sorry, am I looking at the wrong Miss BG? The first hit was ABC as shown here [25] and as you can see there is extensive coverage. In addition, Google News had additional notable, creditable and verifiable sources as shown here. [26]. Come on people a little research before nominating! Shoessss | Chat 15:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe the editor who created the article 6 months ago (and then stopped editing Wikipedia) should have done it. It's not our job find notability. TJ Spyke 22:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sorry to disagree, but I believe it is the job of every responsible editor, and looking at your history I would classify you as a responsible editor, to base their expressions on whether to Keep or Delete an article on “Informed opinion” which does require some research. My earlier comments where not to disparage any individual but rather to say; “…take a minute and research an article", it may have been initiated by a new editor, who would really appreciate some help in developing the piece to “A” status rather that just deleting their work and discouraging a potential Pulitzer price writer from coming back to Wikipedia and contributing.. Lastly, Happy New Year to all. Shoessss | Chat 23:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, AfD is not cleanup. It's a verifiable TV series, that makes it notable de facto. Corvus cornix_talk 23:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I can't see that TV programmes should be considered automatically notable, but this is one shown in several different countries/languages around the world. An editor's first duty is to edit - not to delete. --Paularblaster (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seton Hall University Alma Mater[edit]

WP:NOT Song lyrics. John Nagle (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be the full lyrics of a song, or the text of a ritual or prayer. WP:NOT para. 2.9 applies. Possible copyvio. --John Nagle (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Copyright violation, which the article even provides the source of. Even if it wasn't: no sources, not claims of notability, no context of what it is, and other problems. TJ Spyke 09:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under CSD G12. Rudget. 12:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dartmouth_College_Alma_Mater is the same thing.... i dont see how you can justify deleteing ours and keeping theirs just because their ivy leauge.... is wikipedia biased now!Rankun (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because something else has an article doesn't mean this should. If you see an article that you think should be deleted, be bold and nominate it. Besides, this article still is a copyright violation IMO. TJ Spyke 22:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be a copyright violation; the content may be old enough to be out of copyright. That's why I didn't put a ((copyvio)) tag on it. But Wikipedia doesn't do lyrics; see WP:NOT. If it is out of copyright, it could be put in Wikimedia Commons. --John Nagle (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia doesn't do exclusively lyrics. They might be included alongside encyclopedic information, so long as that inclusion is not a copyright problem. Dylan (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison to Alma Mater (Dartmouth College) is not a very good one, either, because that song received national media attention in the 1970s and 1980s (notability). This song does not appear to have received similar attention. Dylan (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – To Seton Hall University until article is expanded. Shoessss | Chat 15:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge copyright violations. Corvus cornix_talk 23:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am sorry how is it copyright violation involved here, it is the Alma Mater song! I did not realize copyright was involved in these insistences. Shoessss | Chat 01:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It amy or not be copyright violation (in response to John), it depends on when it was written. It's unlikey that whoever wrote the song didn't copyright it because that would mean they would never make money off of it. It's one of the reasons articles on songs here don't include the lyrics. TJ Spyke 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable and unsupported by reliable citations. Dylan (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep and cleanup. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 01:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ransom, Jr.[edit]

User keeps placing original research material that is not sourced with verifiable references.

Cross AfD: Armistead L. Long‎, Charles S. Venable‎, Archibald C. Godwin‎, Cullen A. Battle‎, Robert D. Johnston, David G. McIntosh‎, Montgomery D. Corse, Robert Ransom, Jr., and James B. Walton‎ - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs to be cleaned up but subject is notable. I checked the other articles and the users contribution history, it's possible they are posting copyrighted material and don't know that. Awotter (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These all smell like copyvios, especially the formatting. This one is probably from Sifakis per its own citation, a 1989 book that is still under copyright for some time to come. --Dhartung | Talk 09:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since one of the other articles used different references I am not sure yet, I could find no matches in Google books and several of the articles seem to have a fair number of misspelled words, so it still could be someone just not aware of the problems with the articles or waht copyvio is. I posted a message on the users page along with an example of what a cleaned up article should look like James B. Walton and a link to Wiki Military Project. Awotter (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup, notable as Civil War general. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources Addhoc (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery D. Corse[edit]

User keeps placing original research material that is not sourced with verifiable references.

comment: nominator keeps posting invalid rationale: this is so far from being OR as to be a likely copyvio; and the source is easily verifiable: just check out a copy of Stewart Sifakis, Who Was Who in the Confederacy (1989) ISBN 0816022046. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both non-verifiable and, even if true, non-notable historical figure. --Lockley (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources Addhoc (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. They have been dead for over 100 years, so electronic sources wil be hard to come by; save for later until more print sources can be found. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge - duplicate article. Addhoc (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David G. McIntosh[edit]

User keeps placing original research material that is not sourced with verifiable references.

comment: this is so far from being OR as to be a likely copyvio; and the source is easily verifiable: just check out a copy of Stewart Sifakis, Who Was Who in the Confederacy (1989) ISBN 0816022046. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The same person exists as David Gregg McIntosh. If it hadn't been under AfD, I'd have merged the two. I've added a link to the Find-A-Grave record on the guy; his name also occurs in a dozen "xxx Order of Battle" articles. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles S. Venable[edit]

User keeps placing original research material that is not sourced with verifiable references.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: this is so far from being OR as to be a likely copyvio; and the source is easily verifiable: just check out a copy of Stewart Sifakis, Who Was Who in the Confederacy (1989) ISBN 0816022046. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added three references which show that this is not "original research". Paul August ☎ 22:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Does this add up to notability? There are certainly claims; bur do we want articles on everyone who fired at Sumter? Every member of Lee's staff? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources Addhoc (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Sufficient coverage satisfies WP:BIO, and additional citations added since the nomination indicate that it also satisfies WP:V. Any remaining copyright concerns may be taken up at WP:CP. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 05:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armistead L. Long[edit]

User keeps placing original research material that is not sourced with verifiable references.

comment: this is so far from being OR as to be a likely copyvio; and the source is easily verifiable: just check out a copy of Stewart Sifakis, Who Was Who in the Confederacy (1989) ISBN 0816022046. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep provisional on copyright concerns being met: multiple references are being added. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources Addhoc (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The subject satisfies WP:BIO, and the information provided below indicates that he also satisfies WP:V. Any remaining copyright concerns may be taken up at WP:CP. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 05:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James B. Walton[edit]

User keeps placing original research material that is not sourced with verifiable references.

Neutral, pending information about sources. This looks like it could be an okay article (perhaps). But the only reference note on it leads to nowhere. Needs some sources (and then a lot of improvement via WP:MOS). Unschool (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I updated the article as an example to the original editor, it still may have copyvio problems but I wasn't able to confirm that.Awotter (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: this is so far from being OR as to be a likely copyvio; and the source is easily verifiable: just check out a copy of Stewart Sifakis, Who Was Who in the Confederacy (1989) ISBN 0816022046. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the style of the articles is not uniform, so they are unlikely to have all been copied from the same book. DGG (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In most of these articles Sefakis is the one and only source cited. If it backs up the claims without showing copyvio then there isn't a problem; if it doesn't source, or provides evidence of plagiarism, then deletion will be necessary. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources Addhoc (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Zink[edit]

Not notable, only citations are subjects own website Legotech (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Delete. Unschool (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and in violation of WP:BLP as being unsourced. Bearian (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable and non-verifiable. --Lockley (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel Europe[edit]

Self-promotion, fails WP:CORP Jfire (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This award they "won" (according to the site they were actually an honorable mention" seems non-trivial; it brings up a lot of Google and several Google News hits. This company itself is rather hard to search for given its name, but it's been mentioned along with one of its founders a couple times in Google News stories. Agreed that the source given doesn't support the article's claim that "Fuel is widely seen to be the leading corporate education company in Europe," but it does seem to indicate some notability. Not too sure here, but when in doubt, don't delete. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be very wary of those Google News hits. Anything that says "presswire" or "PR Newswire" or similar means that it is almost certainly a press release written by the company; i.e. self-promotion and not significant third-party coverage. I can't find any third-party coverage of this company. And as you noted, they didn't win the award, they were only a "special mention". I see nothing here that passes WP:CORP, and the article was written by an employee. Jfire (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sufficient notability not suggested, low on encyclopedical value. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable company. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bays Christopher[edit]

Previously deleted as Christopher Bays?, seems to be nonnotable kickboxer. Don't think it can be PRODed. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 07:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

query was Christopher Bays speedied? I can't find the AfD... Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as repost. Christopher Bays was PRODed on Dec. 7, 2007. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't think a PRODed article qualifies as CSD:G4, it has to go throught AfD once before it can be (re)shot on sight. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, and (except for a copy of the article as a blog entry) not verifiable by a Google search. Hqb (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails Notability -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - PeaceNT (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1944 D-Day : Operation Overlord[edit]

Previously deleted via AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1944 D-Day Operation Overlord (videogame) in March 2007 per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N. I found no independent coverage from reliable sources, and game is still not even scheduled for release, so it appears to fail again on the same counts. Note that earlier versions of this incarnation of the article actually had more content; the author reduced it to its current state shortly after I removed an interwiki link xe had added to it at Battle of Normandy. Maralia (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete They could at least have the decency to write an article Rotovia (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems no more notable now than at the time of the last AfD. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure advertising and just links. Jmlk 1 7 08:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs an article to go with the links. -Legotech (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable hits in Gamespot, Neoseeker, IgN, game rankings or rotten tomatoes--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete by CSD A1 as providing "little or no context to the reader". — alex.muller (talkpage • contribs) 11:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed my vote because the article has been changed, based on what Uncle G has said below. — alex.muller (talkpage • contribs) 23:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD A1. Harland1 (^t/_c) 12:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -- no content --T-rex 16:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem! Uncle G (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, out of nine comments here, precisely three people actually read the last sentence of the nomination or bothered to look at the article history. Disturbing. Maralia (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you want to revert, there is no reason to waste any of our time here to do so, simply revert the page blanking and let us all get on with our lives. You showed us instead a page with one line and four external links, and that get speedy deleted anyday... --T-rex 03:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You !voted 'speedy delete - no content' based purely on the reduced state of the article. Extensive discussion on this page—starting, oddly enough, in my nomination—details why speedy is not appropriate, and that the issue is notability and crystal ballery. If you can't be bothered to read the full nom, look at the article history when it's been pointed out as relevant, or read any of the deletion discussion, you're wasting my time. Maralia (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per last three people. Absolutely no content aside from four links. Not even a sentence. Nothing. Only "Visit the Website" and four links to different pages on said website. Doc Strange (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I must repeat: please see the article history before jumping on the CSD A1 bandwagon. Note that I am the nominator, and I feel it should be deleted, but please make an effort to !vote based on the proper criteria. Maralia (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As it stands, the article fulfills CSD A1 - would somebody like to try and argue with the fact that it's a very short article with no context? If the article is edited (to include the original text, while keeping the AfD template) I'll more than happily change my vote. Perhaps this AfD raises something I'm unaware of - is there a reason it doesn't fulfill CSD A1, based on the history? — alex.muller (talkpage • contribs) 17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CSD policy asks administrators to check the page history to see if a previous version is salvageable rather than delete the article at the administrators discretion. ----tgheretford (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hence my cough. I am an administrator, and I certainly wouldn't speedily delete this article for having no context when there is a version in the history that has context. That's the very reason that administrators are supposed to check article histories. Without doing so, vandals could get articles deleted willy-nilly by just vandalizing them and them nominating them for speedy deletion.
      The only valid speedy deletion criterion here would be re-creation of previously discussed and deleted content. I've had a look at 1944 D-Day Operation Overlord (videogame) (AfD discussion). It's not exactly the same article as this one, but all of the arguments from the prior AFD discussion, about documenting something that has yet to be shown to the world, appear still to apply from what this article says alone.
      However, it has been almost seven months. Sources may have appeared in the meantime. All of the editors above asking for speedy deletion on invalid grounds haven't helped AFD one whit with the rationales that they gave; and if I were the administrator closing this discussion, I'd simply discount their rationales entirely. They would actually help AFD by double-checking that it is still the case, since the last AFD discussion, that no independent sources exist. Looking for sources onesself is what one is supposed to be doing at AFD, and one of the reasons that AFD involves more than 1 pair of eyes, as explained in the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.
      I applaud Lenticel and Maralia for having done this. Everyone else take note: That is what you are supposed to be doing at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reverted to the last salvageable revision and added the afd tag. Editorofthewiki (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be at least a semi-notable game. I'm sure it will garner more attention as it comes closer to the release date. Editorofthewiki (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is whether it has it already had any attention. What independent and reliable sources did you find when you looked to see whether the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability were satisfied? Notability is not subjective, and is not your personal opinion of whether something is notable or not. By not looking for sources, and not demonstrating that they exist to support an article being written, per our content and deletion policies, you are not helping AFD any more than the editors calling for speedy deletion. An argument to keep on invalid grounds is as useless to the closing administrator as an argument to delete on invalid grounds. Please base your rationales on our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching for the game's title and the developer's name (Frantic Games) produces just under 5k hits, the only half-promising ones I've seen are a short interview on a message board [27] and this, which doesn't pass notability by any stretch. The game is still under development and, apparently, has increased in complexity considerably. On top of that, viewing a thread on the game's website reveals the lead programmer stating that they do not wish to have a WP article because interested parties who go over to the game's site are given no in-game shots or footage - no footage is being released until the devs are satisfied it reflects the finished game. Until these details are made available the secondary sources we need aren't going to appear. The article doesn't pass our guidelines, the developers don't want more disappointed potential players turning up and asking for materials which haven't been produced, WP readers don't need directing to things which don't yet tangibly exist, where's the positives? When the game is released, it may result in good sources, in which case we have the article back and readers get pointed to something which might interest them and is actually there to use. Someone another (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 02:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan roberts[edit]

Article seems to be a autobiography of a nonnotable person. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 07:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Rotovia (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Notability claims" are of little substance. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would tagged it for speedy deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A page about Ethan roberts created by Ethanroberts has to go. Emeraude (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as not asserting notability, and arguably as an autobiography -- "chop masta"? Bearian (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was (Not very) Speedy delete g7, author blanked the page. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congress For Tomorrow[edit]

The same editor just deprodded this article without explanation, as well, so again, here is the nominator's rationale: NN, 6 Google Hits, Party Leader's article was just deleted in AfD) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - original deletion nominator ( User:Chabuk ) is the leader of the young liberal party which puts him in a conflict of interest to be involved in this discussion. Very politically motivated edit.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One relevant Google hit and a Bravehost website do not a notable topic make. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Group isn't notable. GJ (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - I prodded this in the first place, the leader Chris Erl, just had his page deleted last week. This article makes no claim to notability, no secondary sources, no media sources, etc, etc, etc. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 02:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - above User:Chabuk is the leader of the young liberal party which puts him in a conflict of interest to be involved in this discussion. Very politically motivated edits.

And the above unsigned comment and the vote below are by an apparent single purpose account (see: WP:SPA), to contest these deletions. Fact is User:Chabuk is a longtime editor in good standing so please assume good faith, per WP:AGF. Oh, and deleteShawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is User:Chabuk has been a subject of controversy and scandal on wikipedia which got main stream media attention for his politically motivated edits over the past two years --Politicat (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False. Fact is Chabuk was a victim, not a perpetrator, of politically motivated editing. Bearcat (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See articles Vaughan municipal election, 2006, Alan Shefman, Susan Kadis, Michael Di Biase and any article related to Thornhill and Vaughan and especially the articles of the candidates that ran against them. User:Chabuk got a front page article in the Vaughan Citizen newspaper for his politically motivated edits on wikipedia, his edits became an issue in this election that his father (who was running) and the former Mayor had to address. His father even went as far as to say publicly in the newspaper article that he does not condone his sons actions and has asked him to stop makes these edits. THATS THE FACT JACK!--Politicat (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let those of us who were actually here at the time, and actually dealing with what actually happened, decide who is and isn't biased. (Friendly hint: Chabuk wasn't the problem.) The factjack is you weren't here and don't know what happened, so can the attitude. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy and Extremely Strong Keep and Expand – I find it very amusing that the original nominator to have this article deleted is the leader of the young liberal party.--Politicat (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The New Youth Parliament of Canada is not an actual legislative body, and hence its political parties do not merit individual articles. Merge into NYPC article. And Chabuk cannot be accused of bias here unless he argues for the Liberal group to be treated differently than the others, which he hasn't done. Bearcat (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bearcat. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I said at the other page, While I'm not going to wade into this nonsense, I will say one thing. If someone had created a page on the Liberal Youth Party of Canada (the group which I lead), I can guarantee you 100% that I would have nominated it for deletion at the same time I nominated these. The fact is, all of these parties are utterly non-notable in Wiki terms. The near-consensus that has emerged here to delete or merge (with the exception of the single-purpose account) simply shows that, as before, my only interest in this matter is upholding Wikipedia policy. If you don't believe me, make a page for the LYPC - I'll have that deleted also. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 17:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy? Apparently the creator of the article has blanked the page. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Conservative Party of Canada[edit]

One of the article creators just removed the PROD without explanation. I object to this kind of behavior and so am taking it to an AfD, with the nominators rationale for a PROD as follows: NN, 6 Google Hits, Party Leader's article was just deleted in AfD Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - original deletion nominator ( User:Chabuk ) is the leader of the young liberal party which puts him in a conflict of interest to be involved in this discussion. Very politically motivated edit.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Needs massive expansion, but if correctly done, could be noteworthy Rotovia (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. The YPC deserves an article, but its parties are not notable. Of course, the Youth wing of the Conservative Party of Canada is notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reasoning as the other youth party. Three relevant Google hits this time around, and no party website given at all. FYI, though, it is acceptable for the author of an article to remove its PROD notice, although it would of course be more courteous to give a reason. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Political parties are notable, as are elected members of Govt. But sub-units of a party should only have a sub-section on the Parties Article. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is possible that the youth parliament itself is ~~not~~notable, but groups of participants are not. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC) (edited to correct - --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Group isn't notable. GJ (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - I prodded this in the first place, the leader Justin Wollin, just had his page deleted last week. This article makes no claim to notability, no secondary sources, no media sources, etc, etc, etc. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 02:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - above User:Chabuk is the leader of the young liberal party which puts him in a conflict of interest to be involved in this discussion. Very politically motivated edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Politicat (talk • contribs) 23:59, 1 April, 2006 (UTC)

And the above unsigned comment and the vote below are by an apparent single purpose account (see: WP:SPA), to contest these deletions. Fact is User:Chabuk is a longtime editor in good standing so please assume good faith, per WP:AGF Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is User:Chabuk has been a subject of controversy and scandal on wikipedia which got main stream media attention for his politically motivated edits over the past two years.--Politicat (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Do you really believe such comments help your case? ~~Delete~~. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Merge, per Bearcat. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy and Extremely Strong Keep and Expand – I find it very amusing that the original nominator to have this article deleted is the leader of the young liberal party.--Politicat (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This would only be politically motivated and biased if Chabuk were nominating this for deletion while simultaneously writing or trying to keep an article about another political party in the same body, which he hasn't done — in fact, he's voted to have numerous NYPC-Liberal articles deleted as non-notable too. And Politicat's "controversy and scandal" comment above betrays an almost total lack of understanding of what actually happened — Chabuk was a victim, not a perpetrator, of politically-motivated editing. Politicat, you are hereby advised to assume good faith, with the warning that you can be blocked if you continue to make inappropriate allegations that are irrelevant to the matter at hand. As for the group, the New Youth Parliament of Canada is not an actual legislative body, and accordingly its individual political parties are not notable enough for independent articles. Merge into the NYPC article. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I'm not going to wade into this nonsense, I will say one thing. If someone had created a page on the Liberal Youth Party of Canada (the group which I lead), I can guarantee you 100% that I would have nominated it for deletion at the same time I nominated these. The fact is, all of these parties are utterly non-notable in Wiki terms. The near-consensus that has emerged here to delete or merge (with the exception of the single-purpose account) simply shows that, as before, my only interest in this matter is upholding Wikipedia policy. If you don't believe me, make a page for the LYPC - I'll have that deleted also. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 17:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. For that matter, delete New Youth Parliament of Canada, too, for lack of notability. Argyriou (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The YCPC is an official party in the Youth Parliament of Canada. This group will become much more notable come February with the media launch of the Youth Parliament of Canada. Nick8670(talk) 23:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 6 google results, none of them reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Harary[edit]

Page is a single line from the subject's own press materials, lack of citations for notability Legotech (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's certainly information available on Google, by concern is this will be yet another article created by a fan or the subject themselves, which never ends up being expanded or including encyclopedic information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotovia (talk • contribs) 07:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You don't think the article will ever be expanded? WP:SOFIXIT. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He was on World's Greatest Magic! Not notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazylaces (talk • contribs) 15:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has had newspaper articles written about him (one by the New York Times which I've linked to) which establishes notability. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I don't necessarily think anyone featured in a New York Times article is notable, this guy seems to have a significant web presence, including reviews. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not just the New York Times that thinks he's worthy of note [28]. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kind of a borderline case. Although many of his web mentions are promotional, I'm convinced of his notability and verifiability by his patent record. --Lockley (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm willing to withdraw now that there's more there...how do I do that? THANKS to everyone that punched it up.Legotech (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cheers Legotech, and thanks to you. --Lockley (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. There may be some merit in the Facebook part of the story being mentioned alsewhere, but Ms Rengel herself was not notable. BLACKKITE 14:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanie Rengel[edit]

The only claim to notability seems to be her murder, which of itself does not satisfy notability standards. HookOnTheWall (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rengel has been the subject of non-trivial coverage from reliable published sources, as seen in the references, not to mention a Google News search. Not only was she murdered, but the online publication of her alleged killers' names in defiance of a gag order has led to a debate over the relevance of Canadian censorship laws; see Facebook phenomenon latest legal obstacle, say critics, CBC News, Friday, January 4, 2008. I am not sure what particular part of notability standards is not met; can the nominator be more specific? <eleland/talkedits> 06:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that I can't find a standard that is met. The news articles that I have seen on this case all seem to be trivial coverage, albeit from reliable published sources. Many murder victims will have numerous articles covering their murder. The Google search you included seems to include a number of articles from Canadian, and primarily local/Toronto, media organisations which is far from unusual for any murder. Simply because their has been some discussion in the media regarding Facebook and censorship laws, would not itself seem to make this individual notable enough for their own article (perhaps a note could be added to the Facebook article, instead). HookOnTheWall (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I voted to delete, I should point out it has garnered national coverage, such as this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did say above that it got national coverage. HookOnTheWall (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral None of the information mentioned above was included in the article. If it were, I would vote to keep. This article may need to be watched, if the noteworthy information is not added, it will need to be deleted as in its current form it does not meet notability. Rotovia (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete It's a sad story but it's also a clear case of WP:NOT#NEWS Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put me down as Neutral, too, per User:HisSpaceResearch|h i s. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It'sad but Delete. Not notable person. --Paukrus (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable person Lugnuts (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as Death of Stefanie Rengel. The death (not the person) has significant implications for conflict between international sites like Facebook and domestic laws. WWGB (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Whilst Wikipedia is not news, this may be significant in some way in the future. I don't object to giving this article a chance.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK let's apply a bit of logic here. From the comments we seem to have three things that could be notable:

The girl - There seems to be no indication that the girl was notable in her own right
The murder - There seems to be no indication that the murder was notable in its own right
The Facebook "controversy" - This may be notable (although it seems far too early to say), but even if it is, it should at most be a note in the Facebook article, until this potentially becomes an article in its own right (even then it should not be an article about the girl or the murder - although redirects may well be appropriate). At best it seems that we initially would have a merge of relevant information into Facebook and then a redirect. HookOnTheWall (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that this is not really an article about Rengel per se. It doesn't need to say what primary school she went to or what's the name of her dog. I titled the page Stefanie Rengel because it's the most obvious and (to me) logical title. However, I don't agree that her murder was not notable; clearly it garnered non-trivial coverage from reliable published sources. That doesn't mean that we necessarily need an article about it, or that such an article shouldn't be deleted, but "non-notable" is just flatly contradicted by the core notability guideline. The Facebook issue, again, has been the subject of significant commentary in reliable published sources. See the two sources given in the article, Facebook proves problematic for police and Gag orders in a Facebook age, for starters.
I have seen more than a few articles about murder victims on Wikipedia, many of which had little or no notability or implications for society beyond simply being tragically killed. See Taylor Behl, for example, or Naomi Almeida. Aqsa Parvez, 16, was the victim of an apparent honour killing in the same area as Rengel only a few weeks before, and has a page. A quick perusal of Category:Murder victims or a subcat such as Category:Murdered Canadian children will reveal a lot of articles like this. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but when both policy and current practice seem to be in line with keeping such articles, I don't see the reason for deletion. <eleland/talkedits> 17:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a memorial. GJ (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per User:GreenJoe; we must be consistent in these matters.Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets no notability requirements and isn't even that interesting. OneHappyHusky (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, folks, can you elaborate on these !votes? So far as I can see, there's a very large number of reliable published sources who covered this non-trivially (ie, passes the core notability guideline) and the whole point of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is that "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable". <eleland/talkedits> 23:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will elaborate - having nominated two other articles for deletion for the same reasons the majority of those voting to delete have outlined herein, it would be hypocritical and inconsistent for me to vote otherwise. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename This is the first murder of the New Year in Canada, as well as having reliable sources as given above. It should however, be moved to Death of Stefanie Rengel as per WWGB, as the events occuring after the murder, such as the releasing of the underage suspects' names (illegal under the Youth Criminal Justice Act is notable and should be recorded. --Patar knight (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is simply a news article about a murder, not an educational resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakenekrassov (talk • contribs) 03:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Jakenkrassov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per nom & comments --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lots of precedent - no articles for people notable only for their death. Will society remember this person three years from now? If yes, let's repost it then. -- Y not? 05:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The young lady was not a notable person, her death was not unusual, the Facebook incident was interesting but hardly noteworthy on a national or international scale. This could lead to an unmanageable precedent. "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee." Richard Avery (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But it clearly was noteworthy on a national scale; here's fallout from the Facebook "outing" in British Colombia, on the West coast. <eleland/talkedits> 19:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is notable because of the way Facebook waltzed right under the Canadian law prohibiting the publication of the names of young offenders. However, the article should properly be about the incident, not about Stephanie, since the victim herself isn't notable — the legal issues are what's notable here. Merge into Youth Criminal Justice Act as a subsection that's first and foremost about the implications of the case's Facebook angle vis-à-vis the act's publication ban on the names of the accused rather than about Stephanie herself. Bearcat (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You may have a point there. There has also been an incident involving teenagers, a cat, and a microwave (!?) which led to a similar "outing" on Facebook, and similar discussion. <eleland/talkedits> 19:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per Bearcat William Avery (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not close to notable. David D. (Talk) 20:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Facebook or an extension of Facebook. I may feel sorry about her death, but she is just as notable as someone who died on the streets of Chicago, which in this case, not notable, given that Chicago has a similar population as its sister city, Toronto, where she died. Facebook is a social networking website, while Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Online encyclopedias do not serve as a place of general communication, which is the main purpose of social networking websites. Please add the relevant information about her death into the articles Youth Criminal Justice Act regarding criticisms of the criminal law in Canada, and Criticism of Facebook about the problems with particular social networking sites used to bypass a country's youth justice laws. Johnny Au (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see. So because the article mentions Facebook, it's an attempt to make Wikipedia "an extension of facebook." What? <eleland/talkedits> 21:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it is more than just a passing mention. This article is an extension of Facebook, since it has a link to the Facebook group, and one of the Facebook discussions in that group have a link to this article. Johnny Au (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, the cited newspaper articles which mention the Facebook group by name, did they make their newspapers "extensions of Facebook?" You did read the article, right, and notice that the Facebook group in question is a significant factor in the notability of the person as a whole? And, uh, why not just delete the external link if it's the problem, rather than the whole article? <eleland/talkedits> 06:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - We are entering a slippery slope here. Like Wikipedia, newspapers, such as the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star are definitely not externsions of Facebook, because Facebook's content is user generated, while newspapers are written by journalists. So yes, the link should be removed. Johnny Au (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename — this isn't a biography, so it should be titled Death of Stefanie Rengel or something similar, as suggested above. The article content itself seems to meet the requirements of WP:V. *** Crotalus *** 11:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Wait... you're citing Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons?~~ my bad <eleland/talkedits> 02:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The criteria is equally relevant to dead people, because it is actually in a section under Wikipedia:Notability (people), it is just that WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E both link to the same section and Brewcrewer used the latter. HookOnTheWall (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 02:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priorism[edit]

I don't think this is notable, but in any case it seems to constitute original research. -- Menti fisto 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

^{Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using ((subst:spa|username))}

Not enough time - Please, don't nominate articles for deletion soon after they've been created unless they're patent nonsense, etc. Give them some time. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 06:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is "patent nonsense etc" (although I agree it's not an A1 candidate). I'd advise reading the content of the external links to the article... Tevildo (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The AFD process gives everyone 5 days to find sources. Please read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and familiarize yourself with the process. Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article certainly is quite interesting, and if expanded may meet Wikipedia's criteria. I'm going to vote that we leave it for now, but that this article be watched. My bet is that it may never be expanded beyond its current form. If that is the case, then this article should be marked again in the future. Rotovia (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria include, amongst others, Wikipedia:No original research. A one-man religion that the rest of the world has not acknowledged will never accord with that policy. That is exactly the sort of thing that our policy is there to keep out of Wikipedia. And a MySpace page is self-published and not fact checked, and exactly the sort of thing that our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy warns against relying upon. Please put our policies and guidelines into practice. Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough time - I agree, 10hours is not enough time to see where this Article is going. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is if one looks at the sources, as other editors have actually done, and sees that this is, if one relies upon unreliable sources and takes them at face value, a one-person religion, that only that one person has ever documented, on self-published web pages. One can see where articles are going by looking at the sources they will be based upon. If there are no reliable sources to be had, then clearly they aren't going anywhere. This is one of the fundamentals of our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Please put it into practice. Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy A7~~. No assertion of notability, probable hoax. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and I just HangOn'd that CSD while this AFD is in progress. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I must respectfully disagree with you on that point - this is _one_ guy (I'd say "teenager", but he claims to be 23) who has put up a joke MySpace page to insult his local church; a less appropriate candidate for a Wikipedia article is difficult to imagine. But, if we have to go through the full rigmarole of AfD to eliminate the entry, we have to. Strongest Possible Delete. Tevildo (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure. I just feel that once AFD started the process should be left to finish. Also, I'm not sure this guy is alone, at that location mabey, but possibly this guy gave him the viewpoint to start with. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. There are genuine philsophical concepts by this name, see below. They have nothing whatsoever to do with this one person in Ashford, Kent creating a joke MySpace page. Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is partly why I wanted to not have this Article CSD'd but explored instead. There is a Article in here somewhere. It it worth a re-write? Someone going so far as to purchase a Domain Name in pursuit of a hoax against a real church will not be put off WP by a simple CSD. I hate to have to see a salting of an Article name that we know is just going to keep comming back if the space isn't filled in or redirected. It may be a hoax, it may fail WP:V as the article currently stands. (My hope is that it gets rewritten by a true theologian.) Im not saying that it passes either standard, nor have I made any !Vote. On the other hand, if we all were to Assume Good Faith of the editor, is 10hours enough time for a new article to provide everything required to satisfy everyone? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This whiffs of hoax. The term "Priorism" does not appear in this provided linke: 1. It doesn't seem to appear in this one, either, but the pictures that do appear are instructive. On the MySpace account linked, the term is used as follows, in "Rev Paul's Blurbs": "I am one of Ashfords Resident Baptists. There are not many of us left in Ashford, so I really would like to meet other Baptist's from around the world. I can be very forward, and I am not shy about speaking my mind. I am seen as a radical in my local Church, but we all prey to the same "being" at the end of the day. I founded the Church of Priorism in June 2000. If your anti my religion your on the wrong page. Only leave a comment IF your going to be nice.. cos what goes around comes around...Don't make me baptist you...." Paul adds, "I'll do more then Baptise your Ass, I'll sign you up to a week's course!!" Even if it's not a hoax, "Rev Paul" himself suggests the church may not be notable "There are not many of us left in Ashford." Respectfully, Exit2DOS2000, the fact that somebody else uses the term in what seems a very different text doesn't make this group notable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. For those who don't get it, the Saturn finger is the middle finger and so the so-called "Sign of the Baptist" is actually the bird. --Hnsampat (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for sources, and came up empty-handed. This is a one-person religion, that only that one person has ever documented, on a self-published web pages— assuming that it is even that. As others have noted, the web page appears to be a joke, which its creator, as Ashfordbaptistpaul (talk · contribs) clearly is, is abusing Wikipedia in order to propagate. Editors who think that we should keep this should take a refresher course in our Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies. We don't accept this person's joke claim on a MySpace page to be a founder of a religion any more than we accept the 350-odd claims of people who claim on their MySpace pages to be God King. Our goal is to create an accurate encyclopaedia, not to create a mish-mash amalgamation of whatever people decide to write about themselves on the World Wide Web, or indeed what they decide to write about themselves directly in Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Autobiography). This claimed religion has not been peer reviewed, fact checked, published, and accepted into the general corpus of human knowledge. It is unverifiable and original research, created by an editor with a conflict of interest. Delete.
Ironically, the search for sources turns up a priorism, a concept in philosophy which we don't have an article on. We should be ashamed of even considering giving a joke religion "more time" before putting it up for deletion when genuine encyclopaedic topics with this name have yet to be covered. Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NO DELETE After reading the comments above I first decided this was a joke, BUT after taking the time to read though the external links mainly this one I beleive that this is real, their following my not be huge but this does not make it untrue. They seem to have a light hearted look on life and seem not to make everything hell and brimstone from of the comments on the site. As for there sign looking like the bird in my opinion this is far from the truth. If you take the time to read the infomation you can see how the sign has changed over the years. NO DELETE moleunc (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— moleunc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please, Delete this nonsense. Just a way to let people give you the finger and try to claim it's a religious symbol. Corvus cornix_talk 23:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mostl;y a copyvio of [29] DGG (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not DeleteBeing a meber of this church it is greatly dissapointing to see how many of you disbelieve us and our faith. The baptist is a great man and we truly have faith in our work.--Flameingskull (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC) — Flameingskull (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as hoax. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment Not sure it will turn out to be notable enough to be kept, lack of second party sources etc. However this should not have been nominated this early according to proper procedure. --neonwhite user page talk 02:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind wikilinking? I don't remember having read that. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. There is no such procedure. Corvus cornix_talk 02:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as apparently a hoax. If it can be proven to be real, instead merge to something such as Seventh Day Baptist, a form of which this appears to be. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when do Seventh Day Adventists give other people the finger to show their religion? Corvus cornix_talk 04:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to assert article's notability - I can't even find a solitary news article discussing this alleged religion. To be honest, I don't know if there's enough reliably sourced information to justify merging. Sidatio (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as full of lies. DS (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ferns STD[edit]

Hoaxy. "Pteris Nodulosa groinus" gets 0 GHits, not to mention that hosing yourself down with herbicide seems like a bad idea. Source links are unrelated. sho y 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is as to whether this is a hoax article. Whether or not it is deleted, it needs to be marked for sources Rotovia (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources are unreleated! Firsts source: An AIDs advocate, second source: a lawn fertilizer company Third source: A biodiversity company VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 06:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly Speedy under G3; if it were legitimate (i.e., not a hoax), I'd imagine there would be no sources rather than a link leading to solutions regarding lawn/garden issues. Article is also creator's only edit, and account made 35 minutes prior to creation. Aeternitas827 (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a hoax 124.170.178.251 (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oblviously a hoax.ratman9999 (talk) 03:49, 7 january 2008
Delete as hoax. Pteris nodulosa is real but this disease is not. Both Ferns STD and Pteris Nodulosa groinus got 0 hits in Pubmed and Google Scholar. (Gut feeling says it is a hoax but I made the searches anyway.) --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kill the weed - sorry :P couldnt help it. (Delete as hoax) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else's reasons. A probable hoax. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. clearly a hoax. Tim Ross·^talk 14:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete as hoax per everyone above. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And WP:SNOW. Malinaccier (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete as a hoax. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

obviously not a hoax. The Ferns plagues the people of the upper north west of our country. please do not abuse your deletion privileges.

The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orgrimmar[edit]

Contested PROD, so here we are. Many past deletion discussions (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warcraft locations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of major cities in World of Warcraft, and probably some others I can't find) have found World of Warcraft locations insufficiently notable to merit articles. sho y 05:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as put in one of the previous discussions, "Per WP:N, it does not have any significance outside of World of Warcraft and its players." Could not put it better myself. Lankiveil (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. No coverage of this subject by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 06:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete game cruft Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real-world notability. Pagra shtak 16:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are over a million Google hits for this term; I'll start browsing through them to see if any represent reliable sources on the topic. JavaTenor (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article on the artistic style from GameSpy.
Building an MMO with Mass Appeal, academic paper from PARC.

Merge into Warcraft (series). User:Krator (t c) 21:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, this article and the location it describes has no real world notability, but as mentioned above in other topic deletion discussions, such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_major_cities_in_World_of_Warcraft, other fictional places have pages on Wikipedia, such as List_of_Star_Wars_systems Johnl1479 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warcraft (series) or remove the links, or change the links that point here to point to wowwiki, using [[wowwiki:Orgrimmar]]. --Izno (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Warcraft (series). Fangz of Blood 15:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 02:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ogaden absame[edit]

Appears to be a list of something... but is both unsourced and has very low contextual material. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 04:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Is this Arabic? No apparent sources on google, looks like gibberish. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 04:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at prior versions of Ogaadeen Absame, created by the same editor that created this. All should become clear. Uncle G (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm... Well, if the "Ogaden Absame" are really an ethnic group, then it is indeed notable... but what do do with the current text? SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 05:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What was done before is the simplest. Uncle G (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply not enough context to figure out what this is all about. Almost a speedy A1. Lankiveil (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, an indiscriminate list, without context, in a foreign language. JIP | Talk 08:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also, portions found here and all over the place. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. No clue what this even is. Malinaccier (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Reason: ugaa bugaa bugaa (I don't have any clue either :-). Dekisugi (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Secret ^account 00:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Klein's 21st November 2007 Time magazine column[edit]

This article does not meet WP:NOTE; it is little more than a collection of columns responding to the column that is the subject of the "article" Unschool (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "blogosphere" blowback, by the looks of it. There are a lot of things wrong with the article, but when it comes down to it, the column simply isn't notable. Make a mention of it on Joe Klein if absolutely necessary. Lankiveil (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 06:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Time is a major magazine. All of its articles will receive close scrutiny and this one is no different. Article violates WP:N, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Joe Klein. While most of the article is a rambling brain dump of the issue at hand, there doesn't seem to be an actual article anywhere within all of the information provided. A very limited subsection of the contents here should be merged to the author article and addressed there in a more coherent fashion. Alansohn (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can I boil all of it down to a sentence or two? Because that's all that the folks there will allow because of disproportionate weight issues. --NBahn (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can mention his article, summarize what he said, and mention the overall response, with a possible summary of what the common reaction was. Blogs are not reliable sources - WP:SPS - so please don't cite those. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought - WP:NOT#OR - and politicized debates are not welcome, constructive, or even interesting to editors trying to write good encyclopedia articles. The article at present is largely original research - WP:OR - because you've provided your own analysis by stringing blogosphere comments together. This "new synthesis of existing information" is not allowed. Wikipedia does not provide new interpretations of events, we regurgitate existing information (from reputable sources) into an article in the manner of an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, or magazine, or blog, or personal webpage, or essay. Most of the content does not belong whatsoever, in any form. For example, "memorable quotes"? The whole section should be deleted entirely. Humorous responses? Definitely gone. "Analysis"? Without even reading it, it's obvious the whole section probably needs to go (again, original research. we don't provide our own analysis). A few snippets from the "analysis from the mainstream media" could probably be salvaged, but not in the form of a mere collection of opinions TheBilly (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article, it's a collection of links, which we are emphatically not. This is like a technorati search so that someone has a handy reference page for all the big or semi-big bloggers who have at one time made a comment on the topic. It's definitely WP:NPOV#Undue weight for a subject which can be adequately covered in about a paragraph. Even if it's the worst boner Klein ever committed to public view, it's not deserving an article of its own. --Dhartung | Talk 09:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nbahn as per comments on the talk page of Joe Klein I greatly admire your effort on this but the level of detail here is both not suitable and not notable enough for an encyclopedia. The few sentances on the Joe Klien article are enough to learn about the controversy. This article belongs in a political blog and although you have referenced it, it is mainly a list of links to different blogs. I am sorry but delete. Perhaps if you can get this to a few neat paragraphs of prose, with correct reference styling - see WP:References then maybe you might be able to swing me. But for now this article shouldnt be on WP. Sorry. LordHarris 10:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge after significant pruning and cleanup. This has multiple substanital issues - It's almost all original research, it cites blogs, it's blatantly non-neutral (phrasings like "this train-wreck of a paragraph"), but then again this was a controversial article one of the oldest and most respected magazines, so it's certainly worth mentioning that it happened and that there was a media response to it. That should be done in a very small section in the article about Joe Klein TheBilly (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lankiveil-- I like the way you so blithely dismiss the fact that between 4 and 20 million people now -- thanks to Klein and his editors -- believe that Democrats are "terrorist-coddling national security losers." Shouldn't such prominently placed inaccuracies/misstatements like these be described as such? But never mind that, you must be very busy -- so busy that you can't even be bothered to identify the "lot of things [that are] wrong with the article...." I do recall asking for input on the article; I guess that I should have been more specific and asked for constructive criticism.
User:Unschool--About the piece being "little more than a collection of columns...": If it wasn't structured like that, then you would be accusing me of engaging in original research.
So please allow me to repeat -- but rephrase -- my request: I would greatly appreciate it if someone would be kind enough to precisely show what needs improvement. Potshots from the peanut gallery are neither welcome nor desired.
--NBahn (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are claiming that every one of Time's readers agree with him (because in bold print the article says this is how many people read the magazine)? TJ Spyke 07:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - How will they know that the principle paragraph in Klein's column is not just false but flagrantly false? (Or, put another way, how many of them will see on the internet the sources that I cited?) --NBahn (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia isn't the place for saying if someone is lying or telling the truth. TJ Spyke 07:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment. Since this is a US based topic (and the original column appeared in the main US-based Time Magazine), the article title should use US date format(i.e. it should be Joe Klein's November 21, 2007 Time magazine column) and the internal dates should also use US dating. None of this will matter though if the article gets deleted. TJ Spyke 07:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So wikipedia does not sort fact from fiction? I must have missed that particular memo. I don't suppose that you would be kind enough to provide a source for that now, would you? --NBahn (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nbahn, to the best of my knowledge, you and I have never met up on any issue in the past. Accordingly, I find it somewhat presumptuous of you to tell me how I would react to a situation that I never had to confront. Even I don't know for sure how I would act in the situation you describe.
Having said that, what constructive criticism can I offer? Frankly, I have some serious issues with the layout. Unless an article is actually a "list", and titled as such, then it should be compiled in a prose format. An article written appropriately is something that I can read to someone else, and they will be able to follow the article's flow. But this article has no flow, because it does not have one sentence which follows another. It's just not stylistically correct.
But that really is a moot point, and one that I shouldn't belabor, because, most importantly, I think that the article fails to meet the standards of notability. Even if you wrote this in the most flowing prose, I'd still've probably nominated it for deletion. Klein is a columnist. His job is to provoke thought and even controversy within the political dialogue in America. And other columnists often respond to and rebut their fellow columnists' articles. I started regularly reading political columns over thirty years ago, and this just seems perfectly ordinary to me, Nbahn. I just don't see any notability.
I admire the huge amount of work you put into this. I know that it hurts to have others denigrate your efforts. But don't mistake that for denigrating you. Anyone willing to put that much work into an attempt at an article will surely have good things to bring to this encyclopedia. With more time and experience, you'll someday probably look back at this discussion and better understand what is being said here. Good luck. Unschool (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And Nbahn, I also realize that I may sound a bit patronizing. I don't mean to be. It's just that I realize that I'm still relatively inexperienced as a Wikipedian, with only a little over 5000 edits, compared to many of these people that have tens of thousands of edits. I'm still learning. And you—you have less than 100 main space edits. You still have a lot to pick up; I hope that that fact makes you eager to learn, not angry and resentful. Unschool (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So if I understand you correctly -- and I'm far from certain that I do -- then what you're saying is that it's perfectly acceptable for a noted columnist at one of the country's most infuential news magazines to promote flagrant falsehoods &/or lie through his teeth. I thought that yellow journalism was supposed to have died out generations ago. The truth is supposed to be identified as the truth, and a lie is supposed to be identified as a lie. Has political discourse in this country so deteriorated that journalists are expected to lie based upon their respective publication's political leanings? That is as vile as it is corrupt. --NBahn (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I'm not saying that at all. However I must say that this encyclopedia is not the place to hash out such a partisan issue. One of the core principles of Wikipedia is to maintain a Neutral Point of View. And you don't really want a "neutral" article, do you? You're upset about this. Hard to write neutrally in such a state. Unschool (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nbahn, Please calm down, and please do not use tortured logic. The fact that an article on a topic is not notable for Wikipedia has nothing to do with whether it's "acceptable" in society at large. You are trying to shame us into becoming a fact-checking service, but that's not what an encyclopedia does (Media Matters and Think Progress perform that function). If you have a beef with TIME, I suggest that you contact the editorial staff there. This has nothing to do with our policies. --Dhartung | Talk 22:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All this boils down to is "a columnist wrote a column the premise of which was incorrect". That happens all the time and so is inherently non-notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- article has zero claim of notablity, maybe mention a line or two elsewhere but that is all --T-rex 00:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mention elsewhere, but not in its own separate article. Fails notability. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork of Joe Klein. --Samiharris (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lankiveil and others, above. Would the article have been notable if it were not written in TIME or by Joe Klein? Would it have received the same scrutiny? I submit that, since notability is not inherited, that the column itself is not notable. However, the fact that TIME published the column, or the fact that Klein wrote it, may be worth a mention in one of those articles, provided that independent, reliable sources are provided to discuss the article. We cannot judge truth or fabrication in the article itself, because that is synthesis and Original Research, which is not permitted. We can note that Klein was criticised due to the article, and note the source and nature of the criticism, but we must then also note that other media sources defended Klein, saying thus and so. We must have balanced coverage, or no coverage at all. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly Merge per theBilly and others, above. It's good work, but belongs somewhere other than Wikipedia. Petershank (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to A1 (band) without prejudice to recreation as stand-alone if independent reliable sources claiming notability can be uncovered. BLACKKITE 14:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Marazzi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: This was found PROD-nominated despite a prior trip to AFD; see diff between version at time of AFD closure and PROD nomination. PROD nominator stated "Not notable enough on his own to have his own page. Possibly merge to A1 (band)". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per the same logic as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Read (singer) (2nd nomination). — Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to back up anything in the article, so it fails WP:V. How the hell did this survive an AFD when it's poorly written and has no sources? TJ Spyke 06:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a member of an award winning, chart topping popular music band, it passes my notbility bar (and verification is not, in and of itself, a reason for deletion). The nominator recognises a possible merge (which is an editorial decision) which would keep data, therefore Keep for improvement.--Alf ^melmac 08:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A1 (band). Individual members of a band are not inherently notable; a search for sources on Paul Marazzi proper turned up virtually nothing. Any verifiable info can easily be merged into the article on A1. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete Winning awards and being a member of a pop group with no other notability on his own is not a reason for inclusion. Dr Tobias Funke (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A1 (band) according to TenPoundHammer's reasoning. --Lockley (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to A1 (band) without prejudice to recreating as a stand-alone article if suitable sources confirming notability can be uncovered. BLACKKITE 14:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Read (singer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Paul Marazzi

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: Found PROD-nominated despite prior trip to AFD; consider diff between AFD-closed and PROD-nominated versions. PROD nominator stated "Not notable enough on his own to have his own page. Possibly merge to A1 (band)." I would tend to agree with the merger proposal, but that is an editorial decision that didn't require PROD-nom, unfortunately. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just like the last AfD (nominated by the user who prod'd here), specifically Nenyedi's argument. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, so it fails WP:V (making me wonder how the heck it survived a previous AFD). TJ Spyke 06:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a member of an award winning, chart topping popular music band, it passes my notbility bar, verification is not, in and of itself, a reason for deletion. The nominator recognises a possible merge (which is an editorial decision) which would keep data, therefore Keep for improvement.--Alf ^melmac 08:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A1 (band); individual members of a band are not inherently notable. Although this page does assert individual notability (co-writing songs for other artists), I can't verify that he's done so. (The promotional tone is also very inappropriate.) What little verifiable info there is on him can be merged to the main A-1 article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete Winning awards and being a member of a pop group with no other notability on his own is not a reason for inclusion. Dr Tobias Funke (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - trivial media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Result was Speedy Delete - G4. --Michael Greiner 05:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shmorhun[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable wrestler. Googling yields 272 hits, of which the top hit is the Wiki article. Article seems vaguely like a hoax; also fails WP:RS and WP:N. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I didn't realize there was already an AfD out for this. I've tagged the page with CSD. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heat aggravation[edit]

Seems to be an WP:OR essay. While thorough, interesting, and referenced, Wikipedia is not the place for original research like this. Lankiveil (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes the tone is of an essay, I do not think any of this text would be very useful for an encyclopedia article. Also it feels like a copyvio. --W.marsh 04:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Essay with some OR/synthesis of published material, but could potentially be a valid encyclopedia topic. Maybe. I'm netural on this one.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The issue could be solved with a little editing. I imagine there would be sufficient research into this area to expect this article could be made more encyclopedic Rotovia (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. While there might be a reasonable topic lurking somewhere here, I'm unsure that the current article - which presents the Ayurvedic medicinal view of the phenomenon of "heat aggravation" - is a particularly useful approach. Beyond that, there isn't a lot here beyond a collection of loosely related observations. Zetawoof_(ζ) 12:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research by synthesis. Also, written in an unencyclopedic essay-like way; even if the topic can be sourced properly in such a way as to deserve an article, I don't think there's much worth saving here. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 02:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noobiecon[edit]

Non-notable convention. Reads like an advertisement, cites no resources and does not assert notability. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any reliable sources.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable anime convention. Lankiveil (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, just a list of convention features with no claim of notability. JIP | Talk 08:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable at all. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 21:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Thus fells WP:ORG. All Google hits are to blogs and forums. --Farix (Talk) 21:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep --JForget 02:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmin Tamil[edit]

Deserves discussion [Moved from PROD] - appearance at wikibooks is not sufficient reason for Prod deletion Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there's a wikibook with the same content. However, I think that the subject here meets WP:V, WP:N, and other criteria, and with a few alterations will form a decent article on the subject. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep no reason for deletion. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 03:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, Nominator has stated reasons for keeping, not deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- cough Uncle G (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops. So does that mean that we close this? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see no valid rationale for deletion. The article needs work, so keep for improvement.--Alf ^melmac 09:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless someone wants to make an actual argument for deletion beyond "copy of Wikibooks" (which is GFDL). If there is an issue with attribution I understand there is a technical fix. --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is no valid reason for the deletion of this page. This page talks about a particular dialect of spoken Tamil. Perhaps there could be more work and referencing of sources to back up the article. Wiki Raja (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article obviously needs work, but does not need to be deleted — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep the redirect, current title is a sufficiently notable subject, redirect is a possible searchterm for it. Fram (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chipnet[edit]

Orphaned Article, no sources and can't be found online Cahk (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [30] [31][32][33] didn't look very hard. The article is not exactly good quality though and probably isnt notable though i cannot comment on how prevalent this is in Holland. --neonwhite user page talk 04:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article claimed the card to be used in The Netherlands, however, 3/4 of your sources indicated this is a UK-based company. In fact, Infineer, based on its claim on the site, is a US-based company. That's the reason why I say 'it can't be found online'.--Cahk (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how it matters what nationality the company that makes the chips is. --neonwhite user page talk 02:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The sources provided by Neonwhite all appear to suggest that Chipnet is a system used within organizations (particularly on school campuses) as a local cash replacement (i.e, for school meals), not something that would be used by the public at large. I have no idea where the description in the article came from, but it appears to be rather seriously erroneous. (The description of PIN as an "online point-of-sale payment system [...] which transfers payments in real-time" is rather odd, too. Chip and PIN is a closer match, but it only exists in the UK.) There might be some virtue in completely rewriting this article to reflect the reality (that Chipnet is a brand of corporate smartcard system), though. Zetawoof_(ζ) 13:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, given the correct name (Chipknip) and some added sources. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chipnet is included with every Dutch-issued bank pass (the card used to withdraw cash from ATMs). It is therefore in widespread use. Loading stations are located next to many ATMs. It is used for payment in office canteens, public buses, for car parking, and in many shops. As an foreigner living in the Netherlands for the past six years, I can easily understand why it is regarded as the world's leading electronic cash deployment. This article is weak but as useful placeholder until it is improved. Tim Richardson (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Holland and use my Chipknip every day. Chipnet, however, I've never heard of. Dutch Wikipedia has this article on the chipknip. I think this discussion is about two separate and largely unrelated things, chipknip and chipnet. Wammes Waggle (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again.. the reason I put the delete template on is because no sources point it towards being a Netherlands system. Yes, I realize you can find system (maybe the same name) online but they all point to the system being used in UK or US which doesn't fit into the article's description. So either the system exist but no financial institution advertise it or the article simply have all the 'facts' wrong.

Tim, you say the system is used everywhere in Netherlands, could you find articles to back it up? --Cahk (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Believe me, everybody uses this Chipknip here in the Netherlands... Ask any Dutch Wikipedian in ase of any doubts (you might want to try our village pump?) I guess most sources are in Dutch, so that may explain why they're a bit hard to locate... If it's necessary I'll try a Google search in Dutch! The Chipnet is something I've nevr heard of, though, so it may just be that redirect that needs to be deleted... Erik1980 (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just fo clarify, the re-direct was put on by Tim after he left the comment here.--Cahk (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... Here's a newspaper article in Dutch (just happened to appear today), but at least it has the names in it so you know it actually exists: nu.nl. The company responsible for all PIN and Chipknip payment is called Currence, you may want to include that in your Google queries? - f translation is required, do ask! Erik1980 (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chipknip [34], i believe, is a smartcards made by the Dutch company Xafax it uses the chipnet3 platform by infineer. We know what it is, what we need now is some source on it's use in the Netherlands. --neonwhite user page talk 02:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added two references, the second of which graphs the growth in transactions over 8 years. Chipknip was used 165m times in 2006: considering the population of the Netherlands is around 16m people, it is a significant electronic cash implementation. Tim Richardson (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 02:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. Crutchfield III[edit]

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: Article was nominated for PROD-deletion and declined in September 2007, the PROD-nominated again (diff between PROD-nominated versions). The most recent PROD nominator did not provide a reason; the prior PROD nominator stated "Notability not proven. Being the first "board certified clinical dermatologist in Minnesota" is not sufficient grounds for notability. Article appears to be promotional in nature." I think this person is borderline notable; his notability derives from being a talented and articulate doctor ~~practicing rural medicine -~~ which is relatively rare in and of itself. My feeling is that if he were working in someplace like New York or London, he would blend into the crowd of dermatologists. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: I was unfair in my characterization and have struck the offending passage - sorry. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ due primarily to his numerous well-cited publications, but the article needs more independent sources. I was almost swayed by the Mayo Clinic Karis award but it seems to be open only to those practicing somewhere on the Mayo campus. The thing is, though, Mayo is a national, even international center of medicine, and I think "rural" is an odd thing to say about Minneapolis. The other awards are also local/promotional in nature. The article is written in punchy PR style which needs fixing. --Dhartung | Talk 04:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think "numerous well-cited publications" is being a bit generous, his ISI WoS h-index is a modest 6. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine. I don't have access to that, so was going by Google Scholar. --Dhartung | Talk 09:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's definitely not a fair assessment to classify the Mayo clinic as 'rural medicine.' World leaders go there on a fairly regular basis for treatment. Anyway, the notability seems to be there, though I agree with Dhartung that the article could use some clean-up.matt91486 (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Alright, I looked over it again, and it probably should be deleted. I allowed myself to get caught up in the semantics of metropolitan areas which should have nothing to do with whether or not this article should be kept. Upon closer review, he doesn't really meet notability. My bad. matt91486 (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the editor who first PRODded this article, I still think it should be deleted. The notability is borderline, but the main problem lie in the fact that apparently Crutchfield, someone connected to him or both, made substantial edit to this article, and it does not represent a neutral point of view. Moreover, it seems to be overly promotional, and some of its facts are in dispute. This guy seems to be a big self-promoter, and I fear he is using WP to that end. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is solely promotional, the guy is not notable and bias is evident. This is well outside of Wiki's standards Rotovia (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't think he passes WP:PROF, this whole article seems to exist as a promotional vehicle for www.crutchfielddermatology.com Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real notability, article seems to exist for self-promotional purposes only. --Crusio (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know this guy and he has sent this out by e-mail to everyone, stating that Wiki chose him and put him on here. Everything he does is for business reasons, and he is a marketing genius, whom happens to be a doctor. As a patient of his I find this to be just another attempt at gaining popularity. I would also state his practice is in RURAL MN Eagan is not Minneapolis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollabackgurl29 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article doesn't actually say where his practice is located. If it is in Eagan, Minnesota, that is a city of 60,000 people that is within the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area, an urbanization of some 3 million people. --Dhartung | Talk 22:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Eagan is rural compared to Minneapolis, I live here, I think I should know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollabackgurl29 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eagan cannot be considered rural by any logical definition. It's a suburban area inside the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. matt91486 (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eagan is rural by many "logical" definitions. Yes it is a suburb, but anywhere there are wide open spaces and cows roaming is rural to me. Wiki says rural areas are settled places outside towns and cities. If you practice in Eagan that is NOT Minneapolis! JMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollabackgurl29 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether or not Eagan is rural is completely immaterial to this discussion.... --Crusio (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Being a good physician is beneficial to society but not inherently notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article about a person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 84
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] UFC 84[edit] UPDATE: User has since blanked the page, apparently noticing his mistake. I've therefore tagged the main page as a candidate for speedy deletion. Gromlakh (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] UFC 84 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_83 page, same reasons, purely speculative, nothing confirmed about the event. Gromlakh (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete No information at all for a UFC 84 (all the info in the article is actually for UFC 83). TJ Spyke 03:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Suggest salting all the UFC # up to about 100 or so until such time as there is demonstrably reliable sourcing for them as these crystal ball articles routinely get generated for every event. Otto4711 (talk) 14:52, 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 02:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Expedia, Inc.[edit] Expedia, Inc. (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) adds no new information; most information in this article is already in Expedia. They are basically the same thing; does not need a new article. If needed, a new category can be added to Expedia Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep We have separate articles for Google and Google search, The Coca-Cola Company and Coca-Cola, and for many other similarly named pairs of company and major product. It is difficult to write a combined article that does not confuse the two (how do you combine the infoboxes, for instance?). The article needs to be expanded, certainly, and I will keep doing so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep separate - as per above. SeanMD80^{talk \| contribs} 03:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Borderline case, but keep as it does own several properties other than Expedia itself. If it were just the owner of the website that would be different. --Dhartung \| Talk 04:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep Per others. Two different things. If anything, Expedia should be merged into the other article, not vice versa. Rray (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep Parent is notable separate and apart from the service it offers. Alansohn (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'm a Keep now that the article has been expanded upon and is no longer just one or two sentences. Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep, article asserts notability outside the scope of Expedia proper. Still needs some TLC, but that's no reason to delete. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep agree with all above Doc Strange (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep per above. *— BQZip01* — ^talk 05:00, 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) 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Steven Haberman[edit] Steven Haberman (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Contested prod. AFAICT, The reason given for contesting the prod is that he's a dean. Do we need an article on every dean? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment*. Why "AFAICT"? I removed the prod tag and said "remove prod - head of department at major university". Does that leave any doubt that it's contested? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Because I couldn't tell if "dean of School of Mathematics" was exactly the same as "head of major department". I still don't find either a claim of notability, but then I'm used to seeing administrative chores rotate among the victims. What has he done? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Lean keep. Professor in UK university is more prestigious than in US. Well-published and well-cited according to Google Scholar. --Dhartung \| Talk 04:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep* As stated, UK 'professor' is more prestigious (usually equivalent to head of university department) and not merely a teacher, as is the usual use of the word in USA. Emeraude (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] While UK & US are different, they're not so different as all that. Professor in the USA is not equivalent to "teacher"; it includes research responsibilities. Technically, "Professor" indicates a fully tenured faculty member, i.e., someone with significant research accomplishments (tenure is rarely if ever granted for teaching no matter how great; it is granted as a recognition of scholarship & research). "Assistant professor" means someone on the tenure-track with both research and teaching responsibilities. "Lecturer" in the US indicates someone at a university with teaching responsibilites only, no research responsibilities. --Lquilter (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] This only applies to universities and some colleges. In most smaller colleges, significant research is not expected or required. Even I do not think that professors in non-research universities & colleges in the US are necessarily notable academics. DGG (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. If dean of School of Mathematics at City University isn't enough to make him notable per WP:PROF, then how about >500 citations listed by Google Scolar? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] That search returns 85 articles for me, and some of those are for G. Haberman or SJ Haberman, who are other people. I said >500 citations, not >500 articles. Add up the numbers where it says "Cited by nn" under each article and you'll get the number of other articles in the Google scholar database which reference Haberman's works. Each one of these is a reliable source which contributes to his notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] But if they're a claim to notability, please find what they've accomplished and put it in the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep We do not have the responsibility of deciding what mathematical publications are notable--other mathematicians do. They evaluate it when them make appointments. The top position in actuarial science at a very major university for the applied sciences in the UK goes of course to one of the most notable people in the UK in his subject. They establish the notability, we just record it. That he is Dean as well shows the wider university recognizes his distinction. DGG (talk) 01:44, 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 --JForget 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] The History of Truth[edit] The History of Truth (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Unsourced crystal ball article about a film with no distributor, no director and no cast, because the producer "has keept every single detail of the film in secret". Possible hoax, too - the sole external link is to a website which has nothing to do with this alleged film other than having "History" and "Truth" in its name. Stormie (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete this information, leave a redirect to W. H. Auden (as a title of one of his poems.--Alf ^melmac 09:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per Alf. Bláthnaid 12:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete as crystal-balling. If and when the movie is released, try making an article then, with solid facts. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Snowball delete per nom. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete pure speculation (WP:NOR) no sources WP:V *— BQZip01* — ^talk 05:03, 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, no prejudice to merge if someone wants to do it. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Jon Cleary & the Absolute Monster Gentlemen[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Jon Cleary & the Absolute Monster Gentlemen Jon Cleary & the Absolute Monster Gentlemen (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Also included in this nomination: Jon Cleary (musician) I'm requesting an opinion on the notability of this one. He did receive one article of coverage with BBC Nottingham, plus the Rolling Stone article, but other than that, all Ghits seem to be for music stores selling his albums and networking sites like Myspace. I'm torn on this one because, on one hand, he did receive two reviews in semi-major sources. On the other hand, it would seem like he would need a little more to establish notability. Redfarmer (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] As a writer, Cleary has tracks on 'Souls Alike' and Silver Lining (both charted) (Bonnie Raitt) and on 'Phantom Blues' (Taj Mahal, very notable). I don't want Wikipedia to be advertising for him, but I think he fits within the criteria. Drpixie (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I think he, rather than the band, is the notable one. I'd be happy to merge the band info into the Cleary page, if we agree. Drpixie (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep Ah! Somebody finally put up an article on him; I'd meant to for a while, now. He toured with Bonnie Raitt and is a fixture on the New Orleans blues scene. The article could be expanded with info from his Allmusic bio. I think the Absolute Monster should be Merged into the musician page. Chubbles (talk) 01:09, 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 delete. Person appears to be non-notable. Consensus apparent. Rudget. 12:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Andrew Sniderman[edit] Andrew Sniderman (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Not notable bio. Was speedied per A7 once before. Still doesn't assert significance, but I thought I would bring it here for consensus. jj137 ^♠ 02:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Impressive resume; but WP is not a collection of resumes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, he's not notable (but his organisations may be). Lankiveil (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC).[reply] Delete per Lankiveil. nancy ^(talk) 10:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per Lankiveil. Malinaccier (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Per all of the above. OneHappyHusky (talk) 06:18, 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 Delete. It can be recreated when there is actually some credible information about the event. BLACKKITE 14:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] UFC 83[edit] UFC 83 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Clear case of crystalballing. Although the page (currently) lists a date certain and location certain, the source cited shows no date is confirmed, no venue is confirmed, no city is confirmed, and doesn't even mention UFC 83. Everything is purely speculative at this juncture. Voluminous precedent here Gromlakh (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] UPDATE:** To make matters better, MMA Weekly's rumors section is now claiming that the March 8 event in London might actually be UFC 83 (see here), making all of the stuff currently on the UFC 83 page actually UFC 84. Of course, even that would still be pure speculation, because nobody in the know is actually confirming any event names. Yet more proof that there is no verifiable information about UFC 83, even though some fights can be verified for the date. Please delete this article. Gromlakh (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Would you be willing bundle in the newly-created UFC 84 with this? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 03:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Never mind, it appears that you were nominating that for deletion separately while I was making this comment. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 03:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Since this AfD was filed, the venue for the event has moved half-way around the world, "supported" by a ref that doesn't contain any mention of UFC 83. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 03:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I have reverted it back to the old page for several reasons: 1)The source just says Bisping will be fighting and makes no mention of it being UFC 83 or that it will even be a UFC event. 2)It's unlikely that they would hold it only one week after UFC 82. 3)The sources for the previous version say that UFC 83 will be in April. TJ Spyke 03:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Neutral I don't know how it works for UFC events. However, there is confirmation of the date, location (city confirmed, arena is tentative but set for now), and a match is confirmed. TJ Spyke 03:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] FYI, the second source is a non-reliable blog. No reliable source has actually confirmed that the GSP/Serra fight is at UFC 83. The issue with the original poster changing everything around to March 8 (citing the Bisping/McCarthy article) is a huge part of the problem here. The UFC has a ton of events scheduled between now and April, and they haven't decided what's going to be what. Nobody knows if that event on April 19 is going to be UFC 83 because they've had serious trouble securing the Bell Centre. If that falls through, the date will move, the venue will move, and nobody knows when UFC 83 will be taking place. Gromlakh (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Suggest salting until there is demonstrably reliable sourcing as these UFC # articles get recreated with distressing regularity with no sourcing. Otto4711 (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Referenced article concerning a notable event that almost assuredly will happen. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep Sourced, fighter says he's fighting means its not crystal balling. You have a good source the event will take place, may need a crop of unsourced bits. Also you may wish to input to this couple of suggestions to avoiding doing these all the time. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] All of that "sourced" info is on UFC 84. None of it pertained to UFC 83. Gromlakh (talk) 12:16, 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 Speedy delete G3 by User:Gimmetrow, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Kirsty Ann Kaulitz[edit] Kirsty Ann Kaulitz (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) I believe this is a hoax. No evidence of this person existing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon white (talk • contribs) Guess what? dis is fake. Delete. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 01:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete as hoax. Clearly says "dis is fake" on it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Total WP:BOLLOCKS. Snowball delete as an obvious and even self-admitted hoax. Fits the speedy deletion criteria G3.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:57, 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 csd a7 -- Y not? 02:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] The Frantic[edit] The Frantic (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Doesn't seem notable according to WP:MUSIC. Please note. I believe there may be several different bands which have used the same name. neonwhite user page talk 01:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Non-notable band. Only claim to fame is one album, but nothing else is really important. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, if we're feeling bold, speedy per A7. If that single hits a major chart, maybe not. But right now, delete. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 01:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete. The article does not make any assertion of notability, so get rid of it - it doesn't meet WP:MUSIC in any way.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Recording and releasing an album is not an assertion of notability in any way whatsoever. The A7 tag is on the page.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] They're not signed to a notable label in any way either.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Just keep it There's no need to delete this article. Go to their official website, then click biography for information about them. Alex (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] That's not a reliable third party source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:06, 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. BLACKKITE 23:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Sorudo[edit] Sorudo (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This nom is in behalf of User:CultureDrone, per a request here. The article lacks reliable sources, and it fails WP:DICDEF. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 01:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete: A neologism and a self-defined term. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:NEO and WP:V.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, no evidence of notability. Terraxos (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:NEO, WP:V, and WP:NFT VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 04:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep Visa vi the above policies are not in effect just because nongamers haven't heard of the term, a term going for over 5 years is hardly recently coined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RavenPurity (talk • contribs) 10:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note 1. the term is Vis-à-vis, 2. Nongamers not knowing what the term means doesn't negate policies, 3. you used the term incorrectly anyway. Also, this comment is from the creator of the article. JuJube (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Negates NEO and NFT RavenPurity (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Also, DICDEF states that the Noob article should be deleted as well, as it provides a definition, yet do I see a deleted Noob article? No I do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RavenPurity (talk • contribs) 12:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Newbie has enough sources to make it not a dicdef. And by your definition, any random gamer jackass who makes up a term merits a Wikipedia entry because, after all, non-gamers don't know what it means. JuJube (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] And by your logic, unless every single person in the world knows what something is, Wiki can't have an article on it, also, W:NPA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RavenPurity (talk • contribs) 14:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Pay attention, I'm not personally attacking anyone. Nor am I flinging straw men around. You're the one who gave the rationale that people not knowing what things are negates policy. Don't bother to reply to this. JuJube (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. 18 unique ghits, including several related to this article, but none which appear to contain this "derogatory term". Perhaps this term has been in existence for "over 5 years", but it doesn't appear that anybody's been using it. Zetawoof_(ζ) 13:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, non-notable neologism with no reliable sources. Who says five years isn't recent, given the history of the English language? Pagra shtak 16:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Per all the above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Per all others. LightAnkhC\|MSG 22:57, 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 delete. Secret ^account 18:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Aaron Cotteral[edit] Aaron Cotteral (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Non-notable athlete. Never played in the regular season of a professional league, just one pre-season game. Pastordavid (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. No prejudice against recreation should he make the cut in 2008. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Fails WP:BIO. --Sc straker (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete this non notable biography. --Stormbay (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Even as an avid football fan I can find nothing truly notable about this. OneHappyHusky (talk) 06:16, 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 delete. Addhoc (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Spring Thomas[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Spring Thomas Articles for deletion/Spring Thomas (2nd nomination) Spring Thomas (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Recreation of a deleted article from prior AFB. Still doesn't satisfy WP:BIO Vinh1313 (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] This page should NOT be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.159.50 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I think it should not be deleted. First: it is different from the others deleted versions. I made this last one. Second: she is famous, she is on urban dictionary and has more than 350.000 results on google. Third: There is reference: imdb and iafd and others. There are many porn actress pages on wikipedia, this one should stay. Delete No sources, not notable, as person is only in 3 movies and is not well-known. Also, doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Tim meh ^contribs 01:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)`[reply] Delete: Non-notable actor. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. I'd like to see if this is recreation of deleted material, but this is still not notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Yup. The original article was deleted on March 27, 2006 by User:JIP after the results of the 1st AFD came back as Delete. Tabercil (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Is this version the same as the deleted version? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] That's what I was wanting to know, whether it was substantially identical to the deleted version. Since you and I are both currently going through RfA, we're similar in those two respects with regard to this (as we'd be able to check the old deleted version), and also the level of consensus in our RfAs is about the same. Coincidence.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Well the entirety of the article when it was first deleted was: "Spring Thomas is a blonde American adult movie star, often featured in interracial pornography, as she only works with black actors." So the current version is (arguably) more advanced than what it was during the first AFD discussion. Tabercil (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment According to the log, this subject has already been deleted 7 times. Someone keeps recreating it over and over. Vinh1313 (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Not "someone", as I see several different IDs as the creators after each deletion. In order, there were Rommass, Pedro.Guero, Lugnuts, SylvainT, Cameron Green, JohnnyV123 and then Rommass again. Tabercil (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] delete & salt salt, salt, salt, salt (are we at seven yet?) salt, salt... Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, doesn't assert notability in any way. Possibly in need of salting, too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom, nn. -RiverHockey (talk) 17:09, 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 Keep now that article has been updated with independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] U.S. Crush[edit] U.S. Crush (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) When I opened the page my first thought was that my screen had turned red due to the large amount of dead links, This article is about a defunct band, it has no references, and some examples of its blue links are to the years 1996, 2000, 2002, and to the Californian Punk Scene, which doesn't exactly lend itself to the articles notability, or lack there of. Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete as nominee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdiaob (talk • contribs) 15:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep No need to delete it; their Myspace has some information about who they are. Alex (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - entirely fails WP:MUSIC, no independent sources (the band's own Myspace doesn't count). Oli Filth^(talk) 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Weak delete They do have a profile on All Music Guide, which equals one reliable source. Other reliable sources, however, have yet to appear (mainly because Google keeps giving me crap with sentences like "help us crush" in it). If someone with more patience than I can find more sources, then I might go for at least a weak keep. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep per addition of sources, seems to just barely meet criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] ~~Weak Keep~~ ~~Neutral~~ Keep. I've been able to drag up a VH1 artist page which confirms an album released on Virgin Records and their record is available for sale on Amazon, but may change vote if this isn't enough to assert notability. Doc Strange (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Alright then, i've changed my vote to neutral. Doc Strange (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'm changing my vote yet again, due to more information being discovered. Doc Strange (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Can't find any evidence of their album or claimed 'radio hit' on discogs or billboard.com or any mention of the band at the labels they claim to have been signed to. Not sure a one line mention at VH1 is enough for notability or to create any sort of article. --neonwhite user page talk 01:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] The AMG link lists their album as being on Virgin. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Accoridng to amazon.com their only album was released on immortal and according to billboard.com it was released by virgin records.[35] The artist has no chart history. --neonwhite user page talk 01:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nomination. The breakup year isn't even definite - "c. 2002" No notable information on it. Tim meh ^contribs 01:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Their Myspace reads "In 2002, the band tried to record another album" and, then "While working on asecond album, U.S. Crush called it a day". That's one of the reasons why I wrote "c. 2002". Alex (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I could put up a page on MySpace proclaiming myself to be God King (as, according to Google Web, 350 people already have) without anyone batting an eyelid. That wouldn't make it true. Why are you putting so much trust in an unreliable self-published non-independent source? Uncle G (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Weak Delete, according to AMG, their one-and-only album came out on a major label, and they got put into heavy rotation at KROQ. I'm still not sure that's enough, however. Lankiveil (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC).[reply] Weak keep; AMG seems to assert notability. Mention of KROQ wouldn't hurt, either. StaticElectric (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. While searching in Google to reach a decision on this, I found a few things which I've added to the article. They signed to a major label, and there seems to be sufficient independent coverage to meet notability criteria.--Michig (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] If there are any second party sources please present them. Merely asserting that they exists has no weight here. --neonwhite user page talk 18:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I have done - have you looked at the article recently?--Michig (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] There are no more claims to notability than there were before. --neonwhite user page talk 00:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] When the article was nominated there was little or no evidence of significant independent coverage. Now there's plenty, and that's enough to pass WP:MUSIC via criterion 1.--Michig (talk) 07:56, 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 keep. Spebi 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Brisbane Ladies[edit] Brisbane Ladies (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Non-notable song lyrics, inappropriate for an encyclopedia - Shiftchange (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:NOT#LYRICS. Unless notability can be asserted. 00:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Keep per HSR. It seems notable now, just get rid of the lyrics, and write it a bit more. This article deserves a chance. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 02:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom & J-stan. Bucketsofg 00:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep: unless the lyrics violate a copyright, the song is notable given the amount of coverage on the Internet and verifiable from third-party sources per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Remove the lyrics, and turn it into an encyclopedia article about this folk song which appears to have a rich history dating back over 100 years.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep per addition of sources, notability now asserted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep, article in its current state is fine. Lankiveil (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC).[reply] Remove the lyrics and keep or merge to Spanish Ladies. JIP \| Talk 08:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep, Notability is clear. Article is in good shape now.JQ (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Notability seems to have been established. The article can be expanded as time permits. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep as long as the article is expanded and lyrics are removed. More sources, reliable ones, also need to be found. Tim meh ^contribs 18:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment if there is no copyright on the lyrics - and it may have expired - they could be transwikid to wikisource.Ga rr ie 03:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep - I don't see any need to remove the lyrics - plenty of precedent for keeping them (eg Waltzing Matilda has lyrics plus several variations probably too many variations but that is another debate) - interesting to compare with Spanish Ladies easily without going to another site .--Matilda ^talk 06:02, 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 per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. D.M.N. (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Martin Galvan[edit] Martin Galvan (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) non-notable Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] (Speedy, per A7?) Delete. No assertion of notability. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 02:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] *Delete: Until he "makes the trip" I don't think there's any chance of his notability. SeanMD80^{talk \| contribs} 03:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Struway to the rescue indeed. Keep. SeanMD80^{talk \| contribs} ~~Strong delete - He's about as far from being notable as it's possible to be.~~ --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Based on Struway2's update below, now change to Keep. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete make the trip, then we'll talk... Rotovia (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, as of today. As someone else implied, check back (much) later. In a few years, perhaps? Unschool (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep The article does now assert notability. A recent addition says he has now made his first team debut for Cruz Azul (a professional club in a professional league, the Primera División de México) in the InterLiga, which is the Mexican qualifying playoffs for entry into the Copa Libertadores. This would equate to the English Premier League having a playoff to determine entry to the UEFA Champions League. His debut is confirmed here on the competition official site (in English); I have added this citation to the article. Struway2 (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep per Struway2. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep per Struway2. D.M.N. (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep Struway to the rescue...!!! (Now meets all criteria for notability). Woody (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Very young for a pro, but then Wayne Gretzky became a pro not much older. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep It really is relevant. He already became a professional player. Besides look at Víctor Mañon, Galvan's article is much more elaborate and Mañon isn't even considered for deletion. I'm not saying delete both but keep them as they are part of Mexican football history. Maybe a slight mention if the Mexican football article would be good as well. Keep - anyone who has played in a professional league is notable. For a moment I thought it was Martin Galvin....EJF (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Snowball keep, article now asserts notability through addition of a source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:49, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 84

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 84[edit]

UPDATE: User has since blanked the page, apparently noticing his mistake. I've therefore tagged the main page as a candidate for speedy deletion. Gromlakh (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_83 page, same reasons, purely speculative, nothing confirmed about the event. Gromlakh (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No information at all for a UFC 84 (all the info in the article is actually for UFC 83). TJ Spyke 03:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Suggest salting all the UFC # up to about 100 or so until such time as there is demonstrably reliable sourcing for them as these crystal ball articles routinely get generated for every event. Otto4711 (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep --JForget 02:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expedia, Inc.[edit]

adds no new information; most information in this article is already in Expedia. They are basically the same thing; does not need a new article. If needed, a new category can be added to Expedia Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have separate articles for Google and Google search, The Coca-Cola Company and Coca-Cola, and for many other similarly named pairs of company and major product. It is difficult to write a combined article that does not confuse the two (how do you combine the infoboxes, for instance?). The article needs to be expanded, certainly, and I will keep doing so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate - as per above. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 03:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline case, but keep as it does own several properties other than Expedia itself. If it were just the owner of the website that would be different. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others. Two different things. If anything, Expedia should be merged into the other article, not vice versa. Rray (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Parent is notable separate and apart from the service it offers. Alansohn (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Keep now that the article has been expanded upon and is no longer just one or two sentences. Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article asserts notability outside the scope of Expedia proper. Still needs some TLC, but that's no reason to delete. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with all above Doc Strange (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Haberman[edit]

Contested prod. AFAICT, The reason given for contesting the prod is that he's a dean. Do we need an article on every dean? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why "AFAICT"? I removed the prod tag and said "remove prod - head of department at major university". Does that leave any doubt that it's contested? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I couldn't tell if "dean of School of Mathematics" was exactly the same as "head of major department". I still don't find either a claim of notability, but then I'm used to seeing administrative chores rotate among the victims. What has he done? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep. Professor in UK university is more prestigious than in US. Well-published and well-cited according to Google Scholar. --Dhartung | Talk 04:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As stated, UK 'professor' is more prestigious (usually equivalent to head of university department) and not merely a teacher, as is the usual use of the word in USA. Emeraude (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While UK & US are different, they're not so different as all that. Professor in the USA is not equivalent to "teacher"; it includes research responsibilities. Technically, "Professor" indicates a fully tenured faculty member, i.e., someone with significant research accomplishments (tenure is rarely if ever granted for teaching no matter how great; it is granted as a recognition of scholarship & research). "Assistant professor" means someone on the tenure-track with both research and teaching responsibilities. "Lecturer" in the US indicates someone at a university with teaching responsibilites only, no research responsibilities. --Lquilter (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This only applies to universities and some colleges. In most smaller colleges, significant research is not expected or required. Even I do not think that professors in non-research universities & colleges in the US are necessarily notable academics. DGG (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If dean of School of Mathematics at City University isn't enough to make him notable per WP:PROF, then how about >500 citations listed by Google Scolar? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That search returns 85 articles for me, and some of those are for G. Haberman or SJ Haberman, who are other people.

I said >500 citations, not >500 articles. Add up the numbers where it says "Cited by nn" under each article and you'll get the number of other articles in the Google scholar database which reference Haberman's works. Each one of these is a reliable source which contributes to his notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- But if they're a claim to notability, please find what they've accomplished and put it in the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do not have the responsibility of deciding what mathematical publications are notable--other mathematicians do. They evaluate it when them make appointments. The top position in actuarial science at a very major university for the applied sciences in the UK goes of course to one of the most notable people in the UK in his subject. They establish the notability, we just record it. That he is Dean as well shows the wider university recognizes his distinction. DGG (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The History of Truth[edit]

Unsourced crystal ball article about a film with no distributor, no director and no cast, because the producer "has keept every single detail of the film in secret". Possible hoax, too - the sole external link is to a website which has nothing to do with this alleged film other than having "History" and "Truth" in its name. Stormie (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this information, leave a redirect to W. H. Auden (as a title of one of his poems.--Alf ^melmac 09:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alf. Bláthnaid 12:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal-balling. If and when the movie is released, try making an article then, with solid facts. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per nom. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure speculation (WP:NOR) no sources WP:V — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, no prejudice to merge if someone wants to do it. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Cleary & the Absolute Monster Gentlemen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jon Cleary & the Absolute Monster Gentlemen

Also included in this nomination:

Jon Cleary (musician)

I'm requesting an opinion on the notability of this one. He did receive one article of coverage with BBC Nottingham, plus the Rolling Stone article, but other than that, all Ghits seem to be for music stores selling his albums and networking sites like Myspace. I'm torn on this one because, on one hand, he did receive two reviews in semi-major sources. On the other hand, it would seem like he would need a little more to establish notability. Redfarmer (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a writer, Cleary has tracks on 'Souls Alike' and Silver Lining (both charted) (Bonnie Raitt) and on 'Phantom Blues' (Taj Mahal, very notable). I don't want Wikipedia to be advertising for him, but I think he fits within the criteria. Drpixie (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he, rather than the band, is the notable one. I'd be happy to merge the band info into the Cleary page, if we agree. Drpixie (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ah! Somebody finally put up an article on him; I'd meant to for a while, now. He toured with Bonnie Raitt and is a fixture on the New Orleans blues scene. The article could be expanded with info from his Allmusic bio. I think the Absolute Monster should be Merged into the musician page. Chubbles (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Person appears to be non-notable. Consensus apparent. Rudget. 12:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sniderman[edit]

Not notable bio. Was speedied per A7 once before. Still doesn't assert significance, but I thought I would bring it here for consensus. jj137 ^♠ 02:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Impressive resume; but WP is not a collection of resumes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he's not notable (but his organisations may be). Lankiveil (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Lankiveil. nancy ^(talk) 10:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lankiveil. Malinaccier (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above. OneHappyHusky (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. It can be recreated when there is actually some credible information about the event. BLACKKITE 14:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 83[edit]

Clear case of crystalballing. Although the page (currently) lists a date certain and location certain, the source cited shows no date is confirmed, no venue is confirmed, no city is confirmed, and doesn't even mention UFC 83. Everything is purely speculative at this juncture. Voluminous precedent here Gromlakh (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: To make matters better, MMA Weekly's rumors section is now claiming that the March 8 event in London might actually be UFC 83 (see here), making all of the stuff currently on the UFC 83 page actually UFC 84. Of course, even that would still be pure speculation, because nobody in the know is actually confirming any event names. Yet more proof that there is no verifiable information about UFC 83, even though some fights can be verified for the date. Please delete this article. Gromlakh (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Would you be willing bundle in the newly-created UFC 84 with this? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 03:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it appears that you were nominating that for deletion separately while I was making this comment. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 03:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Since this AfD was filed, the venue for the event has moved half-way around the world, "supported" by a ref that doesn't contain any mention of UFC 83. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 03:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reverted it back to the old page for several reasons: 1)The source just says Bisping will be fighting and makes no mention of it being UFC 83 or that it will even be a UFC event. 2)It's unlikely that they would hold it only one week after UFC 82. 3)The sources for the previous version say that UFC 83 will be in April. TJ Spyke 03:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't know how it works for UFC events. However, there is confirmation of the date, location (city confirmed, arena is tentative but set for now), and a match is confirmed. TJ Spyke 03:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the second source is a non-reliable blog. No reliable source has actually confirmed that the GSP/Serra fight is at UFC 83. The issue with the original poster changing everything around to March 8 (citing the Bisping/McCarthy article) is a huge part of the problem here. The UFC has a ton of events scheduled between now and April, and they haven't decided what's going to be what. Nobody knows if that event on April 19 is going to be UFC 83 because they've had serious trouble securing the Bell Centre. If that falls through, the date will move, the venue will move, and nobody knows when UFC 83 will be taking place. Gromlakh (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Suggest salting until there is demonstrably reliable sourcing as these UFC # articles get recreated with distressing regularity with no sourcing. Otto4711 (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Referenced article concerning a notable event that almost assuredly will happen. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced, fighter says he's fighting means its not crystal balling. You have a good source the event will take place, may need a crop of unsourced bits. Also you may wish to input to this couple of suggestions to avoiding doing these all the time. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of that "sourced" info is on UFC 84. None of it pertained to UFC 83. Gromlakh (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete G3 by User:Gimmetrow, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsty Ann Kaulitz[edit]

I believe this is a hoax. No evidence of this person existing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon white (talk • contribs)

Guess what? dis is fake. Delete. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 01:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Clearly says "dis is fake" on it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Total WP:BOLLOCKS. Snowball delete as an obvious and even self-admitted hoax. Fits the speedy deletion criteria G3.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was csd a7 -- Y not? 02:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Frantic[edit]

Doesn't seem notable according to WP:MUSIC. Please note. I believe there may be several different bands which have used the same name. neonwhite user page talk 01:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable band. Only claim to fame is one album, but nothing else is really important. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if we're feeling bold, speedy per A7. If that single hits a major chart, maybe not. But right now, delete. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 01:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The article does not make any assertion of notability, so get rid of it - it doesn't meet WP:MUSIC in any way.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recording and releasing an album is not an assertion of notability in any way whatsoever. The A7 tag is on the page.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're not signed to a notable label in any way either.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep it There's no need to delete this article. Go to their official website, then click biography for information about them. Alex (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reliable third party source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. BLACKKITE 23:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorudo[edit]

This nom is in behalf of User:CultureDrone, per a request here. The article lacks reliable sources, and it fails WP:DICDEF. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 01:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A neologism and a self-defined term. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO and WP:V.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. Terraxos (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, WP:V, and WP:NFT VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 04:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Visa vi the above policies are not in effect just because nongamers haven't heard of the term, a term going for over 5 years is hardly recently coined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RavenPurity (talk • contribs) 10:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note 1. the term is Vis-à-vis, 2. Nongamers not knowing what the term means doesn't negate policies, 3. you used the term incorrectly anyway. Also, this comment is from the creator of the article. JuJube (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Negates NEO and NFT RavenPurity (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, DICDEF states that the Noob article should be deleted as well, as it provides a definition, yet do I see a deleted Noob article? No I do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RavenPurity (talk • contribs) 12:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Newbie has enough sources to make it not a dicdef. And by your definition, any random gamer jackass who makes up a term merits a Wikipedia entry because, after all, non-gamers don't know what it means. JuJube (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And by your logic, unless every single person in the world knows what something is, Wiki can't have an article on it, also, W:NPA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RavenPurity (talk • contribs) 14:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Pay attention, I'm not personally attacking anyone. Nor am I flinging straw men around. You're the one who gave the rationale that people not knowing what things are negates policy. Don't bother to reply to this. JuJube (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 18 unique ghits, including several related to this article, but none which appear to contain this "derogatory term". Perhaps this term has been in existence for "over 5 years", but it doesn't appear that anybody's been using it. Zetawoof_(ζ) 13:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable neologism with no reliable sources. Who says five years isn't recent, given the history of the English language? Pagra shtak 16:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per all the above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all others. LightAnkhC|MSG 22:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Cotteral[edit]

Non-notable athlete. Never played in the regular season of a professional league, just one pre-season game. Pastordavid (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No prejudice against recreation should he make the cut in 2008. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. --Sc straker (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this non notable biography. --Stormbay (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even as an avid football fan I can find nothing truly notable about this. OneHappyHusky (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Thomas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Recreation of a deleted article from prior AFB. Still doesn't satisfy WP:BIO Vinh1313 (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page should NOT be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.159.50 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should not be deleted. First: it is different from the others deleted versions. I made this last one. Second: she is famous, she is on urban dictionary and has more than 350.000 results on google. Third: There is reference: imdb and iafd and others. There are many porn actress pages on wikipedia, this one should stay.
Delete No sources, not notable, as person is only in 3 movies and is not well-known. Also, doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Tim meh ^contribs 01:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)`[reply]
Delete: Non-notable actor. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd like to see if this is recreation of deleted material, but this is still not notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. The original article was deleted on March 27, 2006 by User:JIP after the results of the 1st AFD came back as Delete. Tabercil (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this version the same as the deleted version? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was wanting to know, whether it was substantially identical to the deleted version. Since you and I are both currently going through RfA, we're similar in those two respects with regard to this (as we'd be able to check the old deleted version), and also the level of consensus in our RfAs is about the same. Coincidence.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the entirety of the article when it was first deleted was: "Spring Thomas is a blonde American adult movie star, often featured in interracial pornography, as she only works with black actors." So the current version is (arguably) more advanced than what it was during the first AFD discussion. Tabercil (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the log, this subject has already been deleted 7 times. Someone keeps recreating it over and over. Vinh1313 (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not "someone", as I see several different IDs as the creators after each deletion. In order, there were Rommass, Pedro.Guero, Lugnuts, SylvainT, Cameron Green, JohnnyV123 and then Rommass again. Tabercil (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete & salt salt, salt, salt, salt (are we at seven yet?) salt, salt... Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't assert notability in any way. Possibly in need of salting, too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nn. -RiverHockey (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep now that article has been updated with independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Crush[edit]

When I opened the page my first thought was that my screen had turned red due to the large amount of dead links, This article is about a defunct band, it has no references, and some examples of its blue links are to the years 1996, 2000, 2002, and to the Californian Punk Scene, which doesn't exactly lend itself to the articles notability, or lack there of. Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdiaob (talk • contribs) 15:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No need to delete it; their Myspace has some information about who they are. Alex (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - entirely fails WP:MUSIC, no independent sources (the band's own Myspace doesn't count). Oli Filth^(talk) 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete They do have a profile on All Music Guide, which equals one reliable source. Other reliable sources, however, have yet to appear (mainly because Google keeps giving me crap with sentences like "help us crush" in it). If someone with more patience than I can find more sources, then I might go for at least a weak keep. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per addition of sources, seems to just barely meet criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ ~~Neutral~~ Keep. I've been able to drag up a VH1 artist page which confirms an album released on Virgin Records and their record is available for sale on Amazon, but may change vote if this isn't enough to assert notability. Doc Strange (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright then, i've changed my vote to neutral. Doc Strange (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my vote yet again, due to more information being discovered. Doc Strange (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any evidence of their album or claimed 'radio hit' on discogs or billboard.com or any mention of the band at the labels they claim to have been signed to. Not sure a one line mention at VH1 is enough for notability or to create any sort of article. --neonwhite user page talk 01:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The AMG link lists their album as being on Virgin. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Accoridng to amazon.com their only album was released on immortal and according to billboard.com it was released by virgin records.[35] The artist has no chart history. --neonwhite user page talk 01:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The breakup year isn't even definite - "c. 2002" No notable information on it. Timmeh^contribs 01:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Their Myspace reads "In 2002, the band tried to record another album" and, then "While working on asecond album, U.S. Crush called it a day". That's one of the reasons why I wrote "c. 2002". Alex (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could put up a page on MySpace proclaiming myself to be God King (as, according to Google Web, 350 people already have) without anyone batting an eyelid. That wouldn't make it true. Why are you putting so much trust in an unreliable self-published non-independent source? Uncle G (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, according to AMG, their one-and-only album came out on a major label, and they got put into heavy rotation at KROQ. I'm still not sure that's enough, however. Lankiveil (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep; AMG seems to assert notability. Mention of KROQ wouldn't hurt, either. StaticElectric (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While searching in Google to reach a decision on this, I found a few things which I've added to the article. They signed to a major label, and there seems to be sufficient independent coverage to meet notability criteria.--Michig (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any second party sources please present them. Merely asserting that they exists has no weight here. --neonwhite user page talk 18:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done - have you looked at the article recently?--Michig (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no more claims to notability than there were before. --neonwhite user page talk 00:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the article was nominated there was little or no evidence of significant independent coverage. Now there's plenty, and that's enough to pass WP:MUSIC via criterion 1.--Michig (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Spebi 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane Ladies[edit]

Non-notable song lyrics, inappropriate for an encyclopedia - Shiftchange (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#LYRICS. Unless notability can be asserted. 00:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Keep per HSR. It seems notable now, just get rid of the lyrics, and write it a bit more. This article deserves a chance. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 02:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & J-stan. Bucketsofg 00:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: unless the lyrics violate a copyright, the song is notable given the amount of coverage on the Internet and verifiable from third-party sources per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Remove the lyrics, and turn it into an encyclopedia article about this folk song which appears to have a rich history dating back over 100 years.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per addition of sources, notability now asserted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article in its current state is fine. Lankiveil (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Remove the lyrics and keep or merge to Spanish Ladies. JIP | Talk 08:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Notability is clear. Article is in good shape now.JQ (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability seems to have been established. The article can be expanded as time permits. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as the article is expanded and lyrics are removed. More sources, reliable ones, also need to be found. Tim meh ^contribs 18:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if there is no copyright on the lyrics - and it may have expired - they could be transwikid to wikisource.Ga rr ie 03:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see any need to remove the lyrics - plenty of precedent for keeping them (eg Waltzing Matilda has lyrics plus several variations probably too many variations but that is another debate) - interesting to compare with Spanish Ladies easily without going to another site .--Matilda ^talk 06:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. D.M.N. (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Galvan[edit]

non-notable Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy, per A7?) Delete. No assertion of notability. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 02:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Until he "makes the trip" I don't think there's any chance of his notability. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 03:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struway to the rescue indeed. Keep. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs}

~~Strong delete - He's about as far from being notable as it's possible to be.~~ --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Struway2's update below, now change to Keep. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete make the trip, then we'll talk... Rotovia (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as of today. As someone else implied, check back (much) later. In a few years, perhaps? Unschool (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does now assert notability. A recent addition says he has now made his first team debut for Cruz Azul (a professional club in a professional league, the Primera División de México) in the InterLiga, which is the Mexican qualifying playoffs for entry into the Copa Libertadores. This would equate to the English Premier League having a playoff to determine entry to the UEFA Champions League. His debut is confirmed here on the competition official site (in English); I have added this citation to the article. Struway2 (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Struway2. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Struway2. D.M.N. (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Struway to the rescue...!!! (Now meets all criteria for notability). Woody (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very young for a pro, but then Wayne Gretzky became a pro not much older. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It really is relevant. He already became a professional player. Besides look at Víctor Mañon, Galvan's article is much more elaborate and Mañon isn't even considered for deletion. I'm not saying delete both but keep them as they are part of Mexican football history. Maybe a slight mention if the Mexican football article would be good as well.
Keep - anyone who has played in a professional league is notable. For a moment I thought it was Martin Galvin....EJF (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep, article now asserts notability through addition of a source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]