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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Sheen[edit]

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

Lacks notability for Wikipedia NorthernThunder (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia at this time per WP:Notability. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I recognise the name, and was aware she had a very brief role in Underworld: Evolution as her mother's character Seline, but she appears to have only had two film roles essentially as an extra, and it's a stretch to call her a child actress. Nothing that couldn't be, or isn't already mentioned, in Kate Beckinsale. --Canley (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable bit actress. Blueboy96 15:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because of notability —αlεx•mullεr 10:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Job vs volunteering[edit]

Job vs volunteering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:OR essay. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, clearly an OR essay with no references. -- Mithent (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not an encyclopedic article, or even title. Pros and cons of volunteering can be discussed at that article. Malc82 (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and "[sources coming soon]." Mr Senseless (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom. – ukexpat (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Wikipedia is no place for personal essays Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 02:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NOT#PUBLISHER, and WP:NOR. An essay is not an encyclopedia article. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This belongs on the op-ed page of a newspaper, not in an encyclopedia. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:27, 2 March 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 00:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark tree[edit]

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

Reason: non notable creature with no outside sources. shadzar|Talk|contribs 23:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is absolute crap. It has zero sources, zero assertions of notability, and zero layman info. Send it to the cemetery. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 00:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article fails Save vs. Death roll, completely made up Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 02:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I see we have a 2E guy here. I'm more used to seeing "fails Fortitude save." -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 03:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, i grew up on the old 2E, and play 3E now, but it's a relevant reference, nonetheless Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 04:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:NFT. This article is completely un-notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 03:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because a mass-nomination comes across as someone on a mission and a rapier. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 03:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment surprisingly its not made-up as it appears on the Wizards page for Monsters of Faerûn. But its still fails WP:N with flying colors Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 14:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, yet another super minor D&D creature that has an article for some reason. J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:40, 4 March 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 00:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oaken defender[edit]

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

Reason:non notable, orphaned, and unsourced. shadzar|Talk|contribs 23:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 23:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, super minor Dungeons & Dragons monster that has received no third party (and little first party) coverage. J Milburn (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment — I like this; maybe someone needs to write-up a No Primary Source guideline. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete, this article needs work or it will not likely pass its next AfD. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milwaukee Community Sailing Center[edit]

Milwaukee Community Sailing Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:CORP; seems mostly self-promotional. ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I found some newspaper articles about the center, and I think that notability is now shown. --Eastmain (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Local sailing clubs are inherently non-notable except in extreme cases. Royalbroil 05:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This one is distinctive because of its commitment to outreach to young people who would normally never get a chance to learn to sail. I think that is enough to satisfy User:Royalbroil's concern. --Eastmain (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While that is a laudable goal, that doesn't make it particularly notable, especially within our guidelines. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reliable sources have written about it. --Eastmain (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm still not satisfied. Almost all clubs outreach into the community. I see little salvagable text in the article - it reads like an advertisement for the club. Except if it can be shown that it was the first club to do something big, I see no reason to keep it. Royalbroil 19:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Delete- Just doesn't seem notable enough to be encyclopedic, along with coming off like an advert. If more sources are found I would consider changing my opinion. Rigby27 Talk 18:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as sources have been added. faithless (^speak) 07:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, given the sources, seems to be just barely notable enough. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:35, 9 March 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 00:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volodni (Dungeons and Dragons)[edit]

Volodni (Dungeons and Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reason: non notable obscure monster with no references or citation, and appearing in a single publication. shadzar|Talk|contribs 22:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mr Senseless (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Ig8887; this is non-notable. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I'm seeing no reason this is even close to notable. J Milburn (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:10, 5 March 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 00:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First World War Countdown to war[edit]

First World War Countdown to war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a personal essay which duplicates Origins of World War I. As the title doesn't seem to be a plausible search term I don't think that converting it to a redirect is appropriate. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No need for a redirect. Carom (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The author obviously means well, but the article is redundant and written in a much too informal way. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yeah, its an essay. Wikipedia is no place for personal essays Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 02:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mostly per WP:NOT#PUBLISHER, and considering this is not needed with you have this - Milk's Favorite Cookie 03:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete I say that because I am the author. I didn't mean it to be like an essay but that's how I am use to explaining history. I would love you to alter it. The reason why I created it was because I wanted to explain the start of the First World War and how started in more detail. I was going to edit the actual World War I page but it is semi-protected so I couldn't change anything on it. Also as I have just left school I know that many teachers talk more about the start of the war. The problem is the World War I page doesn't explain it very well. That's why I created it. But. It's not my decision. I would honestly prefer you all to edit it rather than delete it. That's all I have to say.Sergeant Expert 8:37 2 March 2008

You see, what you wanted to cover has already been covered in great detail on the article Origins of World War I, which basically says everything you've said in your article already. You can post this somewhere else, you can make a blog on Blogger dedicated to your essays or whatever, but Wikipedia is not your personal publisher. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 10:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for any problems caused but when i typed in the search for this subject it never apeared. Anyway. I am more intent now in creating a page on the Young Archaeologist Club. I f any of you are interested or want to help pleases send me a message. Also. How do you send messages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.80.236.140 (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redundant to other articles, which is why there is no point in fixing up the writing style. The style might be appropriate, perhaps, for a schoolteacher trying to impart a lesson to children studying World War One. However, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and this definitely isn't in the encyclopedic style. Mandsford (talk) 17:50, 2 March 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 faithless (^speak) 07:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of the Land[edit]

Spirit of the Land (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor Dungeons & Dragons creature- no real-world significance or third party sources. May have some level of significance in Darksun- I am unfamiliar with the setting, and so cannot comment, but the article does not indicate that it does. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Fatality'd! I know of this monster (I have the 3.0 book it's in), but I heavily doubt it's any more notable than, say, a random nature kami or a random Native American spirit. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 22:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought that. Surely there is a real world spirit in some folklore or religion that is called this? J Milburn (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not that I know of; from what I know of those cultures (although I could be wrong) there is no one spirit responsible for the land, and if there is it is not referred to as the "spirit of the land". -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 22:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — Do not redirect this; see, for example http://www.spirit-of-the-land.com/; there are a lot of other ghits out there that would seem to have nothing to do with D&D. Ask me about namespace. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:08, 5 March 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 snow keep. Police chiefs of major cities or their equivalents are inherently notable. Blueboy96 13:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Bettison[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, not enough independent sources to verify information and notability. -Nard 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article already has multiple references from credible sources which are independent of the subject (eg. The Times, BBC News, Liverpool Echo, Telegraph Newspaper). Additionally, as the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (one of the biggest police forces in the United Kingdom), Bettison is one of the most senior British police officers serving today. On top of that, his role in the aftermath of the Hillsborough Disaster makes him even more noteworthy. Finally, if there are concerns about the veracity of particular statements in the article then the way to proceed is with the use of ^{[citation needed]} templates. Greenshed (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well within scope of Wikipedia:Notability (people) (plenty of third-party newspaper accounts, "significant recognized awards or honors" and "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field"). Plus British Chief Constables are generally viewed as notable. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - significant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the exact opposite of the nom. jon (blab) 01:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the subject's notability and the independent sources cited which confirm it. — Athaenara ✉ 02:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the subject's notability. Why is this here? "not enough independent sources"? Of a Police Chief Constable of a UK geographical police force? is this a joke? this AFD should be closed. --Fredrick day (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as Keep Can this silly nom be related to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Norman_Bettison and this news story? Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I cannot agree with the nom. Considering the article has around 16 references, it is notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 03:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- — Xiong熊talk* 07:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC) _{attack on subject article removed as per BLP policy. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
• Speedy keep. Multiple coverage from independent reliable sources. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - very notable, meets notability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, no original research, verifiability and biography of living persons policies and guidelines. The conflict of interest is the only problem with this article. EJF (talk) 11:06, 2 March 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 00:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wood woad[edit]

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

Reason:non notable creature with no citations or references. shadzar|Talk|contribs 22:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No notability outside of D&D universe whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. This is one of many such D&D articles that has spun-out of control. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, another D&D creature with no third party coverage or significance. J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:10, 5 March 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. As identified in the debate there is a single reliable source on this. On studying the source, I agree that it is at the most trivial level - it is mere factual reporting and does not talk about anything that makes this farmers' market interesting, but it does reveal that it has a grand total of 15 (!) vendors; it is just a piece of local cover. The other points regarding the content of the article are also very true. I'm not sure this couldn't have been speedied as spam requiring a total rewrite, to be honest. -Splash - tk 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riverdale Park Farmers Market[edit]

Riverdale Park Farmers Market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Leaving aside the almost spammy advertising, this article is about a run-of-the-mill farmers' market. It's not the oldest, the biggest, the most colourful or anything that makes it anything more than just a farmers' market like thoudands of others all over the world. Emeraude (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are a couple sources, but they appear highly local in nature. There isn't anything notable here that I see. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perhaps not very colorful, but two good references. If the Washington Post thinks that the market is notable, it probably is. --Eastmain (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep it technically does meet the notability guidelines as it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial sources. You could make an argument against some of the local sources, but the Washington Post article is fairly significant. Mr Senseless (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Washington Post article is headed "By Maya T. Prabhu, Gazette (??) Staff Writer", whatever that means. And it's about as trivial as it gets. Incidentally, the other linked article is by the same writer and in the same words, so not exactly multiple sources either. Emeraude (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the two sources given are written by the same person and contain the same information, some of it verbatim. I can't consider that to be multiple sources. faithless (^speak) 07:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, spammy, both sources are largely identical to each other, so I don't really think this is "multiple" enough to confer notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A3 criteria. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nymphodorus[edit]

page has no content —Preceding unsigned comment added by Granite07 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Granite07 (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I tagged this for speedy deletion per A3 (blank page). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Page history is confused, but Speedy delete A3 per Ten Pound Hammer looks about right. JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G7 criteria. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarnacus[edit]

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

Reason - page has no content Granite07 (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G7, Author requests deletion. Tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G7 criteria. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pollis[edit]

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

Reason - page has no content Granite07 (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G7, author blanked, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G7 criteria. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theocydes[edit]

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

Reason - page has no content Granite07 (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G7, author blanked, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G7 criteria. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nexaris[edit]

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

Reason - page has no content Granite07 (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G7, author blanked, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:09, 1 March 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 The USGS entry show it exists/existed, places are notable. Gnangarra 10:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Mile Prairie, Missouri[edit]

Two-Mile Prairie, Missouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a census designated place. Part of a larger hoax, although the place IS real. See WP:AN/I for more details. Has no significant references other than two that mention it in passing. All relevant other Wikipedia entries have been deleted or are on their way to be deleted, see Wettershaw Manor, The History of Shaw, Konrad VII von Tegerfelden, Shaw Preservation Society etc. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Notability isn't limited to CDP's and (non) notability does not transfer by association with a hoax. I have been unable to reach the USGS Geonames database today to confirm, but other editors say it is listed. If this is an annexed settlement, it is still notable. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep conditional upon it being a real place. We can check tomorrow morning, once the GNIS is working again; until then, I can't be sure, since it's not listed on Google Maps. Assuming that it's a real place, there's no reason to delete it: communities and localities are notable. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The editor who created the article included a quotation from the book published in 1882 and described at http://lccn.loc.gov/rc01001356 which sounds plausible, but I do not have access to the book itself. The more recent references indicate that the place name is still in use today. All settlements are notable. --Eastmain (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Google Books at http://books.google.com/books?ei=T8TAR9XEHI7AiQHesay1CA&id=_PwBAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22history+of+boone+county%22&q=%22two-mile+prairie%22&pgis=1&hl=en --Eastmain (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete From what I can tell, this is based on the incorrect assumption that Two Mile Prairie Elementary School is named for a town near Columbia called "Two Mile Prairie, Missouri". Under the "all settlements are notable" theory, anything that you can possibly describe as a "settlement" deserves its own article, even if you can't find it on a map. Mandsford (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only Missouri map that I have, other than Google (hardly the most precise map!) is the standard Rand McNally road atlas, which is hardly a good source for small communities. The Atlas and Gazetteer series by DeLorme shows far more communities, and it may well be listed there — except I don't own a Missouri edition. It will likely be on the GNIS website, too, but that's been down for maintenance all day, and should be down for several more hours yet. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the genealogists haven't heard of it. --Dhartung | Talk 08:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the descriptor "an area in Boone County, Missouri northeast of Columbia, Missouri" is hardly precise. Even if an area has locally a name it stills needs some form of boundary or designation to make it encyclopedic (the 'all settlements are notable' is a convention not a policy). It seems pointless splitting every community into smaller and smaller articles; we are just splintering information and making it harder for the reader to find. Better to have fewer, somewhat larger pages and set up redirects. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we seek to reject even a common convention? This is a recognised place; see the GNIS references I've just added. Now that there's a specific reference to the place provided, the nominator's rationale is answered. Let's treat this like any other unincorporated community. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.Weak keep with no objection to merge. It's a verifiably real (and fairly big) place with ongoing interest over time per GNIS and others. I see book evidence that at least a few people settled near or at the place, but evidence of a settlement seems inconclusive. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strengthening keep with better idea of what this place is, a land form that contains an inhabited place (Shaw). If missing "Columbia Township, Missouri" gets created, a merge might make sense. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- With GNIS and a verified literary reference, there are no grounds for considering this article a hoax. -- Shunpiker (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment GNIS and a single unimportant reference do not establish notability, which is a requirement for inclusion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply This would be a stronger nomination if it focused more clearly on the question of notability than on associating the article with others that have been called into question. -- Shunpiker (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why should I need to point out something obvious to everyone? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, KeepI want say that I am Tim mann out of NY, I put up history that I have worked on for over 10 years, Mr Brewcrewer, how hids under a name, did his study in less thr 48 hr. YES i put it up in one day, i had the day off, i work for a living, I had it on paper and put it up, I have tons more to put up too. I would have loved to give you more so you could find it alot faster but brewcewer want it all down. Note that many of you if taken a little time , is finding things on it, but I thank you you took longer then 2 days to try and come to an a Fact. A hoax, No you Mr brewcrewer are, two days and he knows it all, most of you have found thing on the House,Town and Family, If i would have been given more time i would have added a lot, and i woul hope that others would too. But history ill be lost.Mr brewcrewer did not like one thin and went after it all, Jelles ha, Note He took down things on the Conaradines family members i put up, NOTE that as to just Rudolf having no kids, is wrong, on WP, there are 6 other pages that say he did, one of the was Duke of Swabia Berthold I, but he kows all the great histoy man. He took down and changet things with out one Refference and source, he did not let you see what was up till he pulled it down. Over a yera ago i went west on a trip, I stoped by and took a tour of Weyyershaw maner I saw shaw and I meet the man, He is who I said he was and it is a photo of him. Learn to take time and look things up and give it some time, you may learn something Mr brewcrwer self made history giant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveofhistorynut (talk • contribs) 17:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

• Also to note that mr. brewcrewer took down over 90% of what i put up in history, He changed took down bi's and full pages that you could not see and let you the good people of WP get only 10% of what I put up and call it a Hoax, It sounds like making people get only 10% of the story is a Hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveofhistorynut (talk • contribs) 18:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]
• Keep per above -Grey Wanderer | Talk 20:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this still seems an illogical approach to article building. There is no page for Columbia Township, a far more significant settlement. Surely the best way is to create a page for that, first, adding this material to it, and breaking this out if sub-pages for that article then seem sensible? This top down approach is our usual article building protocol. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at most townships in Missouri, you'll see that most are new; as with Iowa and Kansas, there's a gradual effort going on to create articles on the townships. There wouldn't be links for the townships on the county navigational template (see the bottom of the page) if there weren't plans to create the township article. Nyttend (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources, seems to be decent enough to meet WP:RS. A page can easily be created for the township. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Changed my vote. See below. A Google search designed to exclude mentions of the elementary school is the following: 'columbia township missouri "two mile prairie" -elementary'. This one still gets 42 hits, the most convincing of which is this PDF file. It shows the Boone County Commissioners in 2005 making reference to 'Wastewater Construction Planning for South Two-Mile Prairie Region'. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Hallsville, Missouri. That article asserts that Hallsville includes Two-Mile Prairie as an unincorporated settlement. Our current entry for Two-Mile Prairie suffers from not including any population or land area. We don't have enough data to fill up the kind of infobox we have for McBaine, Missouri, which is another unincorporated settlement that forms part of the city of Hallsville. Until we know the population (even if it's 12) I don't see justification for a free-standing article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think an unincorporated community, with what looks like a few residents, is not necessarily notable. The reliable sources only proves it exists, or existed. Is there any source that shows population? If it's just about a ghost town, I'd support deletion per my standards. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, please note that the vast majority of editors disagree; a typical ghost town is generally considered notable, and the specific population (whether or not it has 12+ people) is not really relevant. Nyttend (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, real, officially designated locations are notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep all places are notable (or not non-notable) - this nomination appears to be sincere but grossly misdirected effort - David Gerard (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Though it's no big deal if this is kept, the name is funny in that it appears to be quasi-legendary, or poetic. If you read the article to find out where the boundaries of Two-Mile Prairie are, there aren't any. It's a not-fully-defined town. So I agree if it were a real place with any population at all, or unknown population but defined boundaries, it would be OK. If you click through into the coordinates given it looks to be the middle of someone's farm field, and there is an entry in some list of old place names that the government digitized. The USGS entry says it is 'two miles long' (a deduction from the name?) and is located in Hallsville. It also observes Names were collected by students writing theses during the period 1929 to 1945. If someone offers to sell you land in Two-Mile Prairie, don't buy it. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it's confusing status could be discussed in the article. --Oldak Quill 02:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Any such place has historical value. Eclecticology (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Lankiveil and David Gerard said it. Places that exist are notable. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:36, 10 March 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. John254 00:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parc Slip colliery[edit]

Parc Slip colliery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a copyvio as well from [1]. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as copyvio, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't assert notability; gets almost no hits at all outside of Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Didn't realize name was misspelled. Definitely a notable incident. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: It's no longer a copyvio as the creator has rewritten it and removed the db-copyvio tag. • Anakin ^(talk) 22:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable. Over 100 miners being killed is significant. References are almost certainly available from newspapers of the time and (probably) books on mine safety, as well as the report to the Home Secretary mentioned in the earlier copyvio version of the article. Lack of Google hits is consistent with the mine having closed more than 100 years ago and does not argue against notability. --Eastmain (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's name is incorrect. See http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Park+Slip+Colliery%22& for the search results for the correct spelling, "Park Slip Colliery" --Eastmain (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The site of a major accident and there's lots of sources on the web to substantiate this. The name has been changed to the correct one. How can a mining disaster which killed over a hundred people not be notable? Nick mallory (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This looks like notable, and it was a major incident. I think the nom might have thought of it as un-notable, because the name was misspelled. It is notable. See this - Milk's Favorite Cookie 03:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons stated. No longer a copyvio; highly notable subject. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect faithless (^speak) 07:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howard J. Markey[edit]

Howard J. Markey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – Blueboy96 22:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)(View AfD)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as apparent content fork of Howard Thomas Markey. Blueboy96 22:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Almost certainly notable as a military officer, lawyer, academic and judge. Needs references, but the first few I found confirm the judgeship part. --Eastmain (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to real name. --Eastmain (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This appears to be an accidental duplicate article of Howard Thomas Markey apparently stemming from confusion over his middle name. One source calls him Howard J, though his middle name is Thomas.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This may be a duplication (in which case it should be deleted anyway), but in any event it's a totally unsourced obituary-style piece without even the barest hint of factual biographical detail (not even birthdate), and is thus unsuitable for WP. MSJapan (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. If he's erroneously referred to by this name in at least one source, it's a conceivable search term and should redirect to the actual article. Carom (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except some notable Howard J. Markey may arise in the future, besides the name without a middle initial redirects to the other article. Not much point in having a redirect based on a single site messing up his middle initial.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It evidently generated enough confusion that someone created this article. I don't really understand your first point - redirects are cheap, and can always be converted into articles on newly notable people, if necessary. Carom (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Howard Thomas Markey, per Carom. Conceivable search term. --Edcolins (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect suggest speedily. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:36, 3 March 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 00:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashen Husk[edit]

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

Dungeons & Dragons monster appearing in only one supplement. No in-game significance, no evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 22:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G11.. bibliomaniac15 22:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collegiate inn[edit]

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

Non-notable, spammy, inadequate references. ukexpat (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• G11 as spam, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:03, 1 March 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 00:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jermlaine[edit]

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

Dungeons & Dragons monster which has appeared in several supplements, as well as Dragon magazine, but which lacks in-game or real world significance, as well as third party sources. J Milburn (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as i was trying to add the AfD template! just a variation on a gremlin and non notable for anything within the game itself other than being just another creature. like Sirine it is just something renamed for the game with no special qualities. shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Dis grot's not gonna live long. Squash 'em. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 03:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Axl (talk) 15:29, 3 March 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. John254 00:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing room play[edit]

Drawing room play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The concept is referenced in a book published by English Heritage, a government agency. --Eastmain (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It provides a reliable source and does appear to be notable as a type of play. A Google search gives online sources from Google books, mentions on Time magazine's website, an article in the New York Times on a drawing room play and so on.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: You can find mentions of the concept, or at least prototypes of it, in annotations of Jane Austen's novels. Definitely notable and capable of expansion into encyclopedic coverage. I'd be surprised if there aren't dissertations on the subject, given the sheer volume of stuff written on Victorian domestic culture. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:15, 2 March 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 Consensus to keep. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Zarling[edit]

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

Less than 300 hits on Google for both "David Zarling" and "David A. Zarling". Not quite sure it meets CSD criteria - Article is long, but seems to be a non-notable scientist of some sort. Prod was contested by article creator. Esteffect (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't seem anything is particularly notable or special about the company or the individual.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For a living or recently deceased scientist or academic, a search at Google Scholar at http://scholar.google.com can be helpful. See hits at [Google Scholar], with the first article cited by more than 100 others. --Eastmain (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Prostate cancer is one of the most common and deadly forms of oncology out there. Dr. Zarling got four drug candidates that showed high efficacy and low toxicity in pre-clinical trials. I was thrilled when I saw his presentation on his ROS-combating compounds and pre-clinical data showing high efficacy of these compounds in prostate cancer. I can not put an article on Colby and drug candidates right now, but I will do that shortly after they go public. If you don't like this article, please delete it, I just wanted to contribute to the cause. Other profiles I would like to contribute are: Mitch Finer, PhD (founder of Cell Genesys and Abgenix), Hirak S. Basu, PhD, Richard Zare, PhD (Chairman, Department of Chemistry at Stanford), Hasan Mukhtar, PhD (Professor of Cancer Research and Vice Chair or Research, Department of Dermatology, UW-Madison and Chairman, Department Of Defense Prostate Cancer Medical Research Program), who are also involved in prostate cancer research. --Dnamo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Dnamo created the original article. Esteffect (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided but in any case rewrite--This is very clearly not an A7, for some notability is clearly claimed as both a scientist and a businessman. However, I commend the nom for picking up the somewhat dubious features in this skillful PR job. His actual scientific career, and his business career are not exactly identical. He published some good work in biochemistry and biophysics as a relatively junior scientist, and then went into the pharmaceutical development business. It is not entirely clear to me what he actually accomplished there, because he did not apparently invent any drugs that have actually come into use. He seems to have been in some way associated with some candidate drugs that have not yet gotten approval. Most candidate drugs do not get approval. He may be notable when they do, if he actually has a large part in their development. There is an important difference between "developing novel small molecule Oxidative Stress Modulator (OSM™) drug products for treatment of prostate disease" and developing successful ones. I note that OSM drugs were not the field of his original research interest in DNA structures. The other people mentioned may in fact be notable. full professors at Wisconsin and Stanford usually are. He, however, is an Associate Adjunct Professor. I'll do a fuller analysis of his papers and patents a little later. Possibly he may have been of greater scientific importance for them than first appears. Researchers are notable for their research, developers only when they suceed in developing a successful product. I wish him good luck in that, of course, but the odds are against him.DGG (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is my first time posting at Wikipedia, but I googled David Zarling today and found this article. It is incredible that you are planning to delete his most complete biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.60.93 (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Eastmain above. The subject of this article has written enough articles and been cited enough for me to be convinced that he's somewhat notable in his field. Article still requires cleanup to make it less spammy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep - sincere but badly ill-researched nomination - David Gerard (talk) 15:30, 9 March 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 per lack of notability. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chanel Chavez[edit]

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

Non-notable actress under WP:BIO. Rogreview citation is a self-published site with content heavily based on personal opinion (it's a reviewer site) and is not considered a reliable source to establish notability Vinh1313 (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage apparent. Epbr123 (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, would not appear to meet the relevant WP:BIO notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:43, 9 March 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 Consensus to keep and improve. You kept it folks, now please improve it so it meets WP:NOT.. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plinth[edit]

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

No more than a dicdef, can be no more than a dicdef, and even includes link to Wiktionary (which has more information than this "article". Emeraude (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless the architectural stuff can be expanded similar to column. – ukexpat (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Of course it can be expanded--there is an immense architectural and sculptural literature available. DGG (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - unfortunately stublike, shouldn't be. Retain stub per DGG. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's a dicdef at present, but there is vast potential for expansion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:43, 9 March 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. bibliomaniac15 22:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuficius[edit]

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

Reason - no need for page and causes confusion on other pages Granite07 (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G7, author blanked, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:09, 1 March 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 00:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Strider[edit]

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

Reason: non-notable creature cited as appearing in only one source. no other cites or references. shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- minor Dungeons & Dragons creature appearing only in a book which is a list of creatures. No third pary coverage. J Milburn (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Kick it out of its pod. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 22:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:53, 5 March 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. bibliomaniac15 22:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agesistratus[edit]

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

Reason - no need for page and causes confusion on other pages Granite07 (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G7, author blanked, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:10, 1 March 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. bibliomaniac15 22:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrrus[edit]

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

Reason - no need for page and causes confusion on other pages Granite07 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G7, author blanked, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:10, 1 March 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. bibliomaniac15 22:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charias[edit]

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

Reason Granite07 (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G7, author blanked, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:10, 1 March 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, nom withdrew with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optics Valley[edit]

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

Never heard of this term before. Unsourced and a google search turns up absolutely nothing, likely a neogolism. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; the article needs work, but I'm surprised to hear you say you've never heard of it or can't find sources. Here are a bunch of book sources. Dicklyon (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I did a google search and came up with a hit from a Tucson site [2] that says that area has been known as Optics Valley since 1992, and that the airport has a sign that welcomes you to Optics Valley. It's the first I've heard of it though. The article could be expanded as more information is discovered about it. ArcAngel (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • You found some sources, excellent, I'll go ahead and withdraw the AFD. Thanks for keeping me on my toes guys. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:34, 1 March 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 faithless (^speak) 07:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sirine[edit]

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

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. Has appeared in a few supplements, but of no real in-game significance. No evidence of third party coverage or real world significance. J Milburn (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non notable. it iS a Siren just renamed for the game. shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a one-sentence version of this one into Sirens, in the popular culture section. It's interesting as a variation on the theme of sirens, but has no notability for its own article. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - non-notable. Do not merge to Sirens, as is not the same. Do not mention in a list. Step away from the gaming manuals. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:25, 6 March 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 00:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boobrie (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Boobrie (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. No in-game significance, no real-world sources and no first party sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and any other non-notable D&D characters listed for deletion today. Mr Senseless (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the page Boobrie on the mythological creature. A one sentence mention that the creature is used in Dungeons and Dragons wouldn't be amiss. Leoniceno (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. Do not merge unsourced material. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn with no "delete" opinions. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Éditions Robert Laffont[edit]

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

Delete Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

conserveI d' ont agree with this deletion idea. I have just writed one sentence, when the article was proposed for deletion. The Éditions Robert Laffont are one of the most important francophone book publisher, - its unbelievevable that it should diseapeer from the english wikipedia ! Christophe.Neff (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Go to www.amazon.fr and do a detailed search, putting "Robert Laffont" as publisher, and you get 11 108 returns! (See [3].)Even accounting for double entries, this makes it a major publisher, and the existence of articles in the French Wikipedia fr:Éditions Robert Laffont and Spanish Wikipedia es:Éditions Robert Laffont backs this up. This article is clearly new and needs time to develop, but deletion is a nonsesnse. Emeraude (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawing nomination as references given and signs of notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:48, 1 March 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 faithless (^speak) 05:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims of the Babi Yar massacre[edit]

List of victims of the Babi Yar massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fork of Babi Yar Jd2718 (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I thought it obvious when I said "fork" what the POV fork was. My error. This is an attempt to make a prominent list of Ukrainian Nationalists killed at Babi Yar months after the massacre. The names are (save perhaps two) non-notable. There is almost no possibility of learning the names of those killed during the massacre itself. So when I said fork, I should have said "typical East European nationalist fork." Jd2718 (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A list of known Jewish victims, including those that died in th Babi Yar tragedy is available Here. Just go through them and find the more prominet ones Bandurist (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Trim, turn to prose and Merge with Babi Yar. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & redirect -- memorial/pov fork. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would gladly agree to merge, BUT the AfD proposer (Jd) is the same one who was causing friction over the matter when it was still a part of the main BYar article.Galassi (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If it is not notable it is not notable. Setting up a separate article does not make it so. A list of 10 red links, a poetess (whose notability derives, in large part, from her murder at Babi Yar), and a mention of dozens of priests does not make an article. You've set up a blank section for Jewish victims, but we know it will not be filled. There were 50,000 - 100,000. The only reasonable course is to delete the fork and leave in the main article what is notable: that among the 100,000 Nazi victims at Babi Yar were some 600 members of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. Jd2718 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may take a few weeks but I will translate and port over the information on those listed from the Ukrainian encyclopedia. Bandurist (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is not a useful criteria here, because some of the victims were indeed notable (many OUN members were the cream of the nation), while wiki notability standard is never applied to pornographic film "actors", for example.Galassi (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On the contrary, notability is always a factor, even for porn actors. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try to put a notability tag on some porn article and see what happens.......Galassi (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've personally nominated articles on non notable porn actors for deletion, with success. Natalie (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• trim, merge, redirect and move on. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Some of the people who died there were notable and made significant contributions to Ukrainian culture. Just because articles have not been added for the bulk of them as yet on Wikipeda is not a reason for wholesale deletion. The Babi Yar atrocity needs to be documented from all aspects rather than just one particular view. Bandurist (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Which should be easily done from the main article, with links to those notable people. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. The subject (victims of a massacre) is highly notable, encyclopedic, and thoroughly sourced / sourceable. As the largest single massacre of the entire holocaust, one of the most atrocious events in human history, the different facets of the massacre certainly are worthy of separate articles in the encyclopedia. If the horror of the event is too great, complex, or momentous to be covered fully in the main article, it only makes sense to discuss different aspects of it elsewhere. The death of 33,000+ people, many of them notable and important to a nation's culture, is an issue in itself, beyond the act of killing.Wikidemo (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if this list is too long to include in the Babi Yar article, then keep it as its own article. Ostap 02:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep.Galassi (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepLute88 (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the main article about the massacre remains Babi Yar, but not everything can or should be included under it, so this is a good way to include all notable and relevant information.--Riurik^(discuss) 05:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. As I noted on the talk page, there is List of victims of Nazism and if the format says as a very strict minimalist list of names (with notable ones have articles), I think it would be fine. Given the number of victims, it is too probably large to be merged back. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong redirect This is barely an article. All of these facts should be in the main article. AniMate 03:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article had been up 3 days. It was first put up, listed for speedy within five minutes (under WP:NOT), and is now getting names and other information started. It deserve some time to build. Even the 33 people in the Virginia Tech massacre has a separate article, which could easily be merged back in. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Merging would in my opinion negatively affect the main article Babi Yar by including information best presented in full under a separate entry. --Riurik^(discuss) 05:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; it's not even really a borderline case. Any time you take tens of thousands of people from a major city, and massacre them, just statistically enough of them will be notable to write a meaningful, annotated list which contains details out of the scope of the article on the massacre itself. Antandrus (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article is only about Ukrainian victims who were members of the Ukrainian Nationalist Organization (there were some 600), and has no potential to grow beyond that, because the Jewish victims (tens of thousands) are anonymous. Jd2718 (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That is not exactly true. According to Haaretz in 2006, roughly 10% of the Jewish victims were identified; it's a small number, but refutes your claim of anonymity. The second part that it "has no potential to grow" is true only if this article is deleted. Should the wikipedia community decide to keep it, it will have a chance to grow based on the 10% of names that have been identified so far.--Riurik^(discuss) 05:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The main article is large already to merge. But remove duplicate text, to avoid unnecessary forking, which is always problem for coherent maintenance of texts. Mukadderat (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. To merge this with the main article would cause the main article to be unwieldy, which is the point of splitting off a list. Not every split equals a "fork", especially one like this. Bellwether ^B_C 15:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - Sadly WP is not a WP:MEMORIAL, so just as the list of 9/11 victims was not permitted, so should this not be permitted as a memorial of the same type. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - WP NOT:Memorial policy does not disqualify death/murder of notable victims. Here is the policy verbatim: Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. Those listed currently in the article seem to qualify as notable. If there is a disagreement then any editor is free to challenge the notability of that particular victim, but the entire article itself should not be deleted based on the WP NOT Memorial policy.--Riurik^(discuss) 21:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives and, by extension political allies... This article is a memorial to non-notable members of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. Jd2718 (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To my understanding, the "memorial" policy is there to guard against relatives or friends of the diseased who in order to honor them, attempt to immortalize the dead person by creating a wikipedia entry. This is not the case here. I agree that the OUN members were probably not notable, but they are not listed by name, which seems to be ok since under the Babi Yar article we mention Roma victims in the aggregate. Writers, poets and athletes are also mentioned in this article.--Riurik^(discuss) 19:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was MERGE to Ohio State University. There is a clear consensus that this is not substantive out of its parent article. There is no consensus to delete outright, but taking together all those who would not have this stand alone, the situation is pretty clear that this is of primarily or exclusively local interest. I do not find it persuasive to say that because article A is long, all elements B-Z of it therefore earn their own articles. -Splash - tk 22:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Oval (Ohio State University)[edit]

The Oval (Ohio State University) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Outside of the context of the university in question, this is an entirely unremarkable bit of ground. If anything needs to be said about this on Wikipedia, then it needs a sentence or at most two at Ohio State University Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:LOCAL and WP:HOLE, even though it appears to be filled in. Wikipedia is not a campus map or directory. --Dhartung | Talk 20:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Ohio State University. ArcAngel (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per ArcAngel. Mr Senseless (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's more notable than this article suggest. It was simply started as a stub, and it certainly needs expansion. The events held there make it as notable as an arena. It's known to more than the OSU community. Also, note that I started it due to its presence on a wanted article list of topics concerning OSU. нмŵוτнτ 01:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The only time it's notable outside of OSU is when Musburger mentions it on ABC during the OSU-Michigan game, it seems to me. Thus - I feel it could just as well being merged into the OSU article, rather than as a stand alone article. ArcAngel (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The OSU article is so large, however, that little other articles are needed (WP:SUMMARY). нмŵוτнτ 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per ArcAngel. Some notable events may be held here, but that doesn't mean that the actual location is all that notable outside of a very local context. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Notable location with verfiable information. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:03, 9 March 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. - Philippe | Talk 04:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PNG Cutthroat[edit]

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

Just something made up one day in some guy's basement, non-notable (fails the primary notability criterion), probably speedily deletable really, since it doesn't even assert notability (but I'd rather have an AfD record of this for precedential value), and a clear conflict of interest, as the principal author of article is one of the game's inventors. For directly relevant deletion precedents, see: pool bocce, Mexican pool, goof ball, beer-in-hand, flanges, Bjureez, etc. This one was ((prod))ded and (after edits that did nothing to fix this article's notability problems) unprodded on February 4— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per WP:NOT. Also, fails WP:RS, WP:OR. Possible transwiki to pool.variants.played.in.someone's.room.in.orem.utah.wikipedia.org. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:33, 6 March 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. - Philippe | Talk 04:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baridhara Mohila Samobaya Samity, Ltd.[edit]

Baridhara Mohila Samobaya Samity, Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A search in any language reveals a wikimirror farm and zero RS coverage. While I acknowledge that internet coverage in Bangladesh may not be extensive, I'd expect *something* if it were notable. Fails WP:CORP and WP:V TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yup, a complete hoax or at least fails WP:CORP Doc Strange (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if more references can be found. This link[4] seems to support the claims in the article. Pburka (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : Unverifiable, NN org. --Ragib (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Very much original research. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:28, 3 March 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. - Philippe | Talk 04:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shedu (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Shedu (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor Dungeons & Dragons monster. Minimal in-game significance, and no evidence of any real-world significance. No mention of which books it appears in, and no soruces cited. J Milburn (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a note about it already exists in the Shedu article. shadzar|Talk|contribs 20:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge/redirect into Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons)#Magical beast. BOZ (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notable only as a pop culture reflection of the mythical creature, which is already noted in the main Shedu article. For that matter, the lammasu D&D srticle should probably be on the chopping block, too. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Non-notable. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the mythical Shedu page, in itself notable. Clearly the same creature...actually that page needs a bit of a cleanup itself...Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - no assertion of notability outside of a game. Nothing worth merging to the main Shedu article, beyond the mention already there. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:35, 6 March 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. John254 00:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stage Deli[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited from its customers and I see no reason to keep this article about one of New york's 4,000,000 delis. Caligirl1981 (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Reliable sources have written about it, so it's notable. --Eastmain (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The notability of the customers doesn't come into it. The fact that all of those reliable sources have written about the deli makes it notable. And, by the way, is that 4,000,000 figure verifiable? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, just a deli. Any deli could have famous customers. Customers doesn't make it notable and it's been closed by the Board of Health. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Standatoms1985 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Yes, it was briefly closed by the Board of Health and a major newspaper from thousands of miles away chose to publish an article about the fact. Does that happen with all the other thousands of restaurants that get closed in the same way? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, although most deli's would not qualify, this one seems to have made a name for itself, with verifiable sources pointing to its fame. bd2412 T 05:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, with creator bias. I created the stub, so obviously I think there's good reason for it to exist. The nom raises a good point about the deli's notability stemming from its customers but as an inanimate object, notability has to come from somewhere. Do I think the stub needs fleshing out? Absolutely. Do I think that's reason for it to be deleted? Nope. I think the deli is an important landmark in the Theater District and while fame!notability, I think it lends to it in this case. Am always open for suggestions on how to improve it, etc., but I think it's a valid stub. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 12:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One of NYC's probably 4 or so most important remaining delis; even at the height of things, there were never 4 million. DGG (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - yes, verifiability is established. EJF (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a landmark along with a few other delis in the city. It is the subject of may pieces on TV. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:13, 5 March 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 - Philippe | Talk 04:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gunk subculture[edit]

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

Copied from the talk page: This appears to be unreferencable? "Gunk culture" returns 2 unusable ghits, as does "Gunk subculture". Marasmusine (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Ie. Neologism and original research. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "Gunks typically are males, and usually the scrawnier type" suggests that this could be a hoax. StAnselm (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - complete WP:OR. Zero sources, fail WP:RS. Single-purpose account. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe | Talk 04:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James William McGhee[edit]

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

Still no evidence of notability; the only source is an obscure court record about a patent case he lost; yes, had a few patents, but notability is about independent (which his patents are not) reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. Nothing cited has ANY coverage of the subject (neither the patents nor the court case say one word about the inventor, so they don't support notability). This is just one in a series of articles written by a family member, for vanity essentially. Dicklyon (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:N and also due to the fact this is the 2nd Afd for this article. ArcAngel (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; no significant coverage in reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Being the inventor of the now-commonplace Drapery hook in itself indicates notability. --Oakshade (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with that portion of WP:N; can you point it out? Besides, the cited court ruling says "we fail to find in plaintiffs' device any patentable novelty." Dicklyon (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for a "must have invented the Drapery hook" portion of WP:N is just silly WikiLawyering. The introduction of WP:N has a common sense clause. --Oakshade (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be silly. I was asking for a part about having invented something "now-commonplace" which is what you've said implies notability. Dicklyon (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same answer. Someone who was the originator or inventor of something that is now commonplace is notable per WP:N's common sense clause. --Oakshade (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds like you're reverting to the "because I said so" argument. The only thing I see about invention at WP:N is in the footnote that says "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." Since McGhee has never anywhere been mentioned in connection with the invention of the drapery hook, as far as we know, and since the court said there was nothing novel in his patent, I wonder what version of common sense you are applying here. I think it makes more sense to fall back on the general notability requirement: "presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; where are such sources? Dicklyon (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A single judge claiming this person's invention is "nothing novel" (apparently that judge was overruled by a higher court) doesn't magically make this person's invention of the drapery hook insignificant. Anyone who has installed or taken down drapes works with this person's invention, whether a judge called it "nothing novel" or not. That's common sense. That's why it's in the very first section of WP:N. --Oakshade (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the "common sense" exception is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, but I don't see how it applies here. Are you saying that anyone who invented some little piece of commonplace hardware is thereby a notable person? Seems unlikely to me, but it's a point that could be discussed on the talk page of WP:NOTE. You want to bring it up there? Propose it? Dicklyon (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would answer yes. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There's no practical limit as to the number of articles that can be created. "Commonplace hardware" are in fact very significant to the daily lives of millions (and sometimes billions) of people. That's why they've become commonplace. --Oakshade (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade: what is your basis for "A single judge claiming this person's invention is "nothing novel" (apparently that judge was overruled by a higher court)"? We have the district court finding the patent invalid, and the court of appeals (which would probably be three judges, although it could be more) agreeing. "With the lower court, we fail to find in plaintiffs' device any patentable novelty; certainly there is no invention in the hook member." Where are you getting the information that this was overruled by a higher court? If it were in fact overruled, I would be inclined to Keep, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong on that point. TJRC (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and reference better. Excellent court case, excellent invention still used today. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been many months since the last time we tried to get some sources, but none are to be found, except for the court records of his patent suits. Those are not evidence of notability, since they are not at all independent of him. Dicklyon (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how court records are not independent of him. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The court records are primary sources for activities that he was involved in, namely lawsuits; his involvement makes it not independent. An independent report, e.g. in a newspaper, about those lawsuits and commenting on what was important about them, would be evidence of something notable. Same with a patent itself; any inventor can get a patent, but if their invention never gets written up in an independent publication, and they never get to be known for it, where's the notability? The drapery hook may be notable, and if it would make sense to discuss the priority fight in an article about it, but an article about the obscure guy who claims to have invented it does not meet the criteria of WP:NOTE; or if does, please point out which criterion is satisfied. Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I was not previously aware that you had created the drapery hook article. Seems like a good thing, so I included in it the material about the patent infringement suit. As far as I can see, that's the entire sourced content of this article, so nothing will be lost if the article is deleted (except maybe his children's names, which you today indicated are sourced to the California birth index, but did you actually consult that record today, or sometime, or do you know them for other reasons?). Dicklyon (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I consulted today, I have a paid subscription to it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The final result in court appears to indicate that he lost. Is that correct, and does it mean that the courts judged him NOT to be "the inventor of the drapery hook?" Edison (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're told that he eventually won (but unsourced). Either way, the court's decision doesn't support notability nor lack of notability. But, since there's no evidence of notability, ... Dicklyon (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Getting a patent, or having a court case does not prove notability. Secondary newspaper/magazine/book/TV discussion of such a patent or case, which seems to be here absent, could prove notability. Edison (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep interesting, informative and supported by reliable sources to establish notability. The fact that this is the second AfD only adds to the disruption. Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF. --Veritas (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I filed the first one, too, which closed with "no consensus" even though nobody offered any evidence of notability. We gave it plenty of time for interested parties to find some sources, but it hasn't happened. I was originally attracted to this article by virtue of having list of inventors on my watch list; it gets random and vanity entries at a good rate, and this was one of those. The user who created it also made articles for three or four other family members; coupling them into one AfD confused the issue, which is another reason we needed a second AfD. I'm not sure what this disrupts. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn, "interesting" and "informative" are not notability criteria, and I don't see any reliable sources that establish notability. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete How many patents are there? Not everyone with one is notable.--Veritas (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One patent case, which he lost, and is not regarded as a precedent, in the absence of anything else, does not confer notability. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There's no evidence that anyone outside of Wikipedia thinks this guy is notable. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is an article on someone whose only basis of notability is that he claimed to have invented a novel and non-obvious drapery hook. Two courts -- the District Court for the Southern District of California, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals -- found that he did not. Unless there are some really extenuating circumstances, which don't appear present here, the entire basis for notability was vitiated 80 years ago. If the patent had been sustained, I'd probably be saying "Keep"; while not all inventions inherently result in notability, if the invention is in common and widespread use, and as well-known, as this one is, that would be enough for me. But what this article boils down to is: there was a guy who tried to patent a gizmo, and he failed. I recognize that he had a temporary success when the patent issued in 1923 before the district court tossed it out sometime between 1923 and 1929, but ultimately, this is just about a guy who tried and failed to get a valid patent, nothing more. TJRC (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect to McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc. I would strongly urge that the material be retained in a legal article on his court case rather than deleted from wikipedia altogether. There are plenty of legal articles on this website that are considered notable in the legal field but obscure to the general public, just as there are several articles on quantum physics which are obscure to those unfamiliar with the subject. As far as reasons why to retain the article, first, McGhee was the leading case in the 9th circuit clarifying the meaning of "prior publication" for invalidating a patent. This might not be apparent to those who are unfamiliar with patent law. Invalidating a patent can be as legally significant as upholding a patent. Second, this case is cited if a few textbooks. It is nice to have a source on the internet where a patent law professor can show a picture of the person who is litigating a patent's validity when illustrating how prior publication can destroy a party's chances of seeking a valid patent. A few articles on wikipedia provide illustrations or pictures such as Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon. It is more helpful to have a little more background about the parties that come to a case because it puts the case into context and helps us to remember both law and circumstances. Third, the case is the first in a line of precedent in the 9th Circuit that interpreted the 2nd Circuit's decision in Jockmus v. Leviton 28 F.2d 812 (1928), which is the most influential case on the meaning of publication in the early 20th century. We cite Jockmus because it was written by Learned Hand. McGhee is significant because it is the historical adoption of the Jockmus ruling in the 9th Circuit, which made it the binding precedent regarding prior publication (contrary to Rodhullandemu's contention). What I can conceive as a better solution is to Merge or redirect into a McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc.. The Author of the article has an interest in promoting his ancestors, but this information is more useful in its legal context than in its biographical context. Legis Nuntius (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's notable about McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc.? Did it enunciate any important point of law, or provide a particularly scholarly approach to a legal issue? Although certainly some appellate cases are legitimate bases for Wikipedia articles, most of them are not. I don't even think every Supreme Court case is worthy of an article; and unlike the Supreme Court, any losing litigant may appeal to the appropriate court of appeals as of right. The vast majority of these cases, even the vast majority of the reported cases, are insufficiently notable for an article. Unless there's some special basis for this case, I don't see sufficient notability for an article. In addition, there's almost nothing about the case itself in this article. I'm against the redirect. TJRC (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's true that the case is cited in several textbooks, and if someone has access to those books and can write the article, then they should do so. But there's not much in the present article worth saving. Dicklyon (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McGhee is the first case in the 9th circuit to "enunciate" the broad interpretation of "prior publication" in patent law. As I stated above, it adopted the holding in Jockmus. A prior publication may be as simple as an advertisement in a catalog. In some cases, it can even be a picture without any description. This interpretation does not necessarily follow from the 1836 Act. It is completely absent from the article on Novelty (patent). It is somewhat hinted at in Defensive publication. The author of the McGhee article intended to create articles of his ancestors. In the case of this article, his ancestor was involved in a 9th circuit court case that decided an issue of law for the first time in that circuit and on a point that is absent from wikipedia. What is notable about McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co.? It illustrates a point of law not present on wikipedia. Legis Nuntius (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you have a book about this. Want to write it up? Dicklyon (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually not much more to that. The source is not a book, but a 55 page ALR article which has a single paragraph on the McGhee case in a broader discussion on publication. I'm not very familiar with this facet of patent law. It only came up when I looked into seeing if the case was notable. The case also pops up in a 7 volume treatise on patent law in the law library here. That entry briefly describes the facts of the case, the holding, and a very brief discussion of its jurisprudence. It is also in a patent textbook, but after a redacted entry on Jockmus. These entries aren't huge, but then again they exist. Wikipedia's guidelines on notability aren't very clear. McGhee is more than a footnote, which is much more than most circuit court cases, but there are many other court cases of far more significance which need articles. So, I believe the case is notable hence my vote, but I understand the votes to the contrary. I'm afraid that it would take a great deal of research for me to develop an accurate article, ergo it may not survive the Afd if no others pick it up to make better use of it. Legis Nuntius (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most of the patents McGhee filed were not questioned or challenged and the drapery hook was also patented in Canada which was recognized throughout the entire British Empire, at that time, an area with more population than the US. The Canadian patent was never challenged or questioned. I think this is a great example of how a big business can beat up a little guy and steal his patents (ideas) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joegillus (talk • contribs) 07:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC) — Joegillus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP I have to agree with Oakshade and Joegillus. I use this invention in my home as I am sure many people do - it's common sense to include the inventor - his Canadian patent is included in the article - that's good enough for me. That's why 'common sense' is mentioned in the very first section of WP:N.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.184.145 (talk • contribs) — 71.106.184.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Philippe | Talk 04:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BoXer (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Orphaned since 2006. No label. Delete Undeath (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From the German page for Joe Schocker here, it seems that there's some confusion as to whether BoXer even exists; Stenger is listed as frontman for both groups, and Schocker is still playing gigs. In any event, I can find no album info or other material that would put either BoXer or Schocker at anything more than a local act. Even no-name bands can open for big stars, and that is not in and of itself an indicator of notability. MSJapan (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have searched for sources in Google News archives and in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles and could find nothing. Delete if no sources are forthcoming. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete - I thought about opening it up to delete all the peacocking, but this one's beyond me. Total press-release masquerading as a band article. Fail WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM, WP:MYSPACE, WP:PLEASEDESTROYWIKIPEDIA-BYPOSTING-ARTICLESABOUTYOURBANDS. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:41, 6 March 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. - Philippe | Talk 04:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington Arms[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. The pure volume link gives nothing notable about the band. Also, the pure volume shows that the band has a total of 8 fans. Not notable. Delete Undeath (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MSJapan (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I've also searched for sources and found nothing. Delete. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Paul Erik. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:43, 6 March 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 - Philippe | Talk 04:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable figures of the 1980s[edit]

Notable figures of the 1980s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Any article with "notable" in the title is suspect. The first part about entertainers at least has a clear criterion for inclusion, though it doesn't make much sense to consider a singer or band notable in the 80's if it had a #1 hit in the US or the UK. Similarly, actors and directors are only notable if they won an Oscar or a BAFTA award. Notable sports figures seem to have been chosen arbitrarily. Notable political figures include Nancy Reagan, Princess Diana and spouses of Canadian prime ministers but no head of state of European countries besides Thatcher. Of course, one might argue: the list just needs to be expanded so that it is complete. But then, we still are left with an arbitrary cut-off for "notability" and we are likely headed towards a 200kb article. Pichpich (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although a lot of work was put into compiling this, "notability" is the threshhold requirement for a person having an article on Wikipedia, so there would be thousands and thousands of articles that referenced a person who did something notable during the years from 1980 to 1989. Not just Ronald Reagan and Joe Montana, but Alfredo Rampi and Fawn Hall and Thomas Dolby and Marcus Serjeant and Lyle Kurtenbach and others who aren't well known today. Mandsford (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LIST. This is an exceedingly broad list and seems to be rather pointless.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looking at the history, it seems that the list was spun-off the 1980's article. This is the usual way that these lists end up being created but usually, it simply indicates that the corresponding content should have been fleshed out of the parent article. Pichpich (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep This list is extremely arbitrary, it needs clear guidelines for inclusion, a lot of work/ expansion and possibly a title change, but I think this could eventually pass WP:LIST. Mr Senseless (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, completely abitrary inclusion criteria and unnecessary.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too broad to be useful, no clear inclusion guidelines. Kevlar67 (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by creator OK, it's a bit shite. The number one artists list was my fault, and so were the oscar/bafta winners. The sports list I could do nothing with, not knowing what's the top achievement for various individuals ion most team sports, and not knowing (or caring) whether a particular pantomime wrestler was a worldwide figure or a local hero. I was just trying to tidy up the 1980s article, and I don't care whether this list of random stuff survives or not. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:20, 4 March 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 00:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corpse Gatherer[edit]

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

non notable monster with only one source shadzar|Talk|contribs 20:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. D&D monster appearing in only one book. Of no real significance in-game, and no evidence of third party coverage shown. J Milburn (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable fictional critter; try one line in a list, folks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:40, 2 March 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 00:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahuizotl (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Ahuizotl (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dungeons & Dragons monster that has appeared in a single supplement. No third party coverage. Possibly deserves a brief mention in the article about the mythical creature, but I doubt it. J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 20:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely un-notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 03:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I went ahead and added a mention to the article for the mythological creature, making this article as redundant as two Rings of Protection +1. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Smite. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 22:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:18, 4 March 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. - Philippe | Talk 04:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cinder Cone (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. No third party sources and no tours. Delete Undeath (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - fails WP:N, WP:RS, and so on. Created by WP:SPA, probably WP:SPAM. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Little turns up on Google News archives. I also checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles and did not find relevant sources. Delete. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:32, 7 March 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.