The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (CSD G1: Patent Nonsense). PeaceNT 13:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compz[edit]

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

I would say this fails WP:NOTDICT, but I can't find a single reference of the word 'Compz' used in this manner. So probably fails WP:NEO. (Also, what's with the random person!?) A^RendedWinter 23:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per WP:Speedy#G1. This is patent nonsense if anything is. Deltopia 01:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy per Deltopia KnightLago 02:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy per patent nonsense. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Also delete the guy's image--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under G1, so tagged. Unsourced, uncontextual and unverified. TheLetterM 12:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Untitled Sean Paul album[edit]

The result was a clear consensus to delete. --  Denelson83  05:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

No real content, fails WP:CBALL. Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 23:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, minimal content available to pass WP:CRYSTAL; sources linked all fail WP:RS (two blogs and a link that now redirects elsewhere). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 00:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CBALL. No confirmed tracks, few indications that it even exists. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and the fact that it is, as yet, non-notable. --BelovedFreak 17:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent Will ^(talk) 17:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ronnotel 03:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obvious WP:CBALL case. --Kudret abi^Talk 04:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki 16:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Crusties[edit]

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

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC Rackabello 23:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete, tagged for A7. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last Exile - Plot[edit]

Last Exile - Plot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries. Rackabello 23:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, possible speedy per WP:CSD#G4, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Last_Exile_Plot. shoy 23:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete under criterion G4 (repost). Thanks for bringing that to our attention Rackabello 23:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a repost. Also, article was prodded and deleted from Last Exile Plot Summary on 2007-09-23. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into parent article may be more expedient than a speedy. The main problem is that the parent article has forked this to a separate article, resulting in the continual recreations. Of course, by rights this can be speedied on sight, but we are likely to have to deal with this over and over unless we head this off at the pass by merging the content back to the parent article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As it stands, this is way too long to be merged into the parent article. A short summary could be included. --BelovedFreak 17:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per everyone. JuJube 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. This is clearly unsuitable for inclusion. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. A short summary could be included in the main article but nothing like the size of this. --BelovedFreak 17:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I taken the opportunity to be bold and merged the plot article back into the main article. This should never have been split off into a separate article, which violates WP:NOT#PLOT and is not a valid way of dealing with an overly long plot section. --Farix (Talk) 21:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above. Does not warrent its own article. ffm 23:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • TheFarix's move seems a reasonable way to handle this. It looks as though this issue has been dealt with. How does everyone else feel? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we can close this Rackabello 14:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete acknowledging Farix's merge. I agree with Rackabello, this issue appears to be resolved. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the redirect. There is no reason to have a redirection article with that name. -- Magioladitis 13:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep — the sources provided (and added the article during the AFD action) do provide satisfaction for the general notability criterion. Template:cleanup-afd will be affixed to the article in accordance with several comments below. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffy (book)[edit]

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

Plot summary of a non-notable graphic novel. Fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOT, and WP:SOURCES Rackabello 23:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have nothing to add other than to endorse what the nominator has said. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I have no doubt the lengthy plot summary is accurate despite the lack of verifiable sources, bt the article needs to assert the notability of this book compared to verify other graphic novel, and it doesn't. No internet sources easily locatable either. Euryalus 06:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but needs a cleanup and sourcing. This is the first item to appear in an Amazon search for "Fluffy" in the books section, and has received reviews in most major British national daily newspapers. In addition, I'm not sure how good Eurylaus's Google skills are, but a fairly perfunctory search turns up not just Amazon and other bookseller listings, but commentary articles from the Guardian newspaper and the Royal College of Art. In addition, the work included in the book has won international art prizes, and the artist herself is respected enough to have won other prizes, including one awarded by the Victoria and Albert Museum. To argue that this work is non-notable, and certianly less notable than many other books with Wikipedia pages, is just daft and/or blinkered. Pyrope 12:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The online sources which I turned up have been added to the page, albeit briefly, and tags have been updated to indicate cleanup needed. Pyrope 23:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The citations found by Pyrope need to go in the article, but they demonstrate notability under WP:NB. Bondegezou 14:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Struck through prior vote. Sources above clearly indicate notability. They should be added to the article, and the article needs cleanup, but this is no longer a delete issue. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User talk:Pyrope; passes WP:N, just needs cleanup and some real-world perspective. --BelovedFreak 17:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lack of verifiable sources means that this article provides no evidence of notability. Perhaps one of the editors in favour of keeping the article could userfy the article pending clean up before it is deleted? --Gavin Collins 18:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources that Pyrope found seem verifiable and to indicate notability to me... just because they haven't been added to the article yet doesn't mean you can ignore that they've been shown to exist. A nomination for AfD doesn't mean an article has to be deleted if sources aren't there before the end of the AfD. Pinball22 18:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Add sources, but also cleanup. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn per nom, despite Pyrope's sources. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, just ignore WP:N then? Pyrope 09:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Book has multiple independent and non-trivial articles about it as per central criteria of WP:BK. Both the Guardian article and the RCA article qualify. Having said that the article needs shortening and cleeaning up to be useful - but that's not a dicussion for here, here we only decide if it's notable. It is. A1octopus 21:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems like notability standard has been met per references to reliable sources but does need cleanup. Ronnotel 03:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--JForget 00:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obstacles to a democratic world government[edit]

Obstacles to a democratic world government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This would make a very lovely school essay, but seems to be utterly unsourced WP:OR. Also has some severe POV issues. A^RendedWinter 23:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NOR and WP:NPOV Rackabello 23:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above... but good luck on the campaign Mandsford 02:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as screedcruft. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NPOV. This is obviously opinionated. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT#SOAP --Phirazo 19:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. ffm 23:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete SOAP, OR, NPOV. Also poorly written. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Fascinating concept, but the article is written as if it is arguing for it, rather than providing a neutral discussion of the topic. If there are actually sources written on the topic, then perhaps an article could exist, i.e. one that cites these sources, but we really should not have articles arguing for the creation of something as the article does in its conclusion: "In conclusion, the best way to help the underprivileged is to establish a democratic world government." So, I tend to agree with the original research/point of view problems cited above in this instance. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThere is already an article on World government. I see nothing to merge here though. --Phirazo 18:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MaxSem 12:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of radio stations in California[edit]

List of radio stations in California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A list containing trivial info, violates WP:DIRECTORY Chris! _ct 23:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - see ((USRadio)) for some more. Tim Q. Wells 02:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete When they make a radio that tunes in the stations in alphabetical order, this will be handy.... Mandsford 02:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not make it more like this list? Tim Q. Wells 02:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:LIST. This could perhaps be organized better, but that is a content issue and such content issues are not really a deletable offense. If organized by, say, city of origin or some such it would be a workable list. This needs cleanup, not deletion. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Should be marked for cleanup Rotovia 07:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be useful. ffm 23:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:USEFUL Jbeach56 00:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or categorise all those list of radio stations articles, seriously wikipedia isn't a directory, and I see no special info that a category isn't good for. Jbeach56 00:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. The "seems useful" (WP:ILIKEIT) argument is far from persuasive; the list is neither interesting, not encyclopedic, nor especially informative, and categories suffice for this sort of thing. Biruitorul 21:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A list can provide a view of how the radio spectrum of a locality is sliced, something that a category cannot. Further, the radio spectrum is finite with respect to broadcast stations and frequency allocation is important from business, governmental and technical points of view (at least), thus lending the content encyclopedic value. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Enterprises[edit]

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

Possible hoax, no obvious mention of this Howard Enterprises among the numerous ones produced by a google search - the bio of the owner seems to be that of a teenager which makes this somewhat less likely to be true. Carlossuarez46 23:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Now you mention it, it could be just one kid's fantasy. Disconcertingly I find that Stephen Howard Homes are real and have someone on their staff called Jeremy Brown. But it matters little, since, without refs, we can delete this as hoax / spam. -- RHaworth 02:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mere lack of references is no reason to delete as a hoax, if there is some evidence it exists I say keep for now, tag and rework.JJJ999 08:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - mere lack of references is not a reason for deletion, but being unverifiable is. A search for Howard enterprises yeilds a US agricultural machinery company. But that's not this company. -- Whpq 17:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unrefed --RaiderAspect 12:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless cleaned up with references added. Stifle (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's a hoax. The article even includes specific references to Mister Terrific (Michael Holt), a fictional character from DC comics. -- Whpq 16:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hoax. Someone with too much time on their hands? Ronnotel 03:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:V, probable hoax. --Kudret abi^Talk 04:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Verrai 03:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knotj3d[edit]

Knotj3d (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable knot drawing program. -- RHaworth 23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -per nom, is not notable program. --MarsRover 05:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Marsrover. Stifle (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:SOFT ffm 23:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Ronnotel 03:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train^talk 14:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Anderson[edit]

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

Article does not assert notability, I think, and most of it is unreferenced. Anderson was rumoured to have been involved in the slaying of Tupac Shakur, but was murdered himself before anything like evidence or an arrest was going to be looked into. Page has only two or three vague references, but I still think it should be deleted per WP:V because almost all of the content is unsourced. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, implying someone is murderer needs good references (and evidence) MarsRover 05:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the alleged murderer of Tupac garners a significant amount of public interest, certainly notable Rotovia 07:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, ridiculously easy to source, covered in major music publications as well as top US papers (LAT investigation) and received international attention. --Dhartung | Talk 12:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, if it was that simple to add references to the page, don't you think it would have been much better by now? The article has existed since 27 January 2005, and still looks like a "pitiful" stub. BTW, he wasn't even a suspect during both investigations of the Tupac and Biggie murders, Anderson was just a supposed gang member brought in for police questioning. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rotovia. However, editing for NPOV and careful compliance with WP:BLP is important. Stifle (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: he is not alive anymore (not sure if there is a WP:BDP out there). But I agree the same compliance should be used since its not like he can correct it himself. MarsRover 03:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think WP:VERIFY should be mentioned as well: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge→Tupac Shakur This appears to be an example of a person notable for a single event/action. There is content of Tupac Shakur related to his death; information about Orlando Anderson that is relevant to Tupac's death should be merged into the article on Tupac. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Passover, with history intact. Whether, what, and where to merge is, as always, an editorial decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mazzoth[edit]

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

Appears to be a WP:POVFORK of Passover. Presents a theory on the origin of Passover which could be incorporated in a section of that article and results in a situation in which academic viewpoints are in one article and religious viewpoints in another, which the WP:POVFORK guideline is designed to prevent. --Shirahadasha 22:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Shirahadasha 23:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible/Biblical criticism work group#Mazzoth.--Shirahadasha 23:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete The first half of the article is a summary of the Biblical commandments concering Passover; the second, as the nominator wrote, is Biblical criticism. Anything of value here that isn't already in Passover should be merged, and this article deleted. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that after a merge, a redirect is necessary to preserve author data in compliance with the GFDL. Stifle (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Matzo article. IZAK 08:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Matzo if anyone want to merge they can find it in the history. Jon513 09:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Matzo/Passover. Stifle (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article states that its subject is a holiday, not a food item, so Passover rather than Matzo would appear to be the more logical merge. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they mean to say merge to passover and redirect to matzo. Jon513 10:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Obvious soapboxing/personal essay - previously deleted and this AFD was previously closed. Mr.Z-man 02:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Nigeria Going?[edit]

Where is Nigeria Going? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I thought I'd nominate this rather than add a speedy tag because it does offer some interesting information but I don't believe it's worthy of an article by itself and should perhaps be merged with Nigeria RyanLupin (^talk/_contribs) 22:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, OR essay. Corvus cornix 22:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. PMDrive1061 22:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. This was also an AfD item yesterday -- I'm not sure why it's been relisted here today. Am I missing something? Accounting4Taste 22:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I would say...to delete as original research... Smashville 23:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete essay. ffm 23:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. T'is a personal essay. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As far as I can tell, this is all POV rhetoric. I don't see anything which could be turned into a citeable statement. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 03:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telecommunications Tower[edit]

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

Second listing for this office tower. The article does not cite any verfiable claim to notability, but I can tell you that it was designed by same firm architects responsible for the Opéra Bastille. My view is that WP is not a real estate listing site, and without secondary sources, this type of article should be discouraged. --Gavin Collins 22:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletions. —Gavin Collins 22:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is not the "second listing" for this article, it's the first. The AfD you cited was for Telecommunications Complex and the result of that AfD (which was closed literally within the last 24 hours) was to redirect to this article. Now you want to delete this one? Spanish Wikipedia has an even larger article on this topic and this was the subject of multiple secondary sources, like from El Espectador [1][2] and La Capital [3]. And being designed by the same person who designed the Opéra Bastille is another good reason to keep this. --Oakshade 23:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I note that the Spanish WP entry does not cite any sources either. Is there any proof that it is the tallest building or is that just hearsay? --Gavin Collins 18:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response - I didn't even mention the tallest building in Uraguay claim, but that is 100% verifiable. Even if it isn't the tallest (I think it is), that is not a valid reason to delete this article. --Oakshade 20:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The tallest building in the country must be notable! --Malcolmxl5 00:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article claims it to be the tallest building in Uruguay, and judging from the pic, it's the tallest thing around. SolidPlaid 02:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The tallest building in a country is notable.--Cube lurker 13:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and source using above references (and/or others) as they seem to satisfy both WP:N and WP:RS. (This also fits in pretty well with combating bias, especially as it is verifiable and notable.) --Craw-daddy | T | 22:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even if not the tallest, its the HQ of the National Telecoms company and the subject of controversy over the finances of its building. Or is this another case of because you are not interested in the subject it must be non-notable and worthy of deletion.KTo288 01:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 16:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas E. Brayton[edit]

Thomas E. Brayton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seemingly fails WP:BIO. It is nicely referenced, but, really, what makes this fellow so special we should have an encyclopedia entry on him? As far as I can tell, nothing. Biruitorul 22:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have to agree with the nominator, this is well-written, nicely referenced, and doesn't meet WP:BIO. And I'm sure if there was any further notability available, the careful author would have included it. This seems like some kind of geneaological project offshoot. Accounting4Taste 23:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Acounting4Taste. Stifle (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree this looks like genealogy. Has anyone tried to get in touch w/ the author to suggest wikitree or genealogy.wikia --lquilter 19:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nice article, but doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. --Kudret abi^Talk 04:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Smirk[edit]

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

This article is trivial OR and the below section on Peter Costello is a WP:POVFORK to avoid WP:BLP by it not appearing in Peter Costello Shot info 22:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom MarsRover 05:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Euryalus 06:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unreferenced neologism. The link to Captain Kirk is unconvincing and unreferenced. The link to Secret of Monkey Island is genuine but not important enough for it's own article (and it is noted that this page was originally a redirect to Monkey Island). The principal point is as a fork of Peter Costello, using text that has been repeatedly removed from the Costello article as POV and unnecessary. Euryalus 06:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Euryalus. Gratuitous POV article with no redeeming encyclopaedic merit at all. A redirect back to Monkey Island may also be an acceptable solution. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 06:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article reads as a POV-influenced attempt to bolster the status of a neologism. Melburnian 07:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete senseless. JJL 13:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cruft. Twenty Years 13:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redirect construction isnt what it used to be SatuSuro 05:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 16:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Mess Wit Tha South[edit]

Don't Mess Wit Tha South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a supposed future album with no sources. Most of the article is unsourced guest appearances and is too crystall-bally at the moment. Spellcast 22:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, mostly because of notability but also because of CRYSTAL per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree article fails notability and WP:CRYSTAL Brianlucas 22:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non notable, unsourced and crystall bally. West Coast Ryda 21:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Future album with no sources, definite WP:CBALL case. --Kudret abi^Talk 04:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 - copyright infringement. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pell Center of International Relations and Public Policy[edit]

Pell Center of International Relations and Public Policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Perhaps a legitimate article on this subject could be written, but this isn't it. This is, in fact, blatant advertising ripped off the website - perhaps speedy deletion material, even. Biruitorul 22:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete I've tagged it under WP:CSD#G12, original text is at [4] Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• You beat me by mere seconds, Yngvarr; I had an edit conflict when I went to save. :) I was trying to Speedy it, too. GMTA. Deltopia 22:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 03:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Davidson[edit]

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

Local TV reporter, no assertion of notability, no references, reads like a resume. Biruitorul 22:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:Notability (people), to wit: "The person has received significant recognized awards or honours," and a Regional Emmy award meets that threshold. Also, why would she have grown less notable than she was for the last three nominations? I agree this isn't a very encyclopedic article, but it needs editing, not deleting... I'll try to work on improving it some tonight. Deltopia 22:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete As a copy and paste job from the tagged website. Spellcast 22:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just realised there was a non-copyvio version in the article history, which I reverted back to. The copyvio text was added by an anon. Spellcast 23:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Emmys are fully sufficient. perhaps the nom did not notice them. I think this a case for a SNOW keep. DGG (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, I didn't notice that. However, as it's merely a regional Emmy (recipients of which we don't list), I still don't see particular notability. Nevertheless, this nomination (made in good faith) does appear doomed to fail, so let the chips fall where they may. Biruitorul 04:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Anchorwoman in a MAJOR market. The Emmy seals the deal.--Sethacus 03:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per regional emmy as a significant award.--Cube lurker 13:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:NFT --Haemo 23:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Roberts-Rose theorem[edit]

The Roberts-Rose theorem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article by a student about his "theorem" that is little more than an application of basic algebra. I prod'ed it since it didn't seem to fit a speedy category--the prod was removed by the author with the explanation "New credible mathematical discovery". Non-notable subject made up in school one day. --Finngall ^talk 22:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. I'm taking basic Algebra and I could have figured that out... Delete — no sources; original research; non-notable "theorem" made up in school one day. --Agüeybaná 22:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow-thank u for this, KEEP, all mathematical discoveries should be preserved — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.36.151 (talk • contribs)
  • Sure, as long as they have sources. --Agüeybaná 22:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO I agree it should be kept, and Agüeybaná maybe you could have done it yourself but the point is that you didn't and it sounds like you're a little jealous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.36.151 (talk • contribs)
• Delete Hooray for Mark and Adam. Mandsford 22:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Timothy Clemans
• Delete account of non-notable rediscovery of simple algebraic identity. Gandalf61 22:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi, sorry I havn't meant to cause this controversy, just felt that this should have been made known. After all we are always striving to delve deeper into mathematics are we not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkRoberts127 (talk • contribs)
• I love that not only was this made up in school one day, the article actually lists which school and which day. Question: Does this work for a=i (the sq rt of -1)? If not, I have to say delete. :) Deltopia 23:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Although the articles desperatedly need sources, the subject of the article is sufficiently notable to meet WP:MUSIC, and, therefore, his albums are also notable enough to have their own articles. Non-admin closure. --Agüeybaná 00:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indo G[edit]

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

The only asser of notability is that the artists worked with Three 6 Mafia. The article also does not cite any sources. Tasc0 22:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: also nominating the related articles.

Remember Me Ballin' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contact (Indo G album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Blame It On The Funk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Up In Smoke (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Up in Smoke (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Antidote (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Live & Learn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Tasc0 22:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Besides the Three 6 connection, he meets a WP:MUSIC criterion by having two albums released by Luke Records. --Groggy Dice T | C 12:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As Groggy Dice said, two albums on Luke Records, plus another on Relativity Records, would seem to qualify him under WP:BAND. Bondegezou 14:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Groggy Dice and Bondegezou, the Three 6 Mafia connection, the two albums on Luke Records, and the one on Relativity Records constitute notability. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to meep WP:MUSIC so has to kept, but definitely needs a good cleanup. --Kudret abi^Talk 07:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Henley[edit]

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

Minor local meteorologist, no references, no assertion of notability. Biruitorul 22:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above reckoning, and ALSO should be deleted for the exact same reasons it was deleted before. Nothing has changed about this article since the last time it was deleted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local weathermen not generally considered notable. --Groggy Dice T | C 12:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article is orphan, unreferenced. Some information written, like "the Miami Beach" is really non-notable. -- Magioladitis 13:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN, no references showing coverage in secondary sources, fails WP:BIO. --Kudret abi^Talk 04:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus that this is inherently a WP:BLP violation or WP:COATRACK or whathaveyou. However, there seems to be some considerable duplication over various articles covering this topic, and a broader look at how we cover it might be worthwhile and help solve the concerns of people wanting to delete this article. W.marsh 14:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country[edit]

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E. This afd is a followup to those at Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Iowa) and three other American states. Corvus cornix 22:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Oh, sure, let's pretend it didn't happen. The worldwide investigation and lawsuits over clerical sex abuse are probably the biggest crisis in the church's history since the Reformation. Some people live through history without realizing it. Mandsford 22:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I just was using this page for some research, quite handy. Speciate 00:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Aspects of this article are encyclopedic, it covers notable public advocacy and Church responses to the crisis in each country, but it's also used as a WP:COATRACK and there are some serious WP:BLP issues with naming of otherwise non-notable individuals, some of whom haven't even been convicted of a crime. If these issues can't be dealt with the article needs to go. -- SiobhanHansa 01:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTNEWS is about current events which, whilst they may be verifiable, are not of historic or encyclopedic importance. This is quite clearly not the case here. WP:BLP1E is even less relevent: it is saying that "living people notable only for one event" are "Unlike to warrant ... a separate biography". This is completely irrelevent to this article (see WP:NNC). I can see no good argument for deletion here. -- simxp (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC) (Clarification: the article should, of course, be restricted to cases where guilt has been actually established in a court of law; but that's an editing issue. -- simxp (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete Per the many wikipolicies in WP:NOT that this article violates. Specifically, you can't use Wikipedia as a directory. Another reason to delete it is that it is a source of misinformation. The article is a very incomplete list of sex abuse cases. Also, there should be no naming of anyone who has not been convicted of a crime for ethical reasons.NancyHeise 04:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete The items can't be dealt with in an article of this nature, devoted to cases.--Start a new one under as Sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests, or something of the sort, discussing the general subject and the public reactions. for those cases which have articles in WP, links can be made or see alsos, rather than try to summarize such matters here. And there could and should, for example, be an article for the situation in Boston, which was particularly noteworthy.Otherwise, probably under the articles forthe dioceses. there are many better ways. DGG (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentences says ntable. -- Alan Liefting talk 20:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete On close inspection it's more listings and scandal rag than encyclopedic treatment and the really encyclopedic treatment of the issue is already covered at Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases. WP:BLP issues are bad and unlikely to be avoided if the article remains. -- SiobhanHansa 10:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are right-- and details are already included under dioceses. They should be checked, to make sure we do not inappropriately specific the victims. DGG (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The title is a POV giveaway as if R-C owned sex abuse. The article seems to be intended to embarrass the listees rather than to inform the readers. Informing the readers is important but needs to be done in a NPOV way. Editors on a vendetta appear to have contributed heavily to this article. As a result, the feel of the article is more tabloid than encylopedic.Student7 12:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: if kept it should be renamed to "List of ... in modern era" not to suggest an overview article about the topic. I suggest to delete it otherwise. Pavel Vozenilek 23:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge merge with article this article, and I added main article tag on it for the meantime. Carter | Talk to me 08:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cut the info from that page to make two meaningful shorter pages. -- Alan Liefting talk 20:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is notable. -- Alan Liefting talk 20:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a bit concerned that this article will start a whole new series of entries with every religion or sect. It would be a denial to say that this is not notable, but wikipedia is already a battle ground. May be we should have a new norm in wikipedia on being responsible within reason. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 13:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Delete--JForget 23:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fifa 08 Player Ratings[edit]

Fifa 08 Player Ratings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of default "player ratings" in FIFA 08. Since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, this is mostly (if not completely) original research, and there are about 500-600 teams in the game (making this list almost impossible to even finish, let alone maintain), I think this article should be deleted. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a games guide. Corvus cornix 22:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Nuke per WP:NOT#INSTRUCTION. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 22:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh dear... Delete, a bad idea through and through. WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE, probably some others too... AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep But article does seem to need a major rewrite... still, there's a consensus for an article on this topic, and the current one can be scraped down to the stub suggested below by "ZZ" if nothing else. W.marsh 14:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis management[edit]

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

Delete and Salt contested prod. Article doesn't establish any particular notability for concept, and was tagged unreferenced for the last 6 months. PROD removed without comment, complete rewrite in <12 hours. Article went from badly written how-to guide to press release. History of article is overwhelmingly link-spam and unencyclopedic writing. Since this is a vaguely defined, promotional buzzword, it's unlikely an article can be written that isn't promoting someone. Violates: WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:N and WP:NOT. Horrorshowj 21:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Business buzzword whose article probably can't be rewritten in a neutral, non-spammy, form. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Crisis management depicts what organisations (governments/companies) do when there is some kind of catastrophe, tidal waves and fires come to mind. It's a common term to the UK, just because Americans don't use or understand this term doesn't mean the article should be deleted. It is a badly written article but the prod and Afd were a mistake. Operating 12:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming the only reason for nomination is due to my being American is ridiculous. I admitted the term exists but if it's a notable and definitive concept, where are the references? This article has been around since 2003 and still doesn't have any. The edit history of the article is largely having SPA's completely rewrite it in the image of their other advertisements and linkspam. Give me an article that proves the concept is notable and can be handled in an encyclopedic fashion and I'll withdraw the Afd. Horrorshowj 20:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was a frivolous Afd when i saw it and nothing in this discussion so far has changed my mind. Very few articles on wikipedia are well cited. That doesn't mean they should all be deleted. Operating 20:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is not just a buzzword, it's spawned a whole industry of authors, consultants and other experts even before terrorism became a big concern in 2001. The term incorporates the entirety of protecting personnel, inventory, business data, and other "business continuity" concerns, as well as publicity management and victim or plaintiff interaction. --Dhartung | Talk 12:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. When "buzzwords" become widespread, they are notable. I'm not a fan of the article's current state, but the topic is notable, in government and business, and is certainly not a UK-only term. Salting is over the top for an article that hasn't even been deleted once yet. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You're right no preemptive strikes.Horrorshowj 20:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - still activly under development. May I suggest the Editor get some Citations to support the article better. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sources, no Verifiability. I concede that this is a notable topic, and sources likely exist. However, we already have an article that deals with this topic - Emergency management, of which (in the EU) Crisis Management is a component. From Emergency Management: "Within EU countries the term Crisis Management emphasises the political and security dimension rather than measures to satisfy the immediate needs of the civilian population." The Emergency Management article deals with many of the issues raised in this article, except in a clear manner with multiple sources. Unless there are elements of Crisis Management which do not touch on Emergency Management (the business aspect, for example), then there is nothing in this article worth keeping as a merge to Emergency Management. I have no objection to a new article on Crisis Management, provided that it focuses on the business aspect of the concept (we don't need to duplicate effort), and so long as adequate sources are provided. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. Crisis Management is an important feature to be found in any organisations that recognises the risks it faces and most likely has also built up its business continuity plans. It should not be confused with Emergency Management which has more to do with fire fighting insofar that emergency management it is about tackling an emergency - only. Crisis Management on the other hand, is much more about confirming, controlling and communicating throughout the entire acute period of any catastrophe which could easily last for days or even weeks. Very many organisations have already set up Crisis Management Teams specifically for this purpose to ensure staff are accounted for, stakeholders reassured, someone gives the right message to the media, the correct levers are pulled to trigger an accurate business continuity response and so on. The CM Team would probably liaise with the emergency services when or if, they arrive. Of course some corporate dramas do not require the blue lights to turn up. For example, wide spread public warnings, pandemics, urgent product recalls, financial collapse and so on. However, these scenarios certainly do require crisis management skills. I suggest anyone who doubts what I am saying goes, for example, onto the UK Govt. Dept. for business enterprise and regulatory reform (was the DTI...) http://www.dti.gov.uk/sectors/infosec/infosecadvice/incidentmanagement/crisismanagement --Patrick56 20:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this. Ref above - as the author of the latest and more comprehensive version (as at 8 October 2007 and subsequently expanded) I have noted what others have said here and an hour ago submitted an amended and more explanatory version.--Patrick56 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)--Patrick56 22:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge - this article is largely meaningless unsourced speculation and reads like the script for an informercial. The few salient points in the article should be stripped out and moved into Crisis and/or Risk Management. Torc2 23:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Type in "crisis management" on Google and you will see there are already 2,010,000 entries. It's naive to suggest this is a meaningless or speculative subject. It is likewise inaccurate to assume crisis management is just emergency or risk management. Surely the purpose of Wikipedia is to explain terms such as this? Many people, organisations, symposia, conferences and books have crisis management as a core value. Take for example:

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

--Patrick56 09:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The majority of the google hits I saw, and the majority of the links posted above, are to commercial organizations who appear to be selling goods or services related to Crisis Management. Unfortunately, these aren't good sources. The DTI link is dead, as well - though I found this link that appears to be a successor organization within the British government. That would probably be a good resource to start off with - but only if it's properly incorporated into the article. The goal is to have every statement or fact supported by a reliable source. Currently, none of the statements are supported, and many are claims or advice which may border on Original Research, which is not permissable. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several more external links have just been added to the article following comments on this page.--Patrick56 14:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Don't you mean to say "I added several external links to the article...?" I agree with ZZ, the links are pretty bad. Also, why did you mark all your edits as minor? They're really not. And why have you voted three times five times on this? Torc2 19:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course I made changes to my first draft and have not pretended otherwise. These follow various constructive reactions on this page. However, I really do not plan make any more changes as some contributors are, in my opinion, missing the entire point about crisis management. Fortunately the British Standards Institute are not amongst them. I am informed that early next month they are having a meeting specifically to discuss crisis management gaining further recognition by now being considered for a precise British Standard. This plus other external crisis management links (UK Government and others) seem to me to contradict those few people on this page who believe the subject to be a 'gimmick' or 'meaningless unsourced speculation' or a 'promotional buzzword'. I had thought the raison d’être of Wikipedia was to help explain issues like this? --Patrick56 22:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. With all respect, this is a good topic for Wikipedia, no question. The issue is not with the topic, but with the article. The article as it stands is an essay, unsupported by sources. Here's how it should read: "Crisis management is a discipline within Management taht deals primarily with preparations for and reactions to unexpected or serious situations which may threaten to hinder or halt the operations of a business or other organization. The related term Emergency management focuses on the protection of lives and property during an emergency or disaster situation. " There's the lede. Now, each statement thereafter gets a reference. "According to X, Crisis Management is composed of several phases, including Preparedness, Evaluation, Reaction, and Recovery." Then you tag it as a ref and move on. At the end, you add a reflist and it creates a list of all your sources. When people here cite Verifiability and No Original Research, they're saying that the article reads as if it's what you, the author, are saying. It needs to read as if it's a list of stateemnts about the topic, each neutral and backed by an independent, verifiable source that says so. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of selected cities by population density[edit]

List of selected cities by population density (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This underwent an AFD in July, with the following nomination rationale: The article has no defined criteria for inclusion, and as such, is useless as a list. From WP:LIST - “Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria”. The article's ambiguous title means it can't provide this. Further, the article is predominantly unsourced, and I believe the calculation of the population densities by users (as stated at the top of the article) can be considered original research. This is true, but the AFD was closed as no consensus since some people said things like "keep but define criteria". This has not happened, and as such it is still a collection of random facts as described above. Punkmorten 21:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No definition of criteria here. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Comment "Perhaps it needs some work; the "selected cities" title is unfortunate, since the locations are worldwide and are chosen for their density, or, in the case of some notable locations, their lack of density. Moreover, there probably needs to be more of an explanation as to the criteria, although one can infer that it's based on the "city limits" of a municipality with its own government. I'd never heard of Levallois-Perret but it apparently is such a municipality, and similar in origins and in name to Levittown; this is a good companion piece to Population denisities; the stats on Manila and Cairo are revealing. Mandsford 03:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)" I'm sorry to report that three months later, nothing seems to have changed. Mandsford 22:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Three months is long enough to conclude nothing is going to happen. --RaiderAspect 12:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Note that List of the most densely populated country subdivisions has similar info with clearer objective. Brianlucas 23:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No clear criteria, semi-random collection of numbers w/o much of context. Comparing apples to oranges, small densely populated districts with whole cities. Pavel Vozenilek 23:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A list with no criteria as to how cities are "selected". Seems to be a random collection and not very useful. --Kudret abi^Talk 07:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Contested or not, a speedy is a speedy. Punkmorten 21:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Turner[edit]

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

First a contested speedy... then a contested prod... so now it washes up here. Patent vanity page with no legitimate assertion of notability whatsoever (although full marks for the attempt to puff it up into something that looks like more than the sum of its parts). — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete still a db-bio regardless of how much purple prose the author writes. JuJube 21:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Notability seems addressed pretty definitively, but the article needs a lot of work to remove conflict of interest (COI), and then needs to be tucked under the wing of the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) crew. Right now the talk page has no tagging at all, so there's work to be done. If need be the article should be stubbed out and rewritten from scratch to get the COI under control. If need be, User:Mignucci may need counseling on best practices --++Lar: t/c 04:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andres Mignucci[edit]

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

This article is about an architect. I nominated it for speedy deletion a while back, which was declined. After consideration and the limited research I'm able to do, I don't think this architect is notable. I can find references such as "created by Mignucci..." but no real reviews of his work, and I'm unable to examine the works listed at the bottom as references. Unless I've missed something, which is certainly possible, this article should be deleted. KrakatoaKatie 02:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I can't find enough references. It is a tough call. If I would see more, verifiable references, press, etc. I would consider changing my mind to a keep. Iamchrisryan 14:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He's an AIA fellow [15], his Children's Park Project won the National Puerto Rico Architecture Award in 2001 [16] (recognized award, per WP:BIO), he is not just a private architect, but also advises (or has advised) the Governor of Puerto Rico on overall city planning [17], and he was the editor of Arquitectura Contemporánea en Puerto Rico from 1976-1992 [18], among many other things. The other thing we ought to consider is that since he's Puerto Rican, those are only the references I could find in English. If you do a search for "Andres Mignucci" and "arquitecto", you get many hits, but my Spanish is unfortunately too elementary to read them quickly. Perhaps someone else can help with that? We have to be careful to consider WP:CSB, as I believe this person has more than demonstrated notability vis a vis Puerto Rican (and even broader - Latin American) architects. SkerHawx 14:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 06:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a google search turns up little more than that he's active as an architect. Nothing that asserts any particular notability, including Spanish language. Eusebeus 14:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Andres Mignucci has demonstrated notability following the criteria outlined in Wikipedia Guidelines regarding Notability for Academics and Educators WP:PROF.Maribel ortiz 21:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CRITERIA 1 The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.

Mignucci, is one of seven members of the Governor’s Council on Planning and Urbanism, is also one of the authors of the Economic Development and Government Transformation Plan for Puerto Rico. See below.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND GOVERNMENT TRANSFORMATION PLAN FOR PUERTO RICO (PDF) Economic Development and Government Transformation Plan for Puerto Rico: Architect Andrés Mignucci, FAIA, Architect Thomas Marvel FAIA, Dr. Gabriel Moreno, Atty. Omar Jiménez, Architect Liz Melendez www.gobierno.pr/NR/rdonlyres/1A90948D-8AF2-4827-B92F-C938378C1620/0/PDETGEnglishVersion_Nov906_FINAL.pdf]

CRITERIA 2 The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field.

In two recent books on Iberoamerican Architecture one in Madrid and one in Mexico, Andrés Mignucci’s work has been highlighted as exemplary in the current architectural discourse in Latin America, Spain and Portugal.

see Gras de Mereles,Louise Noëlle (see bio in Wikipedia German), Arquitectos Iberoamericanos Siglo 21, Fomento Cultural Banamex, Mexico DF, 2006.

Rispa, Raul, Arquitectura Iberoamericana, Madrid, Tanais Editores, October 2004.

Also see

Segre, Roberto, “Arquitetura hispano-americana na mudança de Milênio. A globalização fragmentada: idioma comum, caminhos divergentes” in Arquitextos, Sao Paolo, June 2003.

Montaner, Josep Ma. & Muxi, Zaida, “San Juan: Laboratorio Metropolitano” en Cultura(s) 153, La Vanguardia, pp. 22-23, 26 Mayo 2005, Barcelona.

CRITERIA 3 The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1].

Mignucci is the author/editor of Arquitectura Contemporanea en Puerto Rico 1976-1992, one of the few books on contemporary Puerto Rican architectural history. He is also the co-author of Arquitectura Dominicana 1890-1930, on traditional architecture in the Dominican Republic. (Mignucci, A., Rigau, J., and Martinez, E., Arquitectura Dominicana 1890-1930, AIA Puerto Rico, San Juan, 1990).

Other publications and articles by or about Andrés Mignucci include the following:

Acosta, Candida, “Santiago tendrá un Gran Parque Central” in Listín Diario, 18 August 2002, pp.1/18.

Alonso, María Elena, “La Propuesta Ganadora Integra Paisaje, Urbanismo y Arquitectura” in Habitat, Nº1, October 2002, p.26.

Alonso, María Elena, “Premian Diseño Ambiental y Urbano Para Santiago” in Diario Libre, 25 September 2002, p.36.

Campodrón, Teresa, “Andrés Mignucci: The Symbolic Garden / El Jardín Simbólico” in Santa & Cole, Santa & Cole Editores, Barcelona, October 2003.

De Carlo, Giancarlo (ed.), “Andrés Mignucci: Construire Nei Tropici” in Spazio e Societá, No. 84, Milano, October-December 1998, pp. 94-97.

Del Cueto, Beatriz “Formando Ambiente/Making Places” in American Architectural Foundation Newsletter, Fall 1991.

Driscoll, John & Melendez, Liz, “The Revitalization of Traditional Urban Centers in Puerto Rico”, Center for Urban Development Studies, Harvard Design School, May 2004.

Fiedler, M.L. (ed), “Parque de los Niños” in Entorno, Colegio de Arquitectos de PR, Vol. 7, July 2001, pp. 8-12.

Fiedler, M.L. (ed), “Escuela de Bellas Artes de Mayaguez” in Entorno, Colegio de Arquitectos de PR, Vol. 13, 2003, pp. 12-13.

Gonzalez, Santiago, “Parque de Santiago será mayor pulmón ecológico de la ciudad” in Listín Diario, 26 March 2002, p.8.

David Gosling, “The Evolution of American Urban Design : A Chronological Anthology”, Academy Editions, London, 2002, p.155.

Habraken, N.J. with Aldrete-Hass,J.A., Chow, R., Hille, T., Krugmeier,P., Lampkin, M., Mallows, A., Mignucci, A., Takase, Y., Weller, K., and Yokouchi, T., The Grunfeld Variations, A Methodological Approach to the Design of Urban Tissues, Laboratory of Architecture & Planning, MIT, Whalen Press, 1980.

Habraken, N.J., “Architecture and Agreements- A report on research for new design methods” in Kenchiku Bunka”, vol. 42, no. 486, April 1987, pp.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Notes on the Associative Form of (Some) Spanish Towns” in Black Rose Review, no.10, Winter 1983, pp.

Mignucci, A. and Hille, T., Ranges of Continuity: Eleven Towns in Spain and Portugal, Grusfeld Foundation / Laboratory of Architecture & Planning, Cambridge, MA. 1983.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Reclaiming Ballajá” in Places, vol.5, no. 2, 1988, pp. 3-17.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Recuperando Ballajá” in Plerus, vol. XXI, 1988-89, pp.123-139.

Mignucci, A., Rigau, J., and Martinez, E., Arquitectura Dominicana 1890-1930, AIA Puerto Rico, San Juan, 1990.

Mignucci, Andrés, Arquitectura Contemporanea en Puerto Rico 1976-1992, AIA Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1992.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Inhabiting Shadows: Notes on the Tropics as Place” in Places, Vol. 12 / No. 3, Spring 1999, pp.38-42.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Urbanismo Estratégico” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Septiembre 2005, pp.76-78.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Puerto Rico Urbano” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Septiembre 2005, pp.53-55.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Codex Urbans” in Escofet SA, Enric Pericas (ed.) Junio 2005, pp.140-141, Barcelona.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Lamar 557 / Casa Vivas” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 2, No.5, September 1997, pp.70-75.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Parque de los Niños” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 7, No.13, January 2002, pp.112-116.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Parque Antonia Quiñones” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 7, No.13, January 2002, pp.117-119.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Parque del Indio” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 7, No.13, January 2002, pp.120-121.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Santo Cristo de los Milagros” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 7, No.13, January 2002, pp.122-124.

Mignucci, Andrés y Moré Gustavo, “Parque Metropolitano de Santiago” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 8, No.15, January 2003, pp.85-94.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Isabela: Plan Estrategico de Revitalización” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Moré, Gustavo (ed.), Septiembre 2005, pp.103-104.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Isabela: Plaza Pública” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Moré, Gustavo (ed.), Septiembre 2005, pp.105-106.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Isabela: Plaza del Mercado” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Moré, Gustavo (ed.), Septiembre 2005, pp.107-108.

Mignucci, Andrés, “La Ventana al Mar” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Septiembre 2005, pp.109-114.

Mignucci, Andrés; Sánchez, Ilia; Bonnin Javier, “Riberas del Bucaná II & III” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Septiembre 2005, pp.115-119.

Montaner, Josep Ma. & Muxi, Zaida, “San Juan: Laboratorio Metropolitano” en Cultura(s) 153, La Vanguardia, pp. 22-23, 26 Mayo 2005, Barcelona.

Moya, Rómulo (ed.), “Casa Vivas” in Casas Latinoamericanas, Ediciones Trama, Quito, 2003, pp.126-127.

Noëlle Gras de Mereles, Louise, Arquitectos Iberoamericanos Siglo 21, Fomento Cultural Banamex, Mexico DF, 2006.

Peguero, Reynaldo, “Parque de Santiago: Icono de una Metropolis” in Listín Diario, 2 September 2002, p.19.

Peralta, Leoncio, “Santiago se convertirá en gran ciudad jardín” in Listín Diario, 18 August 2002, p.18.

Rispa, Raul, “La Ventana al Mar” in IV Arquitectura Iberoamericana, Tanais Editores, Madrid, October 2004.

Ronzino, Maickel, “El Parque del Futuro” in El Caribe, 14 September 2002, p.6-7.

Russell, James S., AIA, “Will A New Wave Of Tropical Modernism Restore San Juan's Luster?” in Architectural Record, July, 2002.

Santa & Cole (ed),“Andrés Mignucci Giannoni” in Enciclopedia de Diseño, Santa & Cole Editores, Barcelona, 2003.

Schneider-Wessling, Erich, “Going to Ground” in The Architectural Review, No. 1145, July, 1992, pp.64-67.

Schneider-Wessling, Erich, “Bayer Informationszentrum” in Bauwelt, Heft 24 / Stadtbauwelt 114, Berlin,1992.

Schneider-Wessling, Erich, “Bayer Informationszentrum” in Form & Light, Ernest Sonn Verlag, Berlin, 1993.

Segre, Roberto, “Arquitetura hispano-americana na mudança de Milênio. A globalização fragmentada: idioma comum, caminhos divergentes” in Arquitextos, Sao Paolo, June 2003.

Serna, David (ed),“Casa Vivas” in Escala, No. 175, Bogotá, Colombia, July, 1996, pp.26-27.

CRITERIA 6 The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. Andres Mignucci was elected as a FELLOW of the AIA in 2005. There are currently 74,000 architect members of the AIA of which, in the history of the AIA, only 2,500 have been elected as Fellows of the Institute. In he year 2005, alongside Mignucci, Santiago Calatrava - AIA Gold Medalist; Thom Mayne - Pritzker Award Winner; and Toshiko Mori - Head of Harvard’s Graduate School of Design were also elected. You cannot be in such company without being notable. The American Institute of Architects said the following in its induction press release.

Washington, D.C., February 25, 2005 --The American Institute of Architects (AIA) elevated 66 architects to its prestigious College of Fellows, an honor awarded to members who have made contributions of national significance to the profession. Andrés Mignucci, FAIA, of San Juan, Puerto Rico, was elected to receive this honor because of his contributions to the field of design. Mr. Mignucci has enriched the profession by integrating the disciplines of architecture, urban design and landscape architecture in the creation of urban environments with a sense of place, human scale, and environmental responsibility. His work reflects a commitment to the role of public space as an integral part of people’s lives, as a setting for social and cultural exchange, and as a vital component in the structure of our cities and towns. In addition, his leadership through public service and teaching has made significant contributions in extending knowledge of the profession to a larger public.

Out of a membership of more than 74,000, there are fewer than 2,500 AIA members distinguished with the honor of fellowship. It is conferred on architects who have made significant contributions in the following areas: the aesthetic, scientific, and practical efficiency of the profession; the standards of architectural education, training, and practice; and other related professional organizations; advancement of living standards of people through an improved environment; and to society through significant public service. [19]

Andres Mignucci's honors and awards include the following:

HONORS

FELLOW of the AIA Washington DC, USA, 2005

FELLOW of Institute for Urban Design New York City, NY, USA, 2005

Chandler Prize for Excellence in Architectural Design Boston Society of Architects, 1982

President’s Fellowship University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras, Puerto Rico, 1979-81

AWARDS

2006 First Prize-Urban Design: Parque Metropolitano de Santiago (with Gustavo Moré) Bienal de Arquitectura de Santo Domingo.

2005 Bronze Medal: La Ventana al Mar Bienal de Miami + Beach, Miami.

2004 Finalist: La Ventana al Mar IV Ibero-American Architecture Biennale, Madrid, Spain.

2004 Mention of Honor: La Ventana al Mar AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

2002 First Prize: Parque Metropolitano de Santiago (with Gustavo Moré) International Design Competition, Santiago, Dominican Republic.

2002 Landscape Design Award / Paysage: Parque de los Niños Martinique Architecture Biennale, Fort de France, Martinique

2002 Grand Prize / Premio Nacional de Arquitectura: Escuela de Bellas Artes de Mayaguez. VII Puerto Rico Architecture Biennale, San Juan, PR

2001 Grand Prize / Premio Nacional de Arquitectura: Parque de los Niños VI Puerto Rico Architecture Biennale, San Juan, PR

2001 Honor Award: Parque de los Niños AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

2001 URBE Award for Excellence in Architecture: Parque de los Niños Urbe Design Awards, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1999 Mention of Honor: Santo Cristo de los Milagros AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1998 Mention of Honor: Cooperativa Gasolinera Cayeyana AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1997 Honor Award: Casa Vivas AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1997 Mention of Honor: Casa Vivas IV Puerto Rico Architecture Biennale, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1997 Mention of Honor: Lamar 557 AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1996 Honor Award: Casa Hopgood AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1992 Mention of Honor: Conjunto de Viviendas Bayamón 831 AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1990 Special Award: Arquitectura Dominicana 1890-1930 (with J. Rigau and E. Martinez) Special Research Award, III Bienal de Arquitectura de Santo Domingo, RD

1990 Honor Award: Casa sobre una Hondonada AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1986 First Prize: Informationszentrum, Bayer AG (with Erich Schneider-Wessling and Ilse Walter), Köln, Germany

Maribel ortiz 21:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Espresso Addict 20:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete So this guy is an architect. I don't really see any notability here, as the Google test turns up less than 1000 hits and most of them are list of people who worked on various construction projects. Mr. Mignucci did not win any notable awards and did not get (non-trivially) mentioned in any reliable sources. To the above user: Why did you use the notability guidelines for professors? I don't see any mention of professorship in the article. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I missed a rather obvious COI; the only significant contributor to the article is User:Mignucci. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 23:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rewrite for NPOV. Massive COI but Mignucci is verifiably notable by peer recognition and possibly WP:PROF too. His FAIA status (now confirmed & cited online) says that he is regarded as one of the best architects in the U.S. A Google Scholar search shows that his publications are widely cited. A Google search his Parque de los Niños and Parque Metropolitano de Santiago brings up non-trivial coverage and credit. Still looking to verify international award wins. Mignucci apparently really is an internationally respected urban planner. • Gene93k 06:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -per above reasoning.JJJ999 08:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously rewrite. FAIA citation is strong indicator of notability as is the park project award. Limited sources is at least in part a WP:CSB issue. --Dhartung | Talk 12:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Widely cited; google test often has an english-language bias. Academic work shows up elsewhere. --lquilter 16:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Decent independent third party source coverage, certainly meets WP:BIO as argued with sources above. Needs a cleanup and perhaps a rewrite to address COI issues though... --Kudret abi^Talk 07:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Contested or not, a speedy is a speedy. Punkmorten 21:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keri Sachtleben[edit]

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

Bio-page that doesn't assert notability and doesn't sound notable at all either. Anon-contested ((db-bio)) (nom by me), so here we are in AfD-land. DMacks 20:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private (album)[edit]

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

Crystal ballery. Album was scheduled for release almost a year ago and still hasn't come out. The vast majority of the article is speculation (see "Speculation and leaked tracks" section). Album still doesn't have a release date on their record label's website. Of course, I am all for re-creation of the article once the album is released. Precious Roy 20:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's all in violation of the crystal ball clause. The only sources are there to back up the fact that the album as a whole was not released. Perhaps it can be worth recreating if and when the album comes out. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as patently non-notable per WP:CSD A7 and per WP:SNOW. Qwghlm 09:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emberton Athletic FC[edit]

Emberton Athletic FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page seems to just be a list of players, and a possible list of scores. This page lacks significance in accordance to wikipedia's policies. This page has no history of sigificant information as well. Anyone can agree/disagree here, or change the tag to speedy deletion if necessary. The tag should not be removed, instead, read the deletion tag and place the appropriate tag on the article. BeanoJosh 20:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Village youth team playing in a very lowly league, no claim of notability. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree, plus the page is in serious need of wikification Triple3D 21:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. —Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally non-notable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - completely non-notable youth team. - fchd 07:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger Elementary School[edit]

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

Two unrelated non-notable schools that happen to have the same name. Unable to find multiple reliable sources to show any notability. Basil Richards 20:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:N. Punkmorten 21:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I challenge this school to prove an even elementary claim to notability.--Victor falk 21:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a disambiguation page and link directly to the Issaquah School District and Huntsville, Alabama articles. Simple solution, does not warrant an AFD honestly. Silensor 05:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a simple disambiguation. Education within the context of a school district or locality is certainly notable, and I see no reason not to guide our readers to the appropriate location. RFerreira 21:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete-elementary schools are not inherently notable, and a single page google search also brings up Tamarack Florida, Pearland Texas, Thief River Falls Minn, Nogales Ariz, and Everett, Washington. Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable entities. Chris 00:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Chris. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mr.Z-man 19:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in the United States[edit]

This is an incomplete list, and likely never will be complete (despite Wikipedia being a perpetual work-in-progress). The first nomination resulted in a no consensus, so I'd like to see if one can be achieved the second time around. No real !vote from me either way, this is somewhat procedural to determine if WP:NOT#DIR is applicable. Burntsauce 20:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Isn't this why we have [[Category:Shopping malls in the United States]] for?--Victor falk 21:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Victor. Categories works fine. Burntsauce, can you post a link to the record of the first debate? Mandsford 22:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the nature of wikipedia and the commercial means that many lists will never be fully complete, but it does not mean that all incomplete lists should be deleted — Rotovia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. Categories should do this. We shouldn't waste time updating an actual directory. It looks like it's recently been turned into a list of "notable malls" so that it isn't pointlessly redundant and sprawling. What makes a mall "notable" is beyond me, but the user is quite right that including every mall we have articles for is ungainfully redundant. Cool Hand Luke 08:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More suitable for a category. --RaiderAspect 12:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It appears we do not have a consistent policy or guideline to deal with these kinds of lists. List of Westfield Group shopping malls is a similar list that references other sub-lists and the community has rejected attempts to merge and/or delete those. As for the general comment that categories do essentially the same thing, Wikipedia has several lists that are more or less duplicates of categories. I'm not sure how we justify to keep this article OR to delete it. Truthanado 19:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - and request Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers adopt & improve (done). Lists and Categories can coexist. Just because you might be more comfortable surfing via Categories, does not mean everyone else finds it easy. WP is not paper, so we can afford more than one route to the destination. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it just passed an AfD less than six months ago (July). Also, organized list of verifiable information are good reference tools. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong, it did not "pass" an AfD less than six months ago. The result of the last discussion was a no consensus outcome. Burntsauce 20:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is a "no consensus" result unacceptable? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. "No consensus" is a common result of an AfD discussion. I was involved in one just last week. It results in keeping the article. For those familiar with American football and instant replay, "no consensus" is the same as "no conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field". Truthanado 08:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another list that should be categorized, also what indicates "shopping malls" every place with xxx stores on it. Jbeach56 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is different from a straight category listing. Many entries have a quick sentence establishing the mall's notability. This is worth keeping. Yes, the article is always in danger of just becoming a list of whatever malls someone wants to mention, but the article also receives a lot of attention from editors who are concerned about maintaining and improving the list's quality. So let's not be in a rush to delete it.--Ken Gallager 13:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think this is purely a directory, so I'd be reluctant to apply WP:NOT#DIR. Along those lines, Ken Gallager makes a good argument that information on the list establishes notability and I believe reading the list will give you some information on important malls regionally and historically, which is certainly encyclopedic. However, the arguments that this is a perpetually incomplete list, and a category is better suited to organizing these articles, are much stronger. Information about especially notable malls that have played a role in the history of US mall shopping on a regional or national level is useful, though, and should be documented in Shopping mall or preferable subarticles on the history of the shopping mall in the United States. I just don't feel like a list is the best way to document this, and since this list is never going to be complete, we don't need it. --W.marsh 14:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 15:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petronix[edit]

Violates WP:BIO, article is overwhelmingly the product of edits by the subject (see User talk:DrPetronix). See also WP:AUTO & WP:COI. References are from the subject's own website. Is a redirect (inappropriately, I might add) of Sociopathic, which is how I found it in the first place. AlexeiSeptimus 20:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reverted the redirect vandalism.
  • ohps. DELETE. oh so nn. Mystache 20:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 17:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 17:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Can anyone verify the claims of faculty positions at Indiana and Harvard? They're not enough to pass WP:PROF, but from how little I can find on them through Google I'm wondering whether they're even true. —David Eppstein 21:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My own attempts have come up empty. Also, I have been unable to find any peer-reviewed publications by "Jarod Petronix." AlexeiSeptimus 02:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --Crusio 16:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train^talk 14:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kohler[edit]

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

Does not seem to pass notability requirements (honors in field, etc. ) Avi 12:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Quick search does support the statement that he has written for Wired, and the 2 books mentioned do appear on Amazon. This seems to pass notability regarding appearances in mainstream media. The article does a horrible job of supporting notability, so should be tagged for cleanup, but not deleted. Arakunem 18:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, possibly a WP:COI--NightRider63 19:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- notable enough per Arakunem, no evidence to contrary, AGF.JJJ999 01:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Satori Son 19:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added some citations to the Wired Blog, and his 2 published works. This should help to establish notability as a published author and regular columnist in a mainstream media publication. Arakunem 13:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being a published author is not in and of itself an indication of notability (referring to WP:BIO). The references provided to date establish that Chris Kohler is an author. However, book sales portal descriptions of a book written by him do not constitute independent 3rd party sources that discuss the book(s) or author as the primary topic; in the first book site link, the site is published by the publisher of the book - a conflict of interest. I've done some brief follow-up online searching and not found evidence of 3rd party reliable sources that would fulfill the notability criterion. Perhaps at some future time, Chris Kohler will "breakthrough" to notability, but that time has not yet come. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 20:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KZQZ[edit]

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

Procedural nom; I've just declined a speedy on this - reason given was "All pertinent information is on the KBWF article. This page should not exist, its incarnation as "Z95.7" is not notable enough to stand on its own, and there is little content here. What content is here is already repeated in other articles." I agree entirely with this & think it's a pointless content fork, but can't find a way to shoehorn it into any speedy criteria. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per initial nom by myself.--Fightingirish 20:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Merge information not already there into KBWF. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to KBWF, do not delete. Corvus cornix 22:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• IT'S THE NEW Redirect!!!, Redirect 95-7!! Although someone may point out that Wikipedia does allow an article for any licensed radio station, this is one that changed its call letters in 2002 and again in 2007. KSWF is just the latest name for what's broadcast on 95.7 FM. It's not "entitled" to an article, although KSWF is. If anyone still wants to argue the point, note that technically, KZQZ has not been "licensed to broadcast" as of the time its pre-2002 FCC license expired. The license holder has been, and chosen to use new call sign and new format. Mandsford 23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - article has been changed into a redirect. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 07:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have reverted the conversion to redirect pending the outcome of this discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and delete - Merge content into the existing article and turn this one into a redirect. --Nehwyn 17:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 17:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of hectomillionaires[edit]

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

Probable neologism. I can't find any indication that this is a commonly used term. The two references in this article do NOT use the term. A Google search only brings up various blogs and discussion pages where people speculate that such a term should exist 23skidoo 19:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Additional: It should also be noted that a "Hectomillionaires" category also exists at present, which I recommend be nominated for deletion under both my rationale above and that given by some of the voters below; however that is a discussion for CFD, not here. 23skidoo 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Category is currently listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 10#Category:Hectomillionaires. --Allen3 ^talk 15:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete hectmillionaire is so NN that the article links back to this list. Mystache 20:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not for neologism, it is not (hectomillionaire is a compoundword), but because a hundred millions bucks is small change.--Victor falk 21:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's possible I misunderstand the meaning of the word neologism. I assumed it to mean a coined term that has little-to-no cachet outside a very small demographic. In that context I'm alleging that the term simply isn't one that is used in any wide sense, enough for it to be worthy of an article, much less a list (and I could have also nominated it based upon its failings as a list, too, as already flagged by some of the other comments in this AFD). 23skidoo 14:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment People pretty much don't say "hecto-" anything, or "deka-" anything. We skip straight from grams to kilograms, meters to kilometers, watts to kilowatts. We talk about a 10K instead of a 100 H. Call it a list of "multimillionaires" and if someone who has only $98,000,000 objects about not being on the list, do a Jim Backus impersonation. Mandsford 23:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Note that lists of millionaires (and equivalent categories) are normally deleted on WP for several reasons - 1) verifiability of wealth claims; 2) fluctuating exchange rates make it difficult to assess individual wealth; 3) - most importantly - a millionaire in one currency isn't necessarily a millionaire in another currency. Hell, if we were using the black-market rate for current Zimbabwean dollars, I'd be a hectomillionaire, and I'd also be a millionaire in Japanese yen. In old Turkish currency (pre 2004) I'd have been a multi-billionaire (and so would many other Wikipedians!). Grutness...wha? 01:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to expansive and unmaintainable nature of the list. Even if restricted to a single major currency such as US$ or EUR, qualifying levels for this list are well below the level of personal wealth needed to insure verifiability and constant fluctuations in various financial markets makes meaningful estimates transient at best. Differences in exchange rates highlighted by Grutness also expands the list of qualifying individuals to the point where Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information applies. --Allen3 ^talk 02:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism, unneeded (people in a restricted range of net worth?). JJL 13:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Grutness -- Magioladitis 13:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unite*[edit]

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

Non-notable organization SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources to prove notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - reposted content. Tagging. Otto4711 19:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not a speedy candidate because it never went through AfD (expired proposed deletion tag). Nevertheless, no sign of significant third party-coverage. Pascal.Tesson 19:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep seems non-notable claim lacks any backing other than opinion and the first few deletes seem to be calls for improvement, since the article was never marked for improvement before it was sent for deletion, nor does it seem like any editors of the article know about this for whatever reason, perhaps it should just be marked for improve for a few months to see if the sources can be found. --Buridan 04:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of notability, no sourcing. --RaiderAspect 12:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment isn't that a call for improvement? needs sourcing, improve notability.--Buridan 12:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Notability cannot be 'improved', it's a characteristic of a topic. If multiple reputatable non-trial third party sources exists, by all means add them and I'll change my vote. --RaiderAspect 14:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment you might want to reconsider that position, notability changes and is improved all the time, most things gain and lose notability, at least that's what jimbo said a while back and i tend to agree. --Buridan 13:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment yes, but if a topic is not notable at this moment, it should be deleted. --RaiderAspect 06:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G3. I consider adding deliberate nonsense hoaxes to be vandalism. This was part of a walled garden. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Francis Llonsdale[edit]

Lord Francis Llonsdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Yet another lame hoax from regular "alleged troll" (must AGF) Llonsdale (talk · contribs). Since "hoax" isn't a speedy criteria, wasting everyone's time bringing it here. — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete as hoax. There should really be a hoax listing in WP:CSD, it would get a lot of hoaxes deleted faster. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion's been had many times; consensus has always been that one or two admins aren't enough to be sure it's a hoax & not just something they've never heard of, and taking it to AfD gives people a chance to prove it exists — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Category already exists. A Train^talk 14:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of dance video games[edit]

List of dance video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Suggesting deletion for a number of reasons, primary that WP:NOT a directory, and given the strong lack of encyclopedic context here, Mediawiki categories are much better suited for the job. Second is that this list is being used to circumvent a number of previous AFDs to advertise for dance games that have been deleted (and re-deleted), but this is only a supplemental reason. Categories fix both problems with one stone. Burntsauce 18:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We are not a directory. The list is unencyclopedic and half of the games mentioned are redlinks. It would be hard to keep this article up to date. A category could easily take the place of this article. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge list of notable games with Music video game. Many of these are not notable, and the notable games don't need to be listed on a separate page. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or have as a category. Encyclopedias do help to organize human knowledge and list are an effective means of doing so. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete better as a category.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable subject, useful list. Additional comments and header info make it better as a list than a category. Wikidemo 15:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The same additional comments you refer to can be placed directly in the category. In fact, the current comments at Category:Dance video games do a better and more succinct job than the article does, completely obviating any need for this list. Burntsauce 20:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete---Wikidemo, Grand Roi, "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous *because* they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic." according to policy. This article is then clearly what wikipedia is not, it imparts no significant contribution to the topic. Also consider that there are no sources for the two sentences defining what is or is not a dance game. Lotusduck 19:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and convert to category. A category called Category:Dance video games i think is much better. -- Magioladitis 13:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of licensed manga in English. —Verrai 20:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of manga[edit]

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

This list is redundant with Category:manga series and it's subcategories. A list of all manga is impossible to ever complete. Already created more manageable alternative: List of licensed manga in English (after discussion on talk page).

See also:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List of anime -> same discussion on the List of anime article, which was deleted.
• Talk:List of manga#PROD -> where the creation of the 'licensed' list was discussed.

Ninja neko 17:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redundant to the category. It is impossible to keep this thing anywhere close to remotely up to date. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm wondering why this wasn't handled with a simple move. The list of licensed article is a much easier to define and maintain (and even that's a massive job). Delete Redirect to List of licensed manga in English per SeizureDog —Quasirandom 18:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete better handled by a cat. JJL 18:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of licensed manga in English - Anyone looking for the old article will see their needs served well enough at the new one.--SeizureDog 00:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've never understood why this survived where List of anime didn't, but if this does get deleted, can we make sure any redlinks are also included on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga first. Shiroi Hane 23:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of licensed manga in English - current scope is unmanagably huge. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and do not redirect per nom as non-completable, impossible to update in a timely manner, and too large for a single page ion any case. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment wouldn't a redirect to List of licensed manga in English be a bit misleading? Unless we redirect it to Category:Manga series, although I don't know whether redirects to cats are good WP practise. Ninja neko 06:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of licensed manga in English per SeizureDog and Exit2DOS2000. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This list is to general. Wikipedia is not a publications almanac. -- Magioladitis 13:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is what categories are for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehwyn (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants these in their userspace to try to improve (and not just have a copy), contact me. Mr.Z-man 19:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divisions of the Galactic Empire (Star Wars)[edit]

Divisions of the Galactic Empire (Star Wars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and plot summary. In-universe prose makes it inappropriate to merge into Galactic Empire (Star Wars). EEMeltonIV 17:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for similar reason

• Imperial Forces (Star Wars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The content on this page is already covered in other articles linked from the main Galactic Empire article. --EEMeltonIV 17:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete maybe userfy. JJL 18:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userify both. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the article does contain a reference and external links sections and as it concerns Star Wars, which with its expanded universe, applies to something that has notability beyond just the films. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Notability is not inherited; Star Wars, and even the notion of the Expanded Universe, are notable; components of it do not automatically "receive" that same notability. --EEMeltonIV 17:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 16:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Dice[edit]

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

Promotional article with no reliable sources or evidence of notability (his reputation as a "ladies man" [sic] notwithstanding). -- Merope 17:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I put a prod at the same with the same reasons (removed it now though, pointless being there). This reads more promotional than encyclopaedic (references only mention artist by name with no substantial information). Unsourced and no assertion of notability. Also, pretty sure this has been deleted a few times already. A^RendedWinter 17:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - the article was deleted several times as CSD A7 and once as an expired prod. -- Merope 17:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:BAND. Only album is on a label whose first artist signed is ... this one. --Dhartung | Talk 17:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopedic, no non-trivial mention in sources provided. It's been deleted thrice - on 5 July 2007 for an expired prod; on 25 July it was speedied per CSD A7; and yesterday the article was speedied again per A7. I think a good salting is in order. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the other fine comments above. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BIO, reads like an ad too. --Kudret abi^Talk 04:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 16:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human Capital Integrated[edit]

Human Capital Integrated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Blatant self-promotion, article's creator is named in article as founder of business SteveBaker 17:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, just barely misses CSD#A7. No attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 17:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No proof of mention in reliable sources, so no notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:CORP. -- Satori Son 19:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Opinion Delete. I suspect a Conflict of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushal one (talk • contribs) 20:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORP, looks like an ad, possible WP:COI. --Kudret abi^Talk 04:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MaxSem 12:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunted (Visual Outbreak)[edit]

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

This film fails to be notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. A Google search with the title and the writers' names for the keywords show only two other links besides Wikipedia links. As a result, there is no indication that this film has received multiple and significant coverage by reliable sources. The film also does not have a listing at the Internet Movie Database, which would be a step toward notability. Basically, it has nonexistent presence outside its official site and Myspace blog. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of notability as shown by a lack of an IMDb page and only two other Google hits. Alientraveller 17:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete If there's a Myspace page as an "official website", the "official trailer" is a video on Youtube, and no mention on IMDB or Google, then this one is definitely NN. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or change Content to 2003 film with the same title. The IMDB page (http://imdb.com/title/tt0269347) is for a 2003 film. This is a 2008 film with the same name. The 2008 film is not on IMDB; therefore not notable. --Anthony5429 19:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The 2003 film exists here: The Hunted (2003 film). This AfD'd article doesn't comply with naming conventions for films, anyway. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. Non-notable vanity amateur film. Keb25 04:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This film is in the process of being made and is a large project by a locally notable short film director. As it is still in development, IMDB articles / official sites are still pending. --CumQuaT 14:04, 12 October 2007 (EST) — CumQuaT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• "Locally notable" doesn't cut it, especially when you're not referring to the film. I'm locally notable where I live, but I don't pursue an article for myself. You need to make a case for existing notability -- if it doesn't exist yet, the article shouldn't exist yet. No significant coverage by reliable sources, not even an IMDb listing (generally a step toward notability, but having a page on IMDb is not automatic notability). You can request for the article to be userfied so you can recreate the article at a time where its notability is heightened. I suggest reading Wikipedia's guideline on notability for more detail. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 19:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of English names[edit]

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

Deletion nomination:The list is arbitrary and shows no real discrimination in deciding what to be included. Plus, what makes a name English? Insanely broad, entirely unverifiable. As Bob Marley said, you've got to kill it before it grows... Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is a baby names web page. JJL 18:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Gosh, and I always thought names like Caleb and Benjamin and Sarah dated from Biblical times. Of course, there are some who believe that the Bible proves that Jesus spoke in English. Mandsford 22:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow, how depressing. D: Anyway, first off, there are "English names." For example, you wouldn't consider "Mitsuki" an English name, would you? But a name like "Julia" could be called an English name. Come on, people, this isn't hard. Also, there's a list of Japanese names that I modeled this after. If this one is to be deleted, shouldn't that one be, too? An also, an encyclopedia is open to so many things. There's no reason why names wouldn't also belong here, is there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlene Sinclair (talk • contribs) 22:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 00:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pretty much a random list of names. Why do people feel the need to make a list for everything. Ridernyc 00:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Aw, c'mon! Why are you people so boring? The list can be useful! It can be used to find meanings of names, or names of certain meaning! :] I don't understand why you have to pick at it so. What if it was changed to 'list of common English names'? Would that be better for you?
• Probably not. We're so boring, even dull folks like us find the article "List of English names" to be boring. Reading it is like going to a party and hearing people talk about what to name the baby. "I like Phillip because it's English for 'lover of horses'". I read that this year, there will FINALLY be a book that lists boys and girls names and gives a meaning for each one. Imagine that. All this time, we've been waiting for it My opinion is that truly "English" names are like Nigel or Winston or Neville or Beatrice... Mandsford 02:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:DIRECTORYRidernyc 02:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• transfer to category-for those that are not redlinked, that does represent an outlay of time, and that would be a useful categorization. Chris 06:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I doubt that article could ever work... I mean, it has Xanthe on it, that's a Greek name. It doesn't have anything under D at all. It has Rob, Robbie and Robert listed separately- imagine how long it'd get if you listed every single variation of every name that somebody considers to be an English name! There are dozens, if not hundreds of websites that do this better, not to mention the baby name books you can get at your friendly local bookshop. It might work as a category though. MorganaFiolett 08:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aren't Rob, Robbie and Robert all Scottish names? It seems to me as if the inclusion criteria are too vague. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transfer to Category- Already an English name category. No need that it also be a list page. Remember 13:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, makes absolutely no sense as an article. Only marginally better as a category. --Nehwyn 17:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 19:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bell Performance[edit]

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

No reliable sources can be found for "Bell Performance", "Bell Additives", or "R.J. Bell". Non-notable company. Sasha Callahan 06:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from nominator, this could be the longest I've seen an article on AFD. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 22:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in the absence of reliable sources that prove notabitiy. --Oxymoron⁸³ 07:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Using Newsbank, I found a 1,210-word article about Bell from The Orlando Sentinel. (Robin Foster. "STEERING TOWARD A NEW MARKET - BELL LABORATORY HOPES TO ADD CUSTOMERS WITH RETAIL VERSION OF - GAS ADDITIVE". 30 June 1986. page 25). The company is also mentioned in several newspaper car advice columns. I'd be surprised if there isn't more info available somewhere, especially considering that Mix-I-Go has been around since the 1920s. Zagalejo^^^ 07:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, there's this. Seems like Mix-I-Go was connected to a pyramid scheme. Zagalejo^^^ 08:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources to prove why the company/product is notable. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It irks me that reliable sources can't be found because this company was the first to use fuel additives. But then again...who writes about fuel additives? Smashville 19:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of reliable sources --RaiderAspect 12:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending discovery of sources establishing notability. If the only independent sources are local media, that doesn't look likely. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 22:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-notable corp. Being mentioned in passing does not represent grounds for notability. --Nehwyn 17:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Jack Wilson (jazz pianist)[edit]

The result was Speedy Keep/Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article has no sources, and I'm having difficulty finding any online. Notability seems somewhat shaky, particularly due to the lack of references. If sources could be found for those claims, then this may be OK. Also written from a very non-neutral point of view, and Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Web site which could be used as source for notability imo --Anthony5429 16:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I did notice that site, but it appears to be a blog, which is generally considered unreliable. That's why I disregarded it originally. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Should've checked that link before I did the searching below :) That's actually the website of Verve Records, one of the most influential labels in jazz, enabled for comments but not a blog, and the text is taken from a bio at allmusicguide, which can be used to back up the article. Unfortunately, there's another jazz pianist called Jack Wilson, British, and his bio is the one you'll get if you search directly at AMG. Presumably a technical problem — you get the photos of this Jack Wilson but the bio of the British one. I've reported it on the feedback form there. Thomjakobsen 20:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article probably needs cleanup and sourcing, but I'm convinced of his notability: this confirms that he was Dinah Washington's pianist, this gives support to the claim that Jimmy Cobb was his drummer, and this has an album sleeve confirming that Roy Ayers played with his quartet. I haven't heard of him, but those were the three names that really stood out, and if he's recorded with them (especially as band leader), he's definitely a notable jazz musician. Thomjakobsen 20:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep needs to be rewritten and cleaned up but this person is notable.Ridernyc 00:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination Withdrawn After reviewing the comments above, and discussing the matter with Thomjakobsen, I am withdrawing this AfD as a sign of good faith to the author and those who have shown an interest in working with the article. The British guy was rather messing up my search results, and I hadn't realized that the blog post was a mirror of a more reliable source. I did note that the version I found was on Verve Records, however the format of the page was somewhat confusing and I was therefore still uncertain as to the reliability. As for the other portion of the nomination (the NPOV issues), there does appear to be some interest in working with this article, and I am more than willing to give said work a fair chance to take place. I have tagged the page with cleanup tags, and so hopefully those issues will be worked on. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 14:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turn You On[edit]

Turn You On (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song. Appears to be nothing more than crystal-ballism. Acalamari 16:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If it hasn't been released yet, it can't possibly be notable. The article needs more information and references in order to justify inclusion under a separate title anyway. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - an article on an unreleased single that does not assert any current notability except what might happen one day (see WP:CRYSTAL). No third party sources or mentions that I can find. If this becomes a hit anywhere and/or is generally released, this article may deserve recreation. Until then it should be removed. Euryalus 06:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 20:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All That I Got (Fergie song)[edit]

All That I Got (Fergie song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable song from The Dutchess. It is not a single, and the article even says this. Seems to be crystal-ballism, and POV as well. Article was initially prodded but it was removed. Acalamari 16:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to album: There seems a pretty clear precedent (see WP:OUTCOMES under music, also recent AFDs) that non-single album tracks generally lack the notability to support their own article, any information about them should be under the album name, UNLESS they have generated significant press on their own, which is usually a fairly small exception. Thus, we should redirect this back to the album and include any relevent information there. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "The song is one of Fergie's most beautiful in the album..." If it hasn't been released, I don't think it needs a mention here. If it were to be cleaned up to conform to the crystal ball clause and the NPOV policy, it could be speedied under CSD A1, as the article would basically be "All That I Got is a song performed by Fergie for her album The Dutchess. It has never been released." Even then, it still does not follow the reliable sources guideline, so I think it is a pretty solid delete. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pretty clear cut case of a non-notable song. At most, it should be mentioned in the album. Spellcast 23:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to album: this might be a notable song for the artist, however should be listed on the appropriate artists/albums page Carter | Talk to me 08:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Mention it in the album article if necessary, but right now there's no source about the song being notable per se. --Nehwyn 17:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Feast of Immortal Peaches[edit]

The Feast of Immortal Peaches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was nominated for speedy deletion, but I declined, as I have a feeling that this editor won't let it go peacefully. Thus I take it to AFD to get a clear consensus from the jury... SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like a real article, but it could be a well-designed hoax. I am inclined to lean towards a "keep" vote, but I am not sure what the grounds for the dispute is. A Google Search turns up some interesting results; it appears that the Immortal Peach Tree is a real concept and that the Feast of the Immortal Peaches (sometimes Feast of the Peaches Immortal) turns up in several real references in Chinese literature. Since I don't read chinese, I find it hard to check the sources for the article, but without further reasoning from the nom, I can find nothing to object to yet. I won't vote awaiting further information, but I am leaning towards a keep vote. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom due to a lack of verified-to-be reliable sources. Mmmmmmm, peaches. Burntsauce 17:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment incined to delete, yes the immortal peach tree and the feast is a traditional element of Chinese mythology and culture ( peach shaped and coloured buns are still served at birthday banquets, and I'm convinced that this is neither OR or a hoax, however this article is not about the peach in traditional Chinese mythology or traditional Chinese immortals. The article claims that it is about a book compiled by mortals in 1934 AD under the instruction of Chinese immortals by means of sift text ( someone in a state of religous frenzy trance making marks in a sand pit, with someone else seeing what words he can see in the sand). This is a religous text of a modern taoist inspired cult (written it seems as a synthesis of traditional Chinese and Western beliefs). I haven't read properly the external link provided but I'm pretty sure that it will verify the claims of the article, but that wouldn't make the claims of either true. The thing about whether to keep this article or not is how notable the originating cult is? For example Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health is not notable in and of itself, but notable because of its position within Scientology. KTo288 23:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)KTo288 08:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• PLEASE KEEP- The Book is real enough, not a hoax, and it will stand up to more than a few checks. I implore Wiki-editorial team to exercize more latitute on English sources even though some were given- no English translation or website should not demean its existence. What matters is the contents, which is NOT just about the 6,000 old Peaches, it's about creation and doomsday and more, worthwhile subjects that should be aired and possibly challenged. As far as I have researched, this Book was not written by a living person. I hope with similar articles, Wiki-readers like Kto288 can stop opining on what he/she does not quite know, Sift-text writers write in perfect lucidity, and sift text writing is NOT an Taoist inspired cult. Not quite sure what place it has in Scientology, only that people who only reads English has a chance to know about it. ACHKC 05:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reply:Typing in all caps, and using phrases like "this Book was not written by a living person" will not help your cause. Lets keep the arguements in the realm of rationality. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I left a request for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taoism, at this article seems to have the same problem as Understanding Heaven and Hell--Victor falk 11:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your help, Victor.ACHKC 01:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless the cult/group involved is notable. --RaiderAspect 12:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with comments above that the Feast of Peaches is a notable element of Chinese mythology, but this article is not about that myth. It is about a non-notable book. I am voting for deletion because (1) no sources cited to show notability; (2) article is poorly written and from an in-world perspective; (3) as with Understanding Heaven and Hell, the book is in the form of a novel, and this article is largely written from an in-world perspective. (4) As a result, many statements appear to be factually untrue, e.g. the statements that it was written by a god, programmed by a bodhisatva, and edited by a Ming Dynasty immortal in 1934! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Zang Sanfeng was a verifiable historical figure from the 16th Century. His role with this book was similar to Guan Yin, no contradictions. Whether it was feasible that Guan Yin & Zang came together to do this book in 1934CE would be a different question about the text. I would very much like to know how PalaceGuard could assess the book in comment(2) above, and should he/she read Chinese, will note the best and the classical Chinese literature were written in novel i.e. Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Fengsen Yanyi, Journey to the West etc. The in-world perspective is precisely one of the substance to be read and shared.ACHKC 01:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A question As it written in modern Chinese in novel form, is there any possibility it might be something akin to Beowulf's saga novelised and written in modern English?--Victor falk 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not quite, and no. There is a list of recognized guidance books from taoist & buddhist library that eventually I hope to introduce to Wikipedia in English, that togther will give a very holistic picture of both religions on top of what the sutras and their canons say. Admittedly one of the main problem as I see it is that taoist adherents lacks scholars much less western scholars; admist its unorganized adherents many had embraced other forms of beliefs without thoroughly understanding what taoism is or is about, before abandonment. Hence many scholarly work will stop short at the definition of dao or what Tao Tejing is.ACHKC 04:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd say its no more untrue or unverifiable than any other book written in a state of Divine inspiration whether by burning bushes, voices in the desert, gold tablets and magic glasses or million year old alien spirts passing by dentist surgeries. These kind of books cannot be proven untrue or verified this side of heaven,however what we can decide is if these books have a real and notable effect on the world, people and popular culture. I apologise if I've caused offense because I used the word "cult", but similar works are notable because their attached organisations are notable. ACHKC I'm not saying scientology is related to this book I was using it as an example, for illustrations sake, may be I should spell my reasoning out: by itself "Dianetics" is just another crackpot book probably not notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia, it has an article because the organisation it is attached to is notable, attracting numerous and wealthy adherents, building up a large financial portfolio, has been covered in popular culture, has attracted controversy, and the ire and attentions of governments.

• As it is "The Feast of Immortal Peaches" article has failed to show that it has had a real world impact, I don't know what the exact notability guidelines for religious sects is, but if it can be shown that "The Feast of Immortal Peaches" has a significant following, been instrumental in historical events, been the subject of irrational government persecution etc than it may just maybe notable enough for inclusion.KTo288 15:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A jest about the Scientology, no offense taken Kto288 whatsoever. A similar example would be the new gospels dug up in upper Egypt in the 70s/80s- are these part of the revelations? It will take time to sort out some of the questions mentioned by you, appreciated.ACHKC 01:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As an aside if this AfD goes against this article it might be worth opening an AfD for Guan Shengdi, which also asserts a knowledge of recent changes in the Celestial bureaucracy. KTo288 15:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes it does, mind-blowing if you follow its persuasion, I've made some adjustment to the chinese myth pages accordingly. I mentioned to the wiki-editors that for this reason this and many other books like it should be included in the English wiki-library, it will begin to make sense as some of these come online later, irrespective of your religiosity or views on doomsday.ACHKC 03:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone watching the Chinese mythology pages? Someone needs to look out for these edits. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The in-world perspective is a major problem. What I mean by "in-world perspective" is that the article is presenting as fact the claims made by the book. These claims are most likely to be intended to be fictional, given that the book is in novel form. Even if they are not intended to be fictional, they are unverifiable claims of a religious and philosophical character. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Real world perspective. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Along with Understanding Heaven and Hell this article seems to be non-notable new age gobbledygook. Add some real sources or delete this poorly-written article. Zeus1234 16:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think Zeu1234 is able to comment objectively for the simple reason that the taoism today is not quite the version taught in University or that used by new age books like Capra's Tao of Physiscs, of Pooh etc. which are more zen than tao. I will be happy to compare notes with Zeus on this, but if there is a subject of interest that looks anything like gobbledygook to me today, I will personally verify it. ACHKC 03:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete along with all the other articles this user has created so far as they seem to be well-written nonsense. Perspicacite 08:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 16:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Alphabet Number Value[edit]

International Alphabet Number Value (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am proposing International Alphabet Number Value for deletion. The only reference cited is a broken link. A Google search on the title produces no hits besides Wikipedia. It's an interesting idea, with some basis in ancient numerological practice, but the article seems to be original research/neologism. I had indicated concern about the lack of a reference on the discussion page back in January and there has been no response. Unless this AfD stirs up some significant improvement, I think the article should go. --agr 15:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment AfD was badly-formed when it was created--I have (hopefully) formatted it properly. I am neutral on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 22:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-- HOAX Remember when you were in elementary school and you did the cipher where A=1, B=2, C=3, and so on? And you wrote messages like "10-1-14-5 9-20 1 23-8-15-19"? Didn't know it was the "international alpahabet" did you? Luckily, the international alphabet is ABC, just like ours. Mandsford 11:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced. --RaiderAspect 12:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If this really existed, it might be part of numerology and we could cover it in that article. The word 'International' makes it sound like a standard, for which there is no evidence. Delete per WP:NEO and WP:RS. EdJohnston 21:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]