< September 11 September 13 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Keep !votes, even if they're not socks (which I highly doubt) do not address policy-based concerns presented by delete !votes: namely, WP:BIO and WP:RS. Article clearly fails both policies. -- Merope 13:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Asher[edit]


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

Non-notable broker, despite all of the hyperbole. The links don't link to anything which prove his notability. "Seth Asher" only gets 133 Google hits, and that's for everybody with that name. myloanmarket.com is his website, this reads liks spam. Corvus cornix 23:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total vanity PR piece, fails WP:BIO. The only remotely proper reference is a Forbes article that only mentions Asher in passing in one sentence. Nothing else here is sourced, including spammy BS like "best known for the introduction of a groundbreaking internet technology reducing consumers' costs for mortgages" and "He's been linked indirectly in business to actors Jack Black and Matthew Perry". wikipediatrix 00:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] And here is the press release: [2] Please also respond, Leuko, as to why it is proper for you to recommend deletion of an article yet proceed to edit its contents, and specifically its links to sources -- the very sources of which you and/or others claim it does not have enough! It appears to be improper, or at least an apparent inappropriate dicotomy. In other words, while you condone the elimination of this Wiki's very existence, you also are simultaneously proceeding to hone its existence to your liking. It is inconsistent, and appears to make you lack conviction in your belief that it should be deleted. I acknowledge that I may have missed something in this interpretation of your seemingly contradictory actions, but it does not appear so prima facie.AnnenbergCommunicationsMaster 00:18, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Comment Having read the entire Forbes article that is not the press release, there is more than one direct quote from Asher, contradicting Luek's "he has a one-line quote." Additionally, other than the quotations, both he and his company are referred throughout the article, and actually form a basis for the entire article.64.195.124.243 04:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC) — 64.195.124.243 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment I'm afraid I can't agree that Seth Archer and the company for whom he works form the basis for the entire article, for the very same reason that I disagree that he and OlympiaWest Mortgage Group are mentioned throughout. In fact, the first mention of Archer occurs in the eleventh paragraph of what is a 24 paragraph article. Moreover, he is not referred to again until the two closing paragraphs. OlympiaWest is mentioned only once, as a reference to the firm at which Asher works - a firm not mentioned in the Seth Archer article. That said, I do recognize that Archer contributed more than a one line quote - in fact, he provided three sentences. In this way, he barely surpasses the other three individuals who are quoted in the piece. Victoriagirl 17:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Added multiple links to videos from network broadcast television (KTLA television news, channel 5, in Los Angeles) and other articles on the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnenbergCommunicationsMaster (talk • contribs) 14:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Please see WP:BIO notability inclusion criteria. Being on the local news for a minute as someone who was available does not satify these criteria, as this person is not the subject of the interview. Replace him with any other random mortgage broker and no one would notice the difference, hence not notable. Leuko 18:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not buying what you are saying Leuko...did you mean to imply this figure has only been on the local news for a minute? He was on the local news multiple times, within weeks of the previous reports, so the news desks would not have reached out randomly the successive times but the desks would have been intentionally looking for this figure. And he was in the national news multiple times, in different media types all; just doesn't fit the bill for random. I am not in accord with the _totally random_ argument you make at all as much as I try to see your point of view, as your tenets are a gross exaggeration at the very best. Do you realize how many of these brokers there are out there? News teams, especially NPR, Forbes, Associated Press, Dow Jones, don't hit the same broker 4, 5, 6 times in a row totally randomly. They obviously go to reliable sources.64.52.12.82 00:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC) — 64.52.12.82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment Assuming in good faith that you are a new user, 64.52.12.82, I respectfully recommend that you consult Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I have yet to see references indicating that Asher has "been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject"; just one of the criteria through which the subject might be considered notable. Failing this, we might fall back on the sentence that follows: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability." However, even here sources fail us. Simply put, we have yet to find a single pubished source in which Asher features as the subject, rather we have three minor references: a two minute NPR phone interview regarding Countrywide, a two minute local television news report on mortages (in which Asher features for less than thirty seconds), and an Associated Press story (published on the Forbes website and elsewhere) in which he is one of four persons quoted. Again, as it stands, the subject fails WP:BIO. Victoriagirl 01:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Note: While writing the comment above, a corrected video link was provided by 64.52.12.82. Broadcast by the same local television station mentioned above, it would seem to feature Asher for all of fifteen or sixteen seconds. The subject is declining real estate values. Victoriagirl 01:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentYou are not supposed to say the word "vanity" in these discussions per: WP:Guide_to_deletion. It says that several times, including that it hurts the Wikipedia Foundation when you do it.64.52.12.82 02:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC) — 64.52.12.82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: Please see WP:DUCK. Also, you are not supposed to use multiple user accounts as meatpuppets in community discussions. Leuko 02:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed this, as it can not be verified, and no WP:RS was provided. And it doesn't sound as though it was actually about the subject, so it really wouldn't help with WP:BIO anyways. Leuko 23:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dear Leuko, was that the right protocol for you to edit my Keep suggestion? You struck through my word "Keep," which was the first word in my entry. I don't wish to have it struck through.Hbomb phd mom 01:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Like I said in the edit summary, you can only "vote" once. Leuko 02:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't agree that I have contributed to a few or no other topics outside this one. How can that tag be removed from this discussion from where my username appears? It's irritating, and inaccurate. I contributed to a very diverse number of Wikipedia sections. Also, I heard this radio broadcast above, and there is as of now no way to prove that it did not occur and get heard by hundreds of thousands of people, and I suspect shortly someone will come up with a verifiable reference to it...I am just not aware of a recording on the internet where we can point right now. Therefore, it seems since we are supposed to assume good faith, you should assume that I did hear it when I say I did. And since the Wikipedia citation guideline is only a guideline, and not a rule (and it specifically emphasizes that here verified), the reference deletion should be undone. I understand I can go back in to the entry and do that myself, but I am politely asking Leuko to do so for us in an exercise of good faith.Hbomb phd mom 01:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) — Hbomb phd mom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment: It's not inaccurate - a majority of edits are to this article/afd or related. As there is no way for an independent WP editor to verify the presence or content of the alleged radio broadcast, it really shouldn't be included. Leuko 02:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:V is the cardinal WP policy (along with WP:NOR and WP:RS), and it is not superseded by whatever weird interpretation of WP:AGF that is. Assuming good faith does not mean condoning the addition of unverifiable information. Leuko 02:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Phaedriel - 02:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry O'Hara[edit]

Gerry O'Hara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete: non-notable individual. Mazur-Grosskopf 23:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect — no prejudice to re-creation with appropriate sources in the future. --Haemo 00:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future predator[edit]

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

Delete Most of This page should be deleted. Most of it is fan fiction, their is a better version on the Primeval creatures page (most of the data is just stolen from that page so this is realy just a duplicate page padded out with waffle), and this creature, from a little known series has no claim on notibility, not enought to warrent more than a sub-section on the Primeval creatures page. It also makes no logical sense to have two pages on the same creature, which just say exactly the same thing in a diffrent way, and the entry for this creature on the Primeval creatures page is better written, referanced and more accurate and being older does have president. Not to mention the conflict of interest. Nubula 23:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I revert it as your trying to spit a page that does not need splitting and given pages to creatures that don't deserve their own page. Your just trying to produce a false dilemma falacy. If you tried to clean up and referance it you'd be left with a stub no better than what it was before. Nubula 16:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nubula (talk • contribs)
Given that the Primeval creatures page is "better written, referanced and more accurate" why not just put the Section fully on the page? This would solve the cleanup & referencing issues. And just what is a "false dilemma falacy"? --OZOO (What?) 21:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is about notability. It role so far does not make it important enough in my mind for its own page. If you could prove that this creature is sooo important to the mythos in second series that their will be too much data for a mere sub-section then I'd retract my delete vote but I'm uncovinced that this creature will achive anything more than a random monster of the week status. Also, as I see it, if it turns out your right and I'm wrong we can just re-create this page. Nubula 00:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it appears in the second series then it will have appeared in one-sixth of the episodes. (Assuming series two is 6 episodes long). Given that it is confirmed, it would appear to me to be a notable monster. --OZOO (What?) 16:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Childish evasions. Re-appearing in the second series does not make it noteworthy. Importance to the story and presence in popular culture is what makes a character notable. So I say again prove that this creature is sooo important to the Primeval mythos that their will be too much data for a mere sub-section then I'd retract my delete vote. Because of this moment you have nothing. Nubula —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not realy. Nubula 02:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not realy that noteworthy. But may be in the future. Gigantoraptor 17:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect — references do not support notability. --Haemo 00:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dodo parasite[edit]

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

Delete Most of it is fan fiction and in error, their is a better version on the Primeval creatures page and this relativly unknown fictional creature, for which their is harldy any true data, is not noteworthy hence it's surly better to delete this page and leave its sub-section on Primeval creatures page. Most of the data is just stolen from the Primeval creatures page and the episode guide page so its just a copy of already existing pages. Also no-one had any problem with where it was for months. The article waffles in order to make itself look longer and it also makes no logical sense to have two pages on the same creature, which just say exactly the same thing in a diffrent way, and the Primeval creatures page is better written, referanced and more accurate and being older does have president. Nubula 23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I revert it as your trying to spit a page that does not need splitting and given pages to creatures that don't deserve their own page. Your just trying to produce a false dilemma falacy. If you tried to clean up and referance it you'd be left with a stub no better than what it was before. Nubula 16:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the Primeval creatures page is "better written, referanced and more accurate" why not just put the Section fully on the page? This would solve the cleanup & referencing issues. And just what is a "false dilemma falacy"? --OZOO (What?) 21:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it would. If the vote goes in favour of keeping this page then that's what we'll do. And a false dilemma falacy is assuming that I have no alternative but to choose from the options you give me. That seems to be where we're failing to communicate. You expect me to choose between keeping two articles, illogical as you admit, or moving the data to one complete page. I on the other hand don't think the original page should be split as this creature is not noteworthy enough to warrent its own page. Nubula 00:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not realy that noteworthy. Gigantoraptor 17:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 15:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of album covers containing nudity[edit]

List of album covers containing nudity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Acollection of factoids for an arbitrary criterion. Poorly defined criterion (POV) Quite a few items in the list eg Take the Heat Off Me are hardly nudity. `'Míkka 23:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note these are not articles that have been previous deleted, but rather strawmen. Though iI do not think all such articles are appropriate, they are individually not indiscriminate, especially if limited to albums considered notable in WP. The presence of nudity of an album cover is arguably more important and sometimes controversial. DGG (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a reasonable argument. On the other hand, if it is a notable topic and if you have reliable sources which discuss the issue of nudity on lbum covers, then there must be an article in wikipedia, and this list will be a valid "sibling article", and I will change my vote. `'Míkka 18:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy deleted by Nihiltres at 23:26, September 12, 2007 (UTC) per author's request (WP:CSD#G7). Non-admin closure. --Darkwind (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal society[edit]

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

Personal opinion essay. Corvus cornix 23:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. the sole contributor clearly stated themselves: "Concerned Citizens Australia is fictional organisation! All of the folling information is not be taken seriously as it is ficticious!" `'Míkka 23:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned Citizens Australia[edit]

Concerned Citizens Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Admitted fictional organisation and the article clearly states that the information in it is not to be taken seriously. I would have tagged it for speedy deletion but it does not appear to meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Perhaps under WP:IAR? Mattinbgn\ talk 22:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep --Haemo 00:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy encoding[edit]

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

While "legacy" and "encoding" are perfectly valid terms, the term "legacy encoding" does not appear to be a widely used nor accepted term. This article has no references to verify its content or to provide examples of the use of the term "legacy encoding" in the real world. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep notability confirmed. --Stefan talk 14:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traci Lind[edit]

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

While IMDB supports the assertion that this actor appeared in several notable films, saying that she 'starred' in them appears to overstate the case. I didn't find good evidence of notability. If Google is to be trusted, she is considerably less well known than the Episcopal priest of the same name. FisherQueen (Talk) 21:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete Does not ascertain notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Perfect Proposal Speak out loud! 21:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Keep She is third billed in Fright Night II, second billed in Class of 1999, second billed in My Boyfriend's Back (it was her boyfriend that was back) and had a lead role in Wim Wenders The End of Violence. She also seems to have appeared in supporting roles in several other films. She is definitely notable for these performances. Spanneraol 23:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BIO calls for "significant roles in notable films". As Spanneraol notes, she has significant roles in several films that have their own articles.Cube lurker 00:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Rename to 2018 FIFA World Cup bid for now. Please wait for 11 years to come and we will end up returning to its initial title. @pple complain 16:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2018 FIFA World Cup[edit]

2018 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am nominating this page per WP:CRYSTAL it doesn't tell you anything, the bidding for where it will take place doesn't start until 2010, and its just an essay on what stadiums "could" be used, if that country is chosen. The sunder king 21:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But how do you know if we will not have World War III? 1942 and 1946 World Cups did not happen because World War II. Sincerely, I hope that World War does not happen, but in 11 years a lot of thing may happen. Carlosguitar 20:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said almost certain to happen, not will absolutely definitely occur, and "almost certain to happen" is all the crystal ball policy requires.... ChrisTheDude 20:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not! After the competition venue is announced, the "bids" article would provide a detailed overview of the bidding process. - PeeJay 12:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - All the information on the Bid process will not be allowed in the eventual enormous Cup article. Moving it now will create a redirect that will do its thing for 11 years, then be converted into the Cup article. SolidPlaid 11:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not talk about FIFA World Cup only about bids interests. There is no way to keep with this title. Carlosguitar 20:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bunch of pratts, all of you. The sunder king 15:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Pretty clear that it should remain in place and this thread be closed. Londo06 17:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You already did vote. Carlosguitar 20:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

already voted in favour of KEEPING United States Senate elections, 2012 I would recommend looking at this as a point of reference. The 2018 World Cup will happen, it will be held in a country or countries, it will be held at stadiums, why would anyone wish to delete an article about a planned tournament. Londo06 10:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are facists all of you. Its a rigged vote, its rigged all over. If that had been anyone else it would have been deleted. The sunder king 08:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its a not a PA, because I am commenting on the actions not the peoples. Everything I nominate for deletion "vote to keep" anything I nominate for RFA "Oppose Oppose", and the opposite happens when admins do that. The sunder king 09:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
King, I don't know you and even didn't know that you nominated this article for deletion. I wrote what I felt and didn't have any intention to hurt you. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 10:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if you meant "fascists", how is that not a personal attack? It was intended that way, I think. Wikipedia is not about winning things, such as deletions or reversions - I have been on the wrong side of the vote many times, and my good faith reversions have sometimes been put back to the incorrect versions when I know full well that I was right all along. You just have to move on to the next item. Ref (chew)(do) 15:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Carioca 07:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irvine Pharmaceutical Services[edit]

Irvine Pharmaceutical Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company; article is mostly spam Addhoc 20:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. CitiCat ♫ 04:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of panorama[edit]

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

Uncited WP:OR, was unverified and factually inaccurate takeoff on the German word Panoramafreiheit in what might have been an attempt to apply this word worldwide. ... Kenosis 20:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. By policy "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Although this article is over 9 months old and has been listed here for a week, not one single source has been provided to demonstrate notability. Please see WP:V. --JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 01:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Epoch[edit]

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

The article hardly passes Wikipedia's notability guideline, having no reliable sources, nor any referances at all for that matter, citing what little content is featured on the page. The crossover gets very little coverage on the Internet from third-party sources in general, and though both a G-search and Yahoo search brings up many results on "Cross Epoch", there are perhaps only one or two sites I've come across that aren't: forums; providing scanslations; or another Wikipedia page. The article itself is nothing but a character list anyway, and adding even a blow-by-blow, panel-by-panel plot summary would do very little to the article. In short, if no third-party source cared enough to publish this information, why should we? // DecaimientoPoético 20:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why delete then? If it doesn't need "it's" own article then it should be merged/mentioned into the relevant articles instead. Kariteh 10:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because something (a game, a book, a movie) has not been released in English doesn't necessarily mean it's hard for someone to find information on the topic. I understand that it may be harder to find info on the topic using the Internet, but we don't exactly have to cite everything with URL links. Books (and sometimes the source material itself, in this case Cross Epoch) can be used as reliable sources as well. // DecaimientoPoético 19:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cross Epoch hasn't been shown in Shonen Jump, just mentioned once. -- Jelly Soup 22:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. @pple complain 16:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exiting Worlds (Torchwood)[edit]

Exiting Worlds (Torchwood) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article consists only of fan speculation and is completely unsourced. — Edokter • Talk • 20:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally say DON'T deleate. I mean, there is no longer an episode name, just infomation (which is confirmed by the way). Legs of boe 18:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)legs_of_boe[reply]

Comment - If the information is confirmed, and you can provide a source for it, then you can put it on the List of Torchwood episodes under "Plot details". StuartDD ( t • c ) 19:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can we delete this yet? This started on the 12th, and only one person says Keep. StuartDD ( t • c ) 12:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per nom withdrew by voting keep after sources were found. Non-admin closure. --Darkwind (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smarte Carte[edit]

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

While some may enjoy this company's products, I have questions about whether this company article is notable. If it is not notable, it is a candidate for deletion. A deletion does not imply that the company has bad products or has a particular fault. Looking for citations, I find few on the company. Mrs.EasterBunny 20:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ina Paiva Cordle. "Luggage carts to cost MIA millions." The Miami Herald. 20 July 2007. p. C3.
  • Lisa Murray. "Smarte Carte's in the bag for Macquarie - Buys $370m luggage trolley company." The Sydney Morning Herald. 10 January 2006. p. 17.
  • "Smarte Carte emerges from bankruptcy." St. Paul Pioneer Press. 28 May 2005. p. C2.
  • Martin J. Moylan. "Smarte Carte lockers reopen; shut down since 9/11." St. Paul Pioneer Press. 5 March 2003. p. C1.
  • Paul McAfee. "Smarte Carte rolls over E-Z Roller, gains airport concessions." The Business Press/California. 6 November 1995. p. 10.
  • Jim Jones. "Smarte Carte does its part in roundup at the supermart." Star Tribune: Newspaper of the Twin Cities. 15 April 1988. p. 1D. Zagalejo^^^ 20:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 15:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myster Shadow-Sky[edit]

Myster Shadow-Sky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Decent sources, but questionable notability, POV violations, and excessive description. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 19:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Phaedriel - 02:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Society for Cryobiology[edit]

International Society for Cryobiology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
moved to Society for Cryobiology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Probably should be a CSD A7 speedy-delete but I thought I'd run it by here. Notability not asserted or established for this small group, and garners only 25 unique Google hits, several of which are primary sources (their own press releases) and a couple of which are Wikipedia mirrors. wikipediatrix 19:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, it would seem this article was improperly named and should just be renamed to Society for Cryobiology, if kept. Still, a Google search for "Society for Cryobiology" gets 611 unique hits and not all of these results appear to be about the same organization. wikipediatrix 21:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WPD, could it be you are seeing hits for affiliate groups of the Society for Cryobiology? I wonder if you even know what you are looking at.--Fahrenheit451 22:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional terrorists[edit]

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

This list does not seem at all encyclopedic and is perhaps inexorably linked to original research. When designating someone a terrorist is controversial in real life, how is it possible to make this determination for fictional characters without engaging in patent original research or point-of-view manipulation? I just don't see how this list can be made objective. Conceivably one could look for quotations by the creators of the characters that said character is a terrorist, but this seems to be a trivial matter unfit for Wikipedia. Nondistinguished 19:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATLAS (StarCraft)[edit]

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

No notability outside of game universe, and limit ed notability in the game universe. Burzmali 19:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to have any notability. Judgesurreal777 22:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was: Speedily deleted - blatant hoax/nonsense/vandalism. - Mike Rosoft 09:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Ahmed[edit]

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

Looks like a hoax/fictional vanity article. About someone who "is regarded as the one of the (sic) greatest mathematicians in quantum electrodynamics" but neither Google nor Google Scholar offer evidence for this. Pseudo-mathematical terms like Fahad's Law and Heineman Maths Constant likewise draw a blank, as do many of the names of his associates. Coincidentally (maybe), a vanity bio for a non-notable maths student of the same name was speedied a couple of days ago. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 19:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete The article describes someone who is very notable. Unfortunately, that person is called Stephen Hawking, and this article has changed a bunch of words from his article, most notably his name. Thomjakobsen 19:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "religious views" section is also a rewording of the one in the article Paul Dirac.Thomjakobsen 19:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and the paragraphs starting, "Ahmed drew on his broad knowledge of physics..." and, "Early in his career, he supported Fred Hoyle's steady state cosmology..." are rewordings of parts of Dennis_William_Sciama. No further discussion necessary :) Thomjakobsen 19:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and looking also at the previous repeated attempts at creating an article under this name, I'd suggest salting against re-creationDGG (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Carioca 20:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agendist[edit]

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

This seems to be a neologism in the blogosphere. No notable coverage or usage of it. The similar "agendism" was axed in this afd.MrMurph101 19:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No consensus but cleanup --Haemo 00:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Kai Omega[edit]

Alpha Kai Omega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is POV, an ad, and copied right off the website. —ScouterSig 18:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I could not find any literal copying of information, and the edit history doesn't show any significantly different versions that would represent a copyright violation. So it can't be speedied as a copyvio. -- Whpq 13:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep all. Phaedriel - 02:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mall Company[edit]

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

non-notable mall, Article fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CORP. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a vehicle for advertising. Hu12 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

The Mall (Edgware) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mall (Edgware)
The Mall (Luton) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Mall Ashley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Mall Trinity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Mall Wood Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Mall Galleries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Liberty Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alhambra Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


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

The result was delete as original research. This doesn't mean it's bad, it just means Wikipedia is not the place for it. Friday (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cifrangon[edit]

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

Original research, pure and simple. Cifrangon returns 7 GHits, the alternative spelling of Cyfrangon returns 6. None of the returns are reliable sources and the only source provided is a book by the author of the article. The author has also been adding facts based on his book to other articles in what appears to be a bout of self promotion. Nuttah68 18:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am the author of the article, and the data provided are the result of my own efforts, and not taken from any book, I can assure you that I have nothing whatsoever to do with any book published on the subject. I simply quote it as an extra source of information. The remarks of Nuttah68 are therefore not only deliberate falsehoods - that is, he is a liar, - but also DEFAMATORY, and as such inadmissible under Wikipedia standards. As my own site shows, I am an MSc student at Glamorgan University, and can be contacted there. In my article I have provided evidence which is provable on the net. You don't have to go there, though the coordinates are provided for you. I do not make the asseveration that Twyn y Glog is Cyfrangon, but simply suggest that if such a place exists, then this hill is a very likely place to start looking. The geophysical results obtained and the geological analysis from the National Museum of Wales can not be described as 'crackpottery' They are fact, plain and simple.

Ouldbob 10:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouldbob (talk • contribs) 10:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'll be honest, the majority of your rant does not help your cause, the opening 'the data provided are the result of my own efforts' condemns you per WP:OR. As for Tim, I've no idea who your nemesis is, but I can assure you (as can other editors), I am not he. Nuttah68 18:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. One of the joys of Wikipedia is coming across and reading up on areas of study you've never encountered before. While I may not be particularly knowledgeable in your theories on Welsh history, that doesn't mean I (or anyone else) has been "put up" to commenting on this AfD. That said, I am fairly well versed in the Wikipedia guidelines, and I know Original Research (and please click here to read the policy) when I see it. FiggyBee 05:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then, while accepting that this is a narrow exploration of a narrow aspect of Welsh history, - one which would be noticed only by a few people who would be aware of the subject, unless you are a scolar of such areas as the Bruts, Harleian and Bodleian mss, Chad, Mabinogi and Landavensis, how did you come upon the site? You are attacking an established history of which you know nothing: why? You describe my statements as a 'rant'. again, why? I am being attacked for trying to further knowledge of Welsh history. Unless you are Welsh, you could not even begin to understand. Read the histories, read the stones, read the names of the geological features. Every field in Wales had a name: did you know that? This article is not for self glorification: it is not out of vanity that I created the site, but out of joy at unravelling another knot in the history of Wales. I would have remained anonymous, but you and your friends attacked me from a position of total ignorance of the subject. You accuse me of taking my information from a book which I could not have read, because neither could you. The authors tell me that it is in the process of being printed. You accuse me of being the author, and a self publicist: that is defamatory: I am not, and can prove it. I therefore challenge you: prove your case or apologise and never ever sit in judgement on someone else on Wikipedia, particularly not on someone who is not a smug git like you, but who has just started. Prove your allegations or back off.Ouldbob 20:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. To quote 'You accuse me of taking my information from a book which I could not have read' yet you have listed this as a reference for all of the material you have added to Wikipedia. Even more so I am led to believe what you have added is WP:OR and unsupported by reliable sources.

Nuttah68 20:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC) I have also quoted the Bruts, Tyssilio, LLandavensis, Chad, Mabinogi, and Bodleian and Harleian ms. What is your problem? You do not answer the question of how you came to my article. Why not? If you are so damn clever about Welsh history, dewch y siarad. Ah, sorry, I forgot, you're not Welsh are you? Ond tippin bach? Nage? Dim Cymraeg? If you do not speak the language and know sod all about the country, crawl back into your hole. Where is the apology for your defamatory remarks? Or do you persist in accusing me of writing a book? Of course I know about the book: I was asked for permission to include work which we have done. This work was simply an evaluation of statements in old texts in Latin and Welsh, and the physical verification of that evaluation. Your hostility is obvious, and your reluctance to come clean is disgraceful. Yet again, I point out that you have stated that I am using this to publicise a book which you claim I have written. THIS IS DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER. Liar, and damned liar. I have never written a book in my life. Withdraw your false allegation immediately.[reply]

Well, well! The terriers are yapping today! Why this hostility? Why do I keep seeing the phrase peer reviewed cropping up as well? Let me ask you something: has the venerable Bede been peer reviewed? Has the Magna Carta? So why, when I am quoting established British historical texts does someone suggest that my sources need to be peer reviewed? Is this article stepping on someone's toes, I wonder? There's enough vitriol in this to put ICI out of business. Ouldbob 10:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I quote are part of the corpus of Welsh/British history. There are many thousand such sources available - usually by arrangement - with libraries such as the Louvre, the Vatican library, the Harleian and the Bodleian. As I have indicated above, I would not expect centuries old texts and thousand year old stones to need to be subject to peer review. They have been logged and recorded and few remain even mildly controversial in translation. These sources can be consulted. Would it not have been wiser to consult them before attacking me? Furthermore I have given you a simple geophysical test which you can use yourself, and an example in England upon which you can test it, together with the coordinates which will enable you to apply the test to the subject area. Would it not have been wiser to try that test, - before lambasting me? I have indicated that the history of Wales is written in the landscape, - that every field, river, wood - pob clogwen, pob dyffryn, had a name. The tithe maps are available: you can look at them yourself. Of course, they are not peer reviewed either. Does that make them invalid? Also, they are not on Wikipedia: does that reduce their value? Furthermore, you can hardly call Welsh history 'original research'. Simply because it is a new field to you, does not make it OR. If I supply translations and copies of old Welsh documents, you would still reject them, because they are not 'peer reviewed' nor yet part of the corpus of wikipedia. Everything I have said is verifiable. All you need to do is look. The only aspect of this which is any way original is the thought that Twyn y Glog might be a good place to start looking for Cyfrangon. Cyfrangon itself is a part of Welsh legend, - not mythology. I didn't make it up. St. Ilid is part of Welsh history. I didn't make him up. The Welsh have lived in their own country for thousands of years and are even mentioned in Greek legends - Orion was the only one brave enough to hunt here - so it is natural that their history is all around them. The English are a mongrel race and are very recent in their lands, so the land tells stories in different languages, and has mostly been forgotten. Not so here. I cannot peer review the land. It is there and always has been, nor can I peer review the traditions that the Welsh came from the Israelites. Ouldbob 10:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Andy. Unfortunately the time allowed does not permit me to access the sources, simpy because I have a habit of lending out good books to people with enquiring minds, and all mine are out at the moment. I had no idea that I would need them. I would however refer people to the much maligned published works of Wilson and Blackett, including Adrian Gilbert on one, and Grant Berkly on some others. The most extensive biblio is at the back of 'Artorius Rex discovered'. I wasn't looking for a fight, I was simply reporting genuine findings since I thought that they would be of interest to other people. Although I am aware that any mention of Welsh history tends to suffer attack, this was not exactly an historical article, and I felt that it would escape the usual fate. I was astounded at being accused of trying to publicise a book, and equally astounded at being told that I had written it. It is just simply not true, and a completely unjustified attack on my integrity. All I am guilty of is writing a few terribly poor scientific papers over the last fifty years. Nothing else. It is hardly surprising that I lost my temper at these allegations, - and the promulgator has still neither withdrawn nor apologised for these calumnies, - for such they are. I am still sore, and I am still angry, as I am sure you would be at a totally unjustified attack and at being villified in such a manner. I have shown how Google earth can be used to find artifical constructs where the terrain appears natural. I would have considered that that alone was worthy of being retained. Google earth were unaware of this until I told them some three years ago. The resting place of the Ark is a controversial subject I know, yet the Irish claim that it lies in Tara's Halls goes by without comment, - and I am not even claiming that it lies here; I am simply exhibiting the fact that this huge hill is an artificial construct, like Silbury Hill, only quite a bit bigger, and I am not hiding my evidence, I am practically begging people to have a look for themselves. When I first discovered this, I could not believe it myself, and called in various people around the world, including in my own University, to try it themselves. We all considered that this was a flaw in the Google earth operating system, and I wrote to them to tell them so. Then, trying the concept out on such objects as pyramids, I discovered that when the scale was small enough, I could read how the floor dipped inside the pyramid, but not how high the pyramid was. Perhaps I should simply have put up an article which drew attention to the comparisons between this hill and Silbury. After all, despite local legend, nobody knew or even suspected that the hill was artificial, the farmer who owns it still finds it hard to believe. A twyn is a burial mound, and this is what I suspected that this hill was initially. I still think that that is the most likely explanation and that the metal objects are grave goods. Again, thank you for your politeness in the midst of vitriol. This was my first attempt at creating a new article. I suspect that it will be my last. At least my editing of mycological and astronomical papers cannot be seen as controversial. Bob.Ouldbob 18:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy: As you will see, I have removed the page. My thanks to those who tried to guide me through this mess, and my curses upon those who insulted me, particularly fenelon of York and nuttah68 whose attacks and insults were completely unwarranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouldbob (talk • contribs)

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

The result was keep - nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of extrasolar planet extremes[edit]

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

This list is potentially a very misleading article. Not only are some of the entries dubious, a good case can be made for many of them that whatever is put in the entry is potentially misleading. On the principle that no information is better than incorrect or misleading "information", I nominate this article for deletion. My case against the entries:

Oldest: while the planet of PSR B1620-26 may have formed with the globular cluster [8], making it the oldest extrasolar planet, an alternative formation scenario postulates it formed from a disc produced during the red giant stage of PSR B1620-26B [9], which would make it much younger (~480 million years, from the first reference). Furthermore, age estimates for other stars are not very reliable at present.

Youngest: as noted in previous point, age estimates for stars tend to be unreliable.

Most massive: this is misleading, as we only have lower limits on the masses. Some of these extrasolar planets may well turn out to be brown dwarfs (or even stars, witness the case of HD 33636b [10]). Thus giving the example which happens to have the lowest lower limit is misleading, and misleading or incorrect "information" is worse than no information.

Least massive: probably on safer ground here, but to be pedantic the true mass of PSR B1257+12A is unknown and based on an assumption that it is coplanar with the outer two planets. While this assumption is reasonable, consider also that we seem to be arbitrarily ignoring the outermost companion of the pulsar, which may well qualify as a planet under certain definitions (note that strictly, the IAU definition only applies to objects orbiting the Sun).

Largest: the planet listed here is unconfirmed - it has not even been published in a refereed journal yet.

Smallest: Gliese 436 b is the smallest measured planet. However, we know of planets much less massive in the PSR B1257+12 system, which are almost certainly going to be smaller unless something really exotic is going on with their compositions. However putting the PSR B1257+12 planets is problematic because their radii are unknown.

Most distant: Probably on ok grounds here.

Least distant: Probably on ok grounds here too.

Densest: Previously listed here was Gliese 581 c, for which neither the radius nor the true mass are known. I removed this on the grounds that no information is better than misleading/incorrect "information". Furthermore with the ignorance of most planetary radii/true masses, this could be misleading.

Least dense: Possibly on ok grounds, but given that radii for most extrasolar planets are unknown, could be misleading.

Longest period: Currently listed is 2M1207b, for which the orbit is unknown. Someone seems to have got confused: while the measured separation is a minimum value, it could be at the outermost point of a highly eccentric orbit. Putting an unknown value here is misleading.

Shortest period: Probably ok with this one.

Most eccentric orbit: Probably ok.

Least eccentric orbit: Dubious assertion on this one. Many of the close-in planets have orbital elements given assuming zero eccentricity, others have eccentricities that are not statistically significant, etc. Potentially misleading.

Most inclined orbit: Probably ok.

Least inclined orbit: Since the inclinations of non-transiting planets are unknown, putting a value for this one is potentially misleading.

Largest orbit: Again the case of 2M1207b for which orbital properties are unknown.

Smallest orbit: Maybe ok.

Lowest Metallicity: Metallicity determinations are fairly uncertain, and in any case are based on ratio of iron to hydrogen. Nonconsideration of other elements is potentially misleading.

Discovery firsts: not really "extremes" are they?

Most Earthlike planets: again not really extremes. In addition, temperatures for all but a couple of hot Jupiters are unknown. Putting temperature values here is at best misleading and at worst incorrect. Chaos syndrome 18:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of entries on this table don't have to be here - if there's no sources for the data, then feel free to be WP:BOLD and remove 99 percent of the article's info if need be. Is it possible to make a list, however short, of known extrasolar statistics/extremes? Yes. Is such a list notable? Yes. Is this current version of the list it? No. So fix it. wikipediatrix 20:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning all of the "List of XXX Americans" nominations[edit]

I pity the closing administrator who has to handle this one. Mandsford 23:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ukrainian Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Welsh Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vietnamese Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - If the Vietnamese American person is not notable and the article about them is there for vanity purposes alone, they should not have a WP article at all, and if they do it should be deleted. Thus this argument does not make sense, and the need for such a list (which I and many others use as an invaluable resouce--a single page listing notable Vietnamese Americans broken down by occupation) is not negated. Badagnani 02:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think those articles should be just categories also. MrMurph101 20:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The category simply gives one a very long list of names, often across several pages. The article gives a single article with names broken down by occupation (and footnoted/sourced), making for much easier searching and locating of the information our users are looking for. I know this because I am also one of those users. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 02:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? If not, might be a good time to. Categories can accomplish the same things that the lists accomplish now. There can be sub-categories by profession, etc. And most of these lists do not have any footnotes and references, so I fail to see how lists are so much better? And unless there are more than 200 people in a category, they all fit on one page. (Not that this matters). Leuko 04:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Bad faith on the part of earlier delete nominators is also shown by the fact that several of the lists were heavily footnoted, yet the content was deleted entirely (content gone forever) rather than merged. This is a severe assault on our project, and your delete nominations, on a massive scale, are damaging. I can't phrase that in any "nicer" manner. Badagnani 04:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry, I am unaware of, nor responsible for, the action of earlier nominators. I just saw a bunch of unreferenced lists. The deletion nominations are a direct result of DRV-endorsed consensus that these lists violate WP:NOT. I don't see how that is an "assault on our project," as I thought we worked by consensus. Leuko 04:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange. A number of those discussions had consensus *against* deletion yet the closer chose to delete anyway, dismissing out of hand the preponderance of well-reasoned "keep" voters. It's all there in the record. One such closer actually has a statement on his user page that he would like to try to delete 800,000 WP articles. Any "consensus" you see for deleting all these articles is a figment of your imagination, or the imagination of the "delete page regulars" who have shown their corruption in recent weeks, deleting pages clearly against consensus. Badagnani 04:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, I actually didn't see much of a consensus to delete either, but if the closer of the AfD or the DRV don't determine consensus, who does? Leuko 04:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Taiwanese Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What about "x" is not a valid argument, as each case must be taken on its own merits. If you feel those articles violate WP:NOT#DIR, then feel free to list them on AfD. --Darkwind (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish-Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scottish Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scots-Irish Americans[edit]

List of Scots-Irish Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rusyn Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Russian Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Romanian Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polish Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Native Hawaiians[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Native Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add to that sublists of this list, List of Native American leaders and List of Native American musicians.Smmurphy(Talk) 20:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that is why we have a notability policy, if every fact there ever was went into this encyclopedia, some might find wikipedia itself unmaintainable, you know. ; ) Smmurphy(Talk) 23:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. 
Leuko 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Louisiana Creoles[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order: Sort of, but not really; Yes; No; No; No; Yes. Regards, — Moe ε 00:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexican Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Laotian Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of American Jews[edit]

Lists of American Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jamaican Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ukrainian Americans 2Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Welsh Americans 3Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese Americans (2nd nomination) 4Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Taiwanese Americans (2nd nomination) 5Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish-Americans 6Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scottish Americans 7Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scots-Irish Americans 8Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rusyn Americans 9Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Russian Americans (2nd nomination) 10Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian Americans 11Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Polish Americans (2nd nomination) 12Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Native Hawaiians 13Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Native Americans (2nd nomination) 14Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Louisiana Creoles 15Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mexican Americans 16Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Laotian Americans (2nd nomination) 17Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of American Jews 18Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese Americans 19Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jamaican Americans 20Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli Americans 21Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Irish-Americans (2nd nomination) 22Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian Americans (2nd nomination) 23Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hmong Americans 24Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Greek-Americans 25Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Filipino Americans (2nd nomination) 26Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Estonian Americans 27Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dutch Americans 28Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cuban Americans 29Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Croatian Americans 30Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cambodian Americans 31Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cajuns 32Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bulgarian Americans 33Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Brazilian Americans 34Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bangladeshi Americans 35Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bahamian Americans (2nd nomination) 36Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Austrian Americans 37Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian Americans 38Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Argentine Americans 39Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arab Americans 40Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Albanian Americans 41Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of African Americans 42Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Brazilian Jews 43Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chilean Jews HALFTIMEWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right-wing Authoritarianism 44Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Argentine Jews 45Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin American Jews 46Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Asian Americans 47Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Americans (3rd nomination) 48Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian Americans (2nd nomination) 49Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Korean Americans

I pity the closing administrator who has to handle this one. Mandsford 23:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An admin requested that each list be listed individually. Personally, I think a mass-nom would make more sense. Please remember to remain WP:CIVIL. Leuko 00:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israeli Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Irish-Americans[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lists of Irish-Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hmong Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article already has survived a recent AFD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Taiwanese_Americans. I think this new nomination is hasty and ill-founded. There is no strong precedent, despite the deletion of the German-American article. I find it unconvincing to say that it should be deleted to be consistent when clearly there is no consistent pattern existing. Nposs 21:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greek-Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Filipino Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Estonian Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cuban Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Croatian Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cambodian Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cajuns[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFDs are not helpful, as articles of this nature have been both kept and deleted, so precedent does not help us.

Candidly Geo Swan 14:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bulgarian Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brazilian Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bangladeshi Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bahamian Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


List of Austrian Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Armenian Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Argentine Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arab Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 14:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Albanian Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 14:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of African Americans[edit]

Lists of African Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding the following sub-lists to this nomination for the same reasons as previously stated. Leuko 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 14:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brazilian Jews[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 14:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chilean Jews[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. CitiCat ♫ 04:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing Authoritarianism[edit]

Right-wing Authoritarianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obvious violation of NPOV as is left-wing authoritarianism (which is enjoying its own AfD). This is a soapbox essay full of unsourced inflammatory remarks apparently cribbed from the writing of a single academic who already has a page devoted to him. Wikipedia is not a place for such a book report. Bigdaddy1981 17:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV is suggested by use of weasel words like "Altemeyer discovered a wide range of correlations over the years" - this sounds impressive unless the reader has even a glancing familiarity with statistics. It means nothing without actually stating the alleged correlation coefficients. At best this article is a book report. At worst a soapbox - it has no place in an encyclopedia. I am amused that a similar book report of a Ann Coulter book received almost unanimous calls for deletion (including me btw) but this is somehow better. Bigdaddy1981 23:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't put the correlations themselves in an encyclopedia article, and I'm not seeing where this article contains weasel words (See WP:WEASEL). In any case, these again are improvement issues, not deletion issues (See WP:DP). Valerius 02:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the correlations are significantly different from zero (or if they are not) that should be noted - their actual values are not important. Its weasly to just talk about correlations - and in my view invite laymen to interpret this word informally. It may be that no POV-pushing was intended but this article certainly seems it to me. Bigdaddy1981 07:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a general-use encyclopedia for lay people. Lay people would not be able to interpret correlation coefficients nor would they understand what is meant by significantly different from zero. Therefore, it is not appropriate to add such information in the article. I have not checked every correlation mentioned in the article, but every one that I have checked is significantly different from zero in the direction claimed. If you want to know the statistical details, then you have to read the source material listed at the bottom of the article. Wikipedia is not and never will be a substitute for reading the source material.
I do understand your previous point about not seeing the difference between this article and the one on Left-wing Authoritarianism (LWA). After all, the latter article is simply a copy and paste from this article with a few words changed. The difference is that the article on LWA is vandalism, whereas this article discusses an important line of research in political science and social psychology. Furthermore, I highly doubt that the LWA article has much to do with Ann Coulter’s book, as the book appears to be about Coulter’s claim that liberals are hostile to religion. This article is an accurate description of some of the findings in this line of research, albeit a description with much room for improvement.--FreeKresge 14:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or inline refs at all - at the moment, it is not clear if the claims are based on others' work or are OR. Bigdaddy1981 18:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References below an article rather than inline are a far cry from "cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" (WP:DP). This article can be improved, but I see nothing here that warrants deletion. Valerius 01:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps then it can be pared back and kept - and then interested authors can add back in sourced detail. As it stands, its in such bad shape as to appear (to me anyway) delete-worthy. Bigdaddy1981 07:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your viewpoint concerning respect for and defiance of authority, but no personal viewpoint, however compelling, is a basis for deleting, merging, or keeping an article. The characterization of conservatives as authoritarian would have to be included in any complete article on RWA, because it is part of the RWA concept and the research that supports that concept. Valerius 23:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 14:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Argentine Jews[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 17:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same as at the listed AfD - apparently the new consensus is that these lists should be deleted per the arguments on that AfD, as well as DRV. Leuko 18:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 14:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Latin American Jews[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 17:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete in accordance with WP:CSD#G4. Acalamari 22:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek versus Star Wars[edit]

Star Trek versus Star Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Pure, unadulterated OR. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is actually the 5th nomination. Previous AfDs:

  1. Talk:Star Trek versus Star Wars#VfD
  2. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars (recount)
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars (4th nomination)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 14:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asian Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 14:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of French Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 17:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted with summary Expired prod, concern was: Illiterate hoax about a made-up theory; "author" gets zero non-WP/mirror ghits. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Borneo[edit]

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

It IS a Hoax. PROD tag is right. "Illiterate hoax about a made-up theory; "author" gets zero non-WP/mirror ghits." Spryde 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 14:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 14:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Korean Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 17:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 14:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Salvadoran Americans[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep --Haemo 00:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StankDawg[edit]

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

Per WP:N; thousands of NN people can cite the same credentials. Article asserts notability with appeals to a podcast, calling it a "radio show". Subject has two superficial press hits in "IT Jungle" and "Technology Decisions"; neither of these are notable secondary sources (as a data point, neither pub is mentioned in the Wikipedia, unlike major tech pubs like eWeek, ZDNet, CNET, or IDG). Subject has written many articles for 2600, but lots of NN people write articles for 2600, which is a "zine". Subject had a "major" presentation at HOPE, a 2nd tier security venue, in 2004, but no major presentations since then (and one 2005 presentation at DefCon, also a 2nd tier venue). (like many NN security practitioners, he has been a recurring panelist at some 2nd tier venues and has hosted his podcast from them, which this article claims as a presentation). Note that article's primary assertion of notability is the "Binary Revolution Radio" podcast; but the talk page for Binary Revolution Radio asserts notability by association to the subject of this article! Posted a WP:N notice on the article 5 days ago, put a reason on the talk page, no response. Nobody will know who this person is 10 years from now. Let's delete the article. Tqbf 17:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--- tqbf 00:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BCF2000[edit]

BCF2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable product. No importance asserted Spryde 17:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 01:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demqog[edit]

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

Not really notable - inclusion in an exhaustive list of similar places doesn't pass WP:NOTE. Rambutan (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam 'Beyonce' Lowe[edit]

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

Recreation of CSD-deleted page. No real opinion on notability and worthiness, just wanted to run it through AfD to get a consensus. Not sure why it has to say 'Beyonce' in the article, though... GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 16:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. The central concerns regarding reliable sourcing and the notability guidelines are not much addressed by the comments in support of keeping the article.--Kubigula (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post Revolution[edit]

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

Delete Article written by the creator of Post Revolution (see his userpage in es.wiki as proof) (WP:COI?). It lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and thus is not notable. Chabacano 16:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I arrived to your article in this wikipedia because it is common for WP:COI affairs to spread from one wikipedia to another, and I consider irresponsible to do maintenance in es.wikipedia and to look the other way in en.wikipedia. Please, avoid ad hominem arguments, and focus in whether Post Revolution is notable or not. Avoid also insults and WP:CANVASSING outside wikipedia. Chabacano 16:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When you mention its entries in SecurityFocus... do you mean [12]? This is not a valid secondary source. Chabacano 18:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment citing rules is not a valid argument. You must to explain and there´s no actual point in your claim. My own weblog is not an issue (focus on article you say, you too please). --Fabiomb
Comment Your weblog became an issue here when you wrote a post making a call for "help" to your readers. I will quote and translate your words there: "el imbécil de "Chabacano", ese usuario de Wikipedia español que me persigue y me baneó sin mediación alguna, ahora quiere borrar mis artículos en wikipedia en inglés ¿alguien con ganas de ayudar por mi lado?" -> "The idiot of Chabacano, that user of the Spanish Wikipiedia that is chasing me and that banned me without mediation, now wants to delete my articles in Wikipedia in English ¿anybody wanting to help me? (plus a link to this page)". That produced some meatpuppets, as you can see below. And the point is well explained, but I will repeat it one more time: It lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Chabacano 19:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe reason to eliminate the article is your personal problem with the creator of the CMS? --Gabotes— Gabotes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
CommentWow Chabacano, you are admiting this is personal? c'mon, delete this discussion, the article does its job well, Chabacano is using and blogger reference to delete an article! first, "no suficient links", second, when all is lost, goes to personal issues, you are not serious, this whole poll is useless. And the sources sited in the article are independient from the subject, you must to re-read them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabotes (talk • contribs)
Second. In this case exist reliable sources, for example all users of this CRM or some reviews of argentine magazines.--Gabotes— Gabotes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: Users of a software are not sources. Where are those reviews by Argentinian magazines? this is not valid: Taringa is a Digg-like meta-blog. A post there is not a reliable (and probably nor independent) source. Chabacano 16:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment this is not the spanish wikipedia, here you can't use the samr arguments. Taringa style is not in discussion, but still is a correct soruce. there's an article of this software at secunia and security focus. only common software lands there. about 100+ users of his CMS are sufficient. if there's personal issues try to avoid them for this dicussion. sorry,im writing this with a treo , its hard, so im not logged in
comment: Can you provide links for the sources you are talking about? Is this the article os security focus? It is difficult vo verify your claims. Chabacano 20:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentChabacano: An example in a first search in google: Digital blog: Blogs, la ventana al mundo (it is not a review, but it refutes the saying by Chabacano)
CommentTaringa is NOT a Digg-like meta-blog, to see the entrance in es.wikipedia… OPS was erased because only have 20,000 visits per day, is not relevant in es.wikipedia parameters, sorry. Gabotes 17:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are right: The blog you are quoting does not make a review, and its depth of coverage of Post Revolution is minimal. I do not know what does it refute, but it is obviusly not the main flaw: "lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".Chabacano
Comment Chabacano: i don´t think like you, Social Networks are valid sources, wikipedia is a Social Network and Taringa is not like Digg or Meneame, so, i don´t get your point. I think this is a pointless discussion, trasnferring a personal issue to an article discussion. I believe you can make this article grow, not delete it, it´s better for wikipedia. Can you help to improve the article? --Fabiomb
Comment: Your personal thoughts about Wikipedia are, like mines, totally irrelevant here. The point is if it does violate the rules of Wikipedia. Taringa is a social network where, as happens here, anybody can write a post, and consequently a post there is not a reliable source. Chabacano 18:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wrong, Taringa has it´s own rules to prevent casual user posts, you must to be aproved and has sufficient relevance on the site to write a post (more requirements than wikipedia!) so, it´s not a valid argument (for me, of course). Still the article has sufficient reasons to exist, and you can improve it. --Fabiomb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabiomb (talk • contribs) 18:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Then do you think that this post with 584 lectures until now at Taringa, a general purpose social community, is a reliable source??? (Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.) I'm amazed.Chabacano —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chabacano (talk • contribs) 19:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Social networks are NOT valid sources to use for establishing notability. Please review the policy on reliable sources. In order to be notable, a subject must be covered significantly by multiple, independent sources. --Darkwind (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So... Wikipedia is not a valid source, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.114.243 (talk) — 200.122.114.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Chabacano: who or what gives you enough credentials to determine what is valid content or not? what are you searching for? personal glory?. Please do not let your personal feelings for the user become your doom, or people are going to start looking at your articles and check if they have enough external references --Gmfnem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmfnem (talk • contribs) 18:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC) — GMfnem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
reply:The fact that there is no English content is a sign of its lack of notability. But in Spanish there is no much difference: there are some blogs (of course, this is a software for bloggers), a post in a social community. Of course the software exists and some people are using it, nobody doubts it, but it is not notable. There are no reliable, independent sources talking about it. Even its own creator, Fabiomb, is unable to find them. Maybe in the future, but the promotion must be done outside Wikipedia. Chabacano 22:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So even the author is unable to find any sources? I do not understand spanish, so I can't look for them myself, but if this is the case, I think perhaps delete would be better --Mpx 01:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On what grounds? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 13:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. CitiCat ♫ 04:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirti N. Chaudhuri[edit]

Kirti N. Chaudhuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:PROF. Does not really establish notability at all. While the existence of several of his books have been referenced, the article reads like a memoir and it is otherwise completely without WP:RS. Tagged for ((cleanup)) (and ((tone)), ((notability)), and ((sources))), but an editor who appears to be the subject removed all the tags twice without fixing the problems. Evb-wiki 16:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Cites the books, but not reviews and other reliable sources. Claims of notability appear to be hagiography. Bearian 01:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC) See below. Bearian 23:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I call attention to the recent additions to the article in the last day--a determined effort, and it certainly found material. Perhaps too much detail is included now, but we can edit it later.DGG (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Phaedriel - 02:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

31st century[edit]

31st century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page contains very little information likely to be of any interest to anybody; it's just a collection of fictional events happening in the 31st century, and I'd guess that much of that is based upon original research. There is only one piece of worthwhile info there, about the Transit of Venus, but nobody would come to this article looking for that. I don't imagine that it passes WP:NOTE. What's the point? Rambutan (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PDFView[edit]

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

Open source software with no evidence of notability. Delete. Isotope23 talk 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Mayberry[edit]

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

Article does not assert notability. Darrenhusted 15:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete due to lack of third-party, independent, reliable sources and salt due to persistent disruption of Wikipedia processes as noted below by Victoriagirl. — TKD::Talk 01:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tino Georgiou[edit]

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

Failed WP:BIO. A largely unreferenced article about a romance novelist with one self-published book to his credit. The product of a number of single purpose accounts - nearly all of which are anonymous. Victoriagirl 15:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, There are lots of web sites where the author can start, e.g. myspace. --Luis Augusto Peña (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If what you said is true, the article should comply with Wikipedia:Notability : "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.", and there is no reliables sources cited in the article that could verify your statement. Then, we fall back to WP:BIO guidelines where you can see that self publishing a couple of books are not enough to claim notability.--Luis Augusto Peña (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could you please provide a link to the part of the iUniverse website that outlines that? I've searched the website quite thoroughly and can't find it. All four of their major publishing packages (as in, how much you pay and what you get) announce clearly that they are non-exclusive. Accounting4Taste 20:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. You're right. I know that his work is published by a company that publishes self-published works, but I don't know if his work has received multiple independent reviews, or awards, or if his work is very widely read. I haven't seen any reliable sources that would confirm that any of those things are true, and when I googled, I didn't find any such sources. That's what this discussion is about. If that is true as you say, then all you need to do is draw those sources to our attention. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll begin by pointing out that iUniverse is first and foremost a self-publisher. In fact, they have titled their entry page "iUniverse - Self Publishing Company". If the company did not charge in publishing Tino Georgiou's The Fates... well, that in itself is newsworthy. Before I address this point, I must note that there is no evidence that Georgiou's other novels (Kingdoms and Summer Blossom) have ever been published. This, despite the fact that they are included in the Bibliography. All this discussion about self-publishing would appear irrelevant if Georgiou met the notability guidelines, which states that the person should have "been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability." The article, as it stands, fails to acheive this goal. I write this acknowleding that the following claim is included: "In both 1999 and 2000, USAToday [sic] listed him as "romance readers will begin to associate his name with multigenerational sagas. Tino is a master of the romance novel form, because he has a keen ear for dialogue, constructs deft scenes, maintains a page-turning pace, and provides compelling characterization." I find it curious that USA Today would print exactly the same words in two separate articles published a year apart. May we please be provided with dates, article titles, and page references? Victoriagirl 17:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could you please provide a link to the part of the iUniverse site that outlines how they have contracted authors? I looked over their site and couldn't find anything that suggested that they do that. Their four major packages for sale indicate that they make a point of issuing non-exclusive contracts. Accounting4Taste 14:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ProudGk, with all due respect, my nomination is centered on the simple fact that, as it stands, the Tino Georgiou article fails notability guidelines. In fact, only two of the eleven sentences in my post address the issue of self-publishing. Furthermore, you'll note that I state that the issue would be irrelevant if Georgiou only met the criteria included in the guidelines. You appear to know your subject: you write that he has three published books, that they sell well, and that Georgiou's work has been the subject of a great number of independantly written reviews in 35 countries. Providing verifiable references would contribute greatly - not only to the article, but in this discussion. Victoriagirl 15:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification No, I think you missed my argument, so I'll clarify. My argument is that there are no reliable sources that verify anything you are saying, including that this book is one of iUniverse's contracted books, that Tino's books sell well, or that there are a multitude of independently written reviews. I haven't been able to verify any of these assertions from reliable sources. You seem to know a lot about this author, and you are the one most likely to know of these sources, so it would be really helpful if you would produce them. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification To see how the book sells, just go around the various sites and look. Reviews are all over the place. Is Tino a contracted author at iUniverse? Don't know. My point was simply you and the other posters in this discussion just presumed he was self-published. And as for not finding anything--I did a search on google and none of his books show up, but when you go to various sites, there they are. Problems with google? For the sources used in the info posted, just read his books, there are the sources. As for this thread, I'm done with it, so do NOT post to me anymore, as your queries will go unanswered. P.S. If you want to know whether iUniverse offers contracts to authors, call them and ask. Go straight to the horses mouth. One last thing: Is Tino notable? His books rank in the top 10,000 globally and he receives favorable reviews. So, let Wikipedia decide. Wait, one last comment. That box at the top that states "this is not a ballot" has got to be the dumbest damn thing I've seen. Do you really think people are so stupid that they can't figure out this is a discussion, and not a ballot? 'Nuff said.ProudGk 16:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC) — ProudGk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
We can't just take your word for it that he is in the top 10,000 globally and has been favorably reviewed in significant publications. You say that you've found verification at "various sites." Why won't you link to those sites so we can see them? Is it a secret? -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Carioca 00:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Rae Butler[edit]

Teresa Rae Butler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Autobiographical and self-promotional article by non-notable self-published author. Article was originally created as Famous Milwaukee Author, Teresa Rae Butler before being moved to its current title. Article has undergone some spam/POV removal but remains unreferenced. --Finngall talk 15:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If this AfD closes in delete, Butler should be removed from List of people from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 21:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 05:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klown Films[edit]

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

Nonnotable film production company that has made three six-minute films; source for a walled garden of articles about this company, its founder, and its films (included below). NawlinWiki 15:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also including:


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

The result was speedy deleted by Eagle 101 (t c) at 23:58, September 12, 2007 (UTC) per WP:CSD#G12. Non-admin closure. --Darkwind (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Challenge Inc.[edit]

World Challenge Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Outside of the worldchallenge and founder's websites. Google brings up nothing in the first 5 pages. I cannot establish notability. Spryde 15:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 15:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Smith (actor)[edit]

Matt Smith (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to come close to meeting WP:BIO. When you look at his IMDB profile, he only has very small parts. The one that looks the most substantial is his role in Kamen Rider: Dragon Knight. However, the Wikipedia article on him states that he was originally cast in this role, but had to leave the show. None of the links provided in the article meet WP:RS. JamesTeterenko 15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creativewands is an SPA and his views, as such, should be discounted. Bigdaddy1981 23:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, almost all the accounts that have worked on the article are SPAs --Luis Augusto Peña (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the level of achievement but the level of coverage by independent, verifiable sources that matters. See WP:BIO. MrZaiustalk 07:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the statement but the double entendre humour that counts ;) ---- WebHamster 10:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep --Haemo 22:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian Airlines Flight 2748[edit]

Scandinavian Airlines Flight 2748 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minor, injury-free crash landing. Hardly newsworthy, let alone encyclopedic. PROD tag added, but removed with talk page comments indicating that the creator has confused Wikipedia with Aviation Week and Space Technology: no, WP's not an aviation newsmagazine. Calton | Talk 15:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The two incidents looks very similar and Flight 2748 is now the reason for grounding many Dash-8-400 world-wide. Bombardier has issued an AOM (All Operator Message) about possible, unidentifed landing gear problems. SAS has grounded its 33 planes (of a total of 160) of this type and the implications of this event is important." - In other words, current events and technical aviation news. --Calton | Talk 14:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this and articles about related incidents with the Dash-8 into something like "2007 Dash-8 landing gear problems". --M1ss1ontomars2k4 15:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep --Haemo 00:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian Airlines Flight 1209[edit]

Scandinavian Airlines Flight 1209 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minor crash landing with minor injuries. Hardly newsworthy, let alone encyclopedic. PROD tag added, but removed with talk page comments indicating that the creator has confused Wikipedia with Aviation Week and Space Technology: no, WP's not an aviation newsmagazine. Calton | Talk 15:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete and redirect to main article. The was consensus the appropriate material can be covered in the main article and concerns about original research & lack of referencing. Vassyana 03:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Spartan[edit]

John Spartan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Simon Phoenix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lenina Huxley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Raymond Cocteau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Edgar Friendly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Associate Bob (Demolition Man) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zach Lamb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several articles about characters from the film Demolition Man. No notability, no references--just a recitation of trivia and of plot details already covered in the film's article. ShelfSkewed Talk 15:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. I think the outcome is clear. Personally I would have just speedied this under g11. Spartaz Humbug! 18:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bang! photography[edit]

Bang! photography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
plus all the photos!

Original research. (Almost speediable but it is a disputed prod so bring it here.) -- RHaworth 14:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, nerds. A sack of coal + the average wikipedia editor's ass = diamond mine. Free email accounts are so easy to get. Just try and keep this article down. wikipedia.org is nothing more than a fucking bathroom wall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnynumberone (talk • contribs) 06:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so much jealousy. Aww, you couldn't create the only innovation in the field since digital photography 15 years ago? Awwwwwwwww, pardon me while I cry when you call my pictures rubbish. Jealous motherfuckers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnynumberone (talk • contribs) 06:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fys - you readily admit that you will delete entries because you don't like the style? How are you allowed to get away with that sort of bullshit? "Much of modern photography involves what Wikipedia editors might find to be 'photographs that look awful.'" wikipedia is not supposed to be about taste, it's supposed to be about facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnynumberone (talk • contribs) 06:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't like Picasso, maybe I should go delete his entry? I don't like Kenny G, maybe I should delete his entry? There is a difference between EDITING and CRITIQUING. If you are deleting something because you simply don't like the style, you really need to grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnynumberone (talk • contribs) 06:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So someone invented the double exposure. Congratulations. Take a flash photo in front of a mirror and invent some more art... like Picasso. Mandsford 23:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. CitiCat ♫ 04:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web x.0[edit]

Web x.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is original research and opinion, however I rather than prodding, I have brought here in case it is worth merging into Web 2.0 Davidprior 14:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per WP:NFT —Preceding unsigned comment added by M2Ys4U (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Actually, having quickly researched it, the IEEE has an "International Workshop on Web X.0" [15] so most likely the term is used in a professional context. However, I do not believe there would be enough content to justify a whole article. A short mention on Web 2.0 might be more appropriate, so I now suggest a Merge -- M2Ys4U (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

0verkill[edit]

0verkill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an unreferenced article about a video game that makes no assertion of its notability. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 14:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 05:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kader Belbina[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources which could establish notability, just a link to a tournament results page which list only one 2005 tournament where he finished 14th of 18. High on a tree 14:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beginners Programming Language[edit]

Beginners Programming Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a place for people to advertise their pet projects. This "language" is according to its website, still in development. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Camillus (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 05:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leopard (programming language)[edit]

Leopard (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a place for people to advertise their pet projects. Camillus (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Gravity, Mound, MN[edit]

Zero Gravity, Mound, MN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Being bold and AfDing this. There are numerous problems with this article starting with lack of notabilty, reliable sources (few google hits, one set of pics, two Wikipedia references), and appears (not confirmed) to be posted by a company. Spryde 13:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page has been blanked as a courtesy.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Kozlowski[edit]

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

Potentially fails WP:BIO, as there are no secondary sources about this man - he may have lived a relatively interesting life, but all the things he did according to Wikipedia which might be considered notable are linked to externally and not to a corresponding Wikipedia page e.g. Peabody's Monster, Rock Alaska Records, Juneau Information Service Technology, the Jackie Chan Fan Club Moglex 10:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep and cleanup --Haemo 00:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp_Scatico[edit]

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

Extreme vandalism and misrepresentation of the true nature of the camp Rjg7872 00:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Rjg7872 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. --Oakshade 17:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Mitchel[edit]

Charles_Mitchel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I have added references to the article. All material is now properly cited. Please do not delete.

Jim Bruce 17:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete per WP:V. Sandstein 22:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Foo Dog[edit]

Chinese_Foo_Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Lengthy nomination that mainly consisted of complaints about one particular dog dealer redacted because of WP:BLP concerns. Sandstein 22:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tundraline

  • Comment In that google link, which one of those would be considered a reliable source? Rarebreed is a site which nearly anything can get listed on (look at the disclaimer at the bottom). I agree with Starblind and it should be redirected the the Imperial Lions. Spryde 15:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While not AKC "reliable", I find the Continental Kennel Club site [17], Dog-Names.org.uk[18] and Dog-Breeds-infosite.com [19] (among the 40K+ g-hits) acceptable to show common usage. --Evb-wiki 15:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr David Cooper[edit]

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

No proof of notability on page. Page started with user of same or similar user name Snowman 13:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camillus (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 05:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emma and Eve Ryan[edit]

Emma_and_Eve_Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)


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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 05:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HHCL[edit]

HHCL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Hi -- interested to know why or in what way HHCL's notability is not established by the references quoted. As noted in the entry (with substantiation), the agency was awarded Agency of the Decade by Campaign magazine -- the ad industry publication of record in the UK. Advertising may be a niche as far as outsiders are concerned, but within that niche, HHCL is legendary -- anyone familiar with the workings of the UK ad industry taking time to read the existing references in the wikipedia entry would, i think, agree that they collectively testify to HHCL's importance AND notability within the sector (and outside it!). -- Darrellberry (talk · contribs · logs) 16:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Oh I see that one of the reasons for proposed deletion is 'less than 700 Google hits for Howell Henry Chaldecott Lury'. As is standard in the ad industry, references to HHCL were (and are) generally via the acronym HHCL, for which there are vastly more, as would be expected. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrellberry (talk • contribs) 2007/09/11 16:15:20 ans also -- in the Wikipedia Notability guidelines for companies (Wikipedia:Notability_(companies_and_corporations)), the example is given that "Hewlett-Packard satisfies this criterion for, amongst other things, being covered in a feature article in the Palo Alto Weekly." Likewise, HHCL should, I think, satisfy this criteria, by its Agency of the Decade Award from Campaign magazine. -- darrellberry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.226.238 (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 05:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harleysville area ems[edit]

Harleysville area ems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Local EMS company with no assertion of notability. Sasha Callahan 19:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 05:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jiri Meitner[edit]

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

No references, tone is unencyclopedic. The popularity of the artist remains unclear. Jón + 22:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article here and on Czech Wiki was almost certainly written by Meitner himself (posing as an art student at the University of West Bohemia but sharing the same ICQ number as Meitner :).
When the text gets deleted all other edits by Bahir(cz) should be reverted - he inserted references to himself to many articles, including red-color category for Lise Meitner. Pavel Vozenilek 14:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also neologism Imaginary realism (Meitner is self-appointed inventor of the new style, redirects here) should be deleted. Pavel Vozenilek 15:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe that author isn't Jiri Meitner himself, but his son (as he claimed). But it's not relevant. --Adam Zivner 09:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep --Haemo 00:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aboriginal and Anangu schools in South Australia[edit]

List of Aboriginal and Anangu schools in South Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is covered by List of schools in South Australia. Twenty Years 11:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus --Haemo 00:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lutheran schools in Australia[edit]

List of Lutheran schools in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Information is covered in the relevant state lists. Twenty Years 12:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agree that the redlinks should turned into plain text if kept. Not too OT I hope, but Lutheranism does have some presence in other parts of Australia. Transmigration from South Australia to the Wimmera and interestingly to the south east corner of the Riverina has made Lutherans reasonably numerous in those areas. Direct migration from Germany to Queensland, particularly the Darling Downs, Lockyer Valley and the Burnett has also seen Lutheranism take root there. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 04:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus --Haemo 00:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of high schools in Victoria[edit]

List of high schools in Victoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list is already covered by List of schools in Victoria. Twenty Years 11:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Calling a list "unencyclopedic" is just as problematic: the purpose of a list is somewhat different than the purpose of an article and always must be. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with lists (partly because an online encyclopedia works better with lists that have links) and longstanding practice has been to keep lists unless there arises some other reason to delete. Get over it.
(3) Moondyne calls the list "indiscriminate" and "incomplete". Incompleteness is a fault, not a reason to delete. The article has clear boundaries: The boundaries of the State of Victoria and the definition of an Australian high school. There's nothing indiscriminate at all about those boundaries and we have similar lists for every state in the U.S., every province of Canada and, I'm sure, every other state in Australia.
Additional comment: As the article Education in Australia states in its very first sentence: Education in Australia is primarily regulated by the individual state governments. The state of Victoria has its own Department of Education, which sets standards for schools and curricula that are independent of other schools in Australia (and of every other place on the face of the earth). See Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority, and see Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE) and the Victorian Certificate of Applied Learning (VCAL). If Victoria students, parents, teachers or researchers are interested in learning more about how various Victoria education programs are actually working in the high schools of Victoria, wouldn't it be potentially useful to have this list? I'm not trying to prove that it definitely would be useful — I just want to show that the existence of specific characteristics of education in the State of Victoria mean that it will likely be useful for readers to be able to know what articles we have on Victoria high schools and what articles we don't, and then immediately jump to particular articles. Perhaps readers will simply want to use the external links to go to school Web sites, but however they compare these articles, we should be helping them by providing the easiest navigation possible. Noroton 16:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(4) Orderinchaos asserts that there is no good reason to separate the high school list from the general list of schools in Victoria. Actually, readers and editors are often more interested in high schools (for which we have a growing de facto standard of inherent notability) than in other schools. Readers and editors may well want to compare the same types of schools and school articles, as I mention in (1) above. Noroton 16:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of school clusters in the Northern Territory[edit]

List of school clusters in the Northern Territory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Useless information about school clusters in the Northern territory, should be covered under List of schools in the Northern Territory. Twenty Years 11:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep --Haemo 00:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Geelong[edit]

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

List is already covered under List of schools in Victoria. Twenty Years 11:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a history section about mergers of schools in the region that isn't in the main article. I've been intending to expand it when I get the time. It doesn't really belong in a list format, but I'm not sure where else it should go. Cull the list, and create History of Geelong schools or something like it instead? Wongm 12:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to [[List of schools in Western Australia — page redirected; merge from history. --Haemo 00:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Perth, Western Australia[edit]

List of schools in Perth, Western Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Duplication of List of schools in Western Australia. Twenty Years 11:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nubbinsville Prep[edit]

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

Can not find any reliable information that this school exists. Danniiboi 01:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public library ratings[edit]

Public_library_ratings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I believe this article uses Wikipedia as an advertising venue for the "HAPLR Index," which the self-described author of the article markets to public libraries. In hopes of adding some balanced content to the piece, I entered the "criticism" section and the bibliography that follows the article. Before my addition, there was nothing in the article that did anything other than promote Mr. Hennen's product. He cites other nations' ratings systems, true, but always within the context of the HAPLR index. So, even with my addition, the article seems too promotional to be included.--Cameron A. Johnson, reference librarian, Everett, WA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camjoe (talk • contribs) 2007/09/08 18:53:13

As for balance, I have just re-edited it rather drastically--possibly over-drastically. Maybe the Hennan ratings deserve a little more emphasis than i gave them. I did leave in a 1 sentence bio of Henning, however. DGG (talk) 08:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantazelle[edit]

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

Article about American electronic musician, music producer and founder of the subVariant music label. Speedy declined. Prodded. One of several deprodded w/o comment by anon except to assert right to do so. 273 Google hits. Not all relevant. Noting helpful at Allmusic. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentNo, I the mere assertion of notability does remove it from WP:CSD. Debating that assertion's validity would be something to take up on the talk page of a prodded article, but another editor seemed to believe subject was sufficiently notable to de-prod. So I brought it here. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I think you for nominating it. We'll play the cards that are dealt. Realkyhick 00:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to be of help. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 23:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Parish Church[edit]

Shirley Parish Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No claim of notability. Even having one of Britain's best ever sportsman married here doesn't merit this article existing Montchav 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep now that we have sources. Hut 8.5 17:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It's been a stub for 6 months" is not a valid rationale for deletion, no. The rationale for deletion was that the article cited no references, the nominator couldn't find any, and there had been plenty of time given to cite references (six months). The fact that it is a stub has nothing to do with it. I've changed my vote now that sources have been added, but please note this is not a speedy keep candidate. Hut 8.5 17:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. CitiCat ♫ 03:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special interest high schools in South Australia[edit]

Special interest high schools in South Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Complete waste of space, that provides no benefit to the community Twenty Years 12:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I agree with your reservations on the title but it is inescapable since it is the official title of the scheme - see here. TerriersFan 23:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westfair Mall[edit]

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

Non-notable shopping mall, far too small and obscure to have ever had any coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect to Disney's BoardWalk Villas. Non-admin closure. GlassCobra 23:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BoardWalk Villas[edit]

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

Duplicate article. Already exists at Disney's BoardWalk Villas Spryde 13:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. I'm closing this a few hours early. The debate is already 139KB long, one of the longest and craziest debates I seen, and the results seem rather obvious even though I don't agree with an article nither. I watchlisted this for a couple of days now, and a good 75% of the votes aren't valid, mainly WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSNOTABLE without a reason and WP:IDONTLIKEIT with comments like if it's kept, wikipedia is going to be a joke. Another delete comment that I saw is that there was no reliable sources, but there is several non-trivial ones, from reliable websides and alot of international coverage that sadly makes the fails WP:BIO agruements moot. With the few that are still valid, it's sad to say it's mainly in the keep side with Irishjp and 64.190.140.138 as the most valid in the delete side. It can be renominated for deletion in a few months if he's no longer in the news, as WP:BLP1E starts to apply. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 21:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Crocker (internet celebrity)[edit]

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

More crap off the Internet. Ludicrously thin claim to fame. Escapes speedy ONLY because it *asserts* notability, not actually having it. PROD tag added, but removed without comment by an anon IP. Calton | Talk 13:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM - NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM -- ALLSTAR ECHO 21:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media Votes[edit]

(So there is no confusion, this is not a serious vote.)

Comments[edit]

  • WP:ITSSOURCED: "Even articles that cite reliable sources and are verifiable do not necessarily merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Many events that were briefly in the news have multiple newspaper articles written about them (frequently with similar content), and can thus be sourced, but are (after the event is over) not of a significant historical or cultural impact." --Calton | Talk 14:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PAPER. unless you can point to an actual policy that is not satisfied by this subject, this is solely a matter of opinion. --Random832 13:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her"? Oh boy. Ichormosquito 04:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break. The radio show I was listening to on the way to work the day I wrote that was slightly... misinformed. LOL. Turlo Lomon 07:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not alone. Keith Olbermann made the same mistake: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ubUHbwAzydc Ichormosquito 03:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mine's a reason. Your's is a dodge. So no, not a "rise". --Calton | Talk 00:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, pay attention: I offer a link to a common -- and widely accepted -- rationale. You, instead of actually addressing the rationale, simply offer up a link about not offering up links -- which makes it not only a rhetorical dodge, but an ironic one at that. So, were you actually going to address it, or were you going to dredge up some more shortcuts? --Calton | Talk 05:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read Jreferee keep comment below for answers. The readers digest version is non-temporary notability has been established. Fosnez 07:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short form, then, given that the keep comment does not such thing: no. Got it. --Calton | Talk 21:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you honestly still maintaining that this is not notable? Fosnez 22:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you actually attempting the passive-aggressive rhetorical-question dodge? Really? Instead, you know, honestly answering the questions asked? Are you? Have you been reduced to that sort of rhetorical handwaving? --Calton | Talk 06:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Riiiiiiight... well now you're just being unhelpful... - Fosnez 06:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really. And your passive-aggressive rhetorical-question crap about "are you honestly still maintaining" WAS intended to be helpful -- or is this another exception you've granted yourself? At this point, I'm thinking I could start a drinking game based on each time you pull a new rhetorical dodge out of your hat. Good thing the weekend's coming up or I'd be unfit for work. --Calton | Talk 17:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is not about me or my apparent "rhetorical dodges". If you don't believe this article should be included in wikipedia then please explain precisely what policy it does not meet, and why it does not meet it. Fosnez 05:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we're throwing around Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays, how about WP:TLW? That one's a good read. Ichormosquito 05:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deserving to be notable is not the same as being notable, only the latter matters here. Debolaz 23:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability is not temporary - if he was once notable, he is forever notable. Fosnez 13:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blink. You're seriously saying that appearing once on the home page of an Australian website means makes him famous forever? You're actually making this claim? --Calton | Talk 14:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned before, notability is not the same as being a celebrity. Debolaz 14:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And a dessert topping is not a floor wax, and what does any of it mean regarding the price of tea in China? --Calton | Talk 15:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, he was notable before the Britney incident see here - Fosnez 22:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not really a reason to not include a NPoV article - Fosnez 22:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Care to expand on that? Fosnez 22:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From what I've heard he's just another internet meme who's gotten a little bit of coverage. I guess if he appears on a TV show or something similar but so far he's just another youtube star. Wasn't he deleted earlier as well?--CyberGhostface 22:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe article was deleted before, but that was due to lack of sources... now that sources have been added and he has become much more notable Fosnez 04:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seems unlikely and WP is not a crystal ball so we should go on evidence at hand. Benjiboi 21:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so a source talking something other the the Britney incident would suffice? Like this one? Fosnez 22:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia isn't going to make him famous, He's already famous. Allstarecho™ 01:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allstarecho (talk • contribs)
  • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is about the weakest reason I can think of to keep any one piece of crap. If you think some page isn't worthy, by all means please nominate it for deletion so we can get rid of stuff that isn't worthy. But wikipedia is huge and nobody can know about what one person considers deletable unless he/she says something. DMacks 19:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding my point. It's not a question of whether I think those articles are notable- I'm just saying that Chris Crocker is JUST AS notable as they are, no more, no less (with maybe one or two exceptions, like the Evolution of Dance guy) so if we're going to delete this article we may as well delete all the others, because by declaring Chris Crocker non-notable we're declaring most of the other Youtube celebs with 15 seconds of fame non-notable too. But if this article is kept then that validates the existence of the other articles. See what I'm saying here? It's either all or nothing. dethtoll 19:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read over WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. It's not "all or nothing". The Bus Uncle passes WP:WEB with flying colors. What What (In the Butt) is borderline. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happyslip for an example of the notability guidelines in action as applied to YouTube celebrities. Ichormosquito 19:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't follow. If the news media finds criticism of criticism notable, who are we to say otherwise? In response to your concerns about his longterm notability, I again quote ABC News: "Crocker has been posting videos on YouTube for six months and has acquired quite a fan base." You might also want to look over the article from The Stranger (newspaper)[31], which is surprisingly thorough and was published BEFORE the Britney video. Ichormosquito 21:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being on ABC News is not evidence of longterm notability. That's the nature of the news...they report on the "right now". And this simply is not notable. Smashville 21:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not arguing that his being on ABC News establishes notability. I'm arguing that the nature of his coverage might. Being the 30th or so most subscribed user on YouTube tends to give one a healthy amount of exposure, and both ABC News and The Stranger acknowledge he had a significant fan base before the Britney video. Ichormosquito 21:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we should move the article to Chris Crocker (Youtube) or Chris Crocker (Youtube Director) or something? Fosnez 21:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seriously, did you even read the article? this article is filled with nonsens, vandalism and it's poorly written and not enough sources to back all the claims it makes If you find vandalism, fix it. If it's poorly written, rewrite it. Six sources have been added to the article, thats not enough? Fosnez 23:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - according to policy, being made a laughing stock in several newspapers does make you notable Fosnez 23:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to quote, well you, actually... "Thats a dodge" Fosnez 04:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm quoting you -- it's called "irony", you could look it up -- about the defects in simply pointing to a link, especially when said link contains no evidence of what you claim. Or does it? Now might be the time to actually prove that. --Calton | Talk 05:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please clarify what you mean by not notable? If its sources then they have well been established as being reliable etc. Or is it that you Don't like the article and believe that it shouldn't be on wikipedia(because thats not a valid reason for deletion)? (please, this is not ment as a personal attack) Fosnez 08:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do you mean Jeffree Star, who has an article? Where through afd it was decided to keep the article? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More like the Jeffree Starr who bludgeoned his way, tirelessly and relentlessly onto Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 21:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's too late to worry about seeming vapid to future generations. dethtoll 04:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, yeah we want to record this for our future generation, he has been on the cover of most major news websites, newcasts. This type of thing is part of the planet's collective culture. Fosnez 08:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't leave him alone, world, you're gonna have to deal with me! Because he's not well right now! (All right, I'm done too) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 02:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see more evidence than a Seattle alt-weekly's claim regarding this alleged "huge" celebrity status. Being a "Youtube celebrity", for all I know, is the equivalent of the World's Tallest Pygmy. --Calton | Talk 05:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to ABC News's saying he had "quite a fan base" even before the Britney video, MSNBC says he had/has a "cult following".[33] They're almost quoting WP:BIO verbatim. Ichormosquito 19:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-- Jreferee (Talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreferee (talk • contribs) 06:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merging would completely discount what this individual has accomplished before the Britney video was even created. Turlo Lomon 08:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Significant historical or cultural impact" is ridiculously subjective, which might be part of the reason why WP:ITSSOURCED is an essay, not a guideline. Even after this Britney thing blows over, Crocker will continue to make videos, as he has for the past six months, and they will continue to get 300,000+ views. The site might not look it, but YouTube is highly competitive. Once a personality reaches the heights that Crocker has, he or she stays in the limelight there for at least a year. And the sources have already tried to place him in a wider cultural context. According to them, Crocker is a stifled homosexual in the Southern United States for whom YouTube is a godsend. Ichormosquito 13:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see your point but however he is making himself into an well attention (well you know the word that you should insert here) and giving him a Wikipedia page is catering to him wanting to get famous for nothing deal. Its not exactly like Pars Hilton who yes got famous for being famous but she at least has been in movies. But thats just my opinion on this. Evolutionselene 12:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Numa Numa guy has a page. Is he more famous than Crocker? Saopaulo1 22:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We should be as dispassionate as possible. If he's notable, he's notable, whether or not he's an attention whore. Ichormosquito 13:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If Wikipedia hasn’t recognized Chris as an official Internet phenomenon, he certainly is now." Is this mocking? Looks like an opinion to me. Legitimate, of course, but are we bound to follow it? I don't think so. Tizio 14:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note the comparison to Warhol. Who's being mocked here, in your opinion? Tizio 14:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's mocking. Taunting, anyway. The author has obviously seen that his article is disputed. And the Warhol comparison is apt, if exaggerated. He's not being compared to Warhol, but to Candy Darling. Ichormosquito 14:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The author of that article is talking about the fact we don't have this guy on List_of_Internet_phenomena, not this article or this AFD. At least, that's the page her article is linking to. But seriously, the day we let an editorial comment made by one journalist dictate our editorial decisions is the day most of us will give up on this project. Sarah 14:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing we should cave to the opinion of one journalist. I just thought it was funny. For the sake of balance, I don't think Richard Roeper would be happy if we legitimized Crocker's grab for fame.[34] Still, as Roeper acknowledges, a mention in his column does nothing but support Crocker's self-promotion. Ichormosquito 14:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No on says you have to save someone's life to have a Wikipedia article. In fact, WP:N says "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject," which is satisfied. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP is not a crystal ball and, in this case, we don't need one, notability is now well-referenced. Benjiboi 22:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been swayed by the suggestion that notability can be examined later. Mallocks 11:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Will anyone ever research this subject? Probably, I would see this as a good case study in the changing landscape of media and convergence of pop culture and personal politics. I also think that homophobia has at least a little to do with some of the motivations as is evidenced by the comments both here and on the talk page that have been removed. Benjiboi 23:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Thats exactly the point I had been trying to convey, Bobyllib. Evolutionselene 00:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the topic of an article is in the news today and it ceases to be in the news or anyone's mind, should the article be deleted? Should the article on scientists except Galileo, Newton, Eisntien, and Hawking be deleted? Should the article on ... I guess you get the idea. --Do not click me! 01:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Since when is the BBC and MSNBC junk news? Turlo Lomon 06:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might have had a point with the first one. The second? Not so much. But then, the statement was junk news articles, not junk news sources: it's best to make counter-arguments to what people have actually written, as opposed to what you've made up. --Calton | Talk 06:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The BBC source is to the original Britney performance, it has no mention of Chris Crocker... 87.127.166.59 13:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest.
Topics that did not meet the notability guidelines at one point in time may meet the notability guidelines as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future. --Walther Atkinson 07:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question He has been in the news since May, significantly before the Britney thing. At what point does it become "long term" ? Turlo Lomon 08:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial Answer. He has been more prominent in the last year but emerging information suggests he was developing a cult foloowing over eight years ago as a pre-teen on Aol. That has yet to be sourced so has not entered the article in any form. Benjiboi 00:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


An "its unequivocally time for a section break" section break![edit]

FURTHER NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM - FURTHER NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Also, in response to the sustainability of his notability, his videos on YouTube and Myspace have a very heavy following and do not appear to cease anytime soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithbrooks (talk • contribs) 09:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is permanent. Or perhaps I should say WP:NOT#CRYSTAL? It's no more appropriate to claim an article should be deleted because you think it will have stopped being notable in a few months than it is to claim an article should be kept because you think it will become notable in a few months. --tjstrf talk 10:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, notability is not permanant, and i found the policy, here. --Jac16888 10:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i wrote that wrong, Notability is permanant, Crocker's is not long-term, it is "a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability"--Jac16888 10:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can't use presumptions of future (non-)notability to judge the page one way or another. --tjstrf talk 10:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then delete him when he's fallen off the internet's radar - he's notable NOW! - Ian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.201.12.112 (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, secondly, how can you compare the notability of an Olympic athlete or professional sports player, no matter how good or bad they are at the sport, to this guy? Its an entirely different level of notability--Jac16888 11:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your first point I agree. Your second point you can compare notability though "general notability guidelines" found in WP:NOTABILITY. Interesting thing here is that there's Chris Crocker the football player and Chris Crocker the internet celebrity ... looking at the football players references which he hasn't any I would delete him too. Some would even fix the disamb so that the internet celebrity page would be immediately shown. — 6etonyourfeet\t\c 13:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... I thought geriatric1927's vids had more views than they did, since he was the #1 subscribed director at one time. I guess YouTube didn't have as many users at that time. Still, Crocker is only the #25 most subscribed director, and he's surely more popular right now than he ever has been. Eseymour 16:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What do you consider non-trivial? A book? Taken together, these contain more than enough biographical information to support an article: [36][37][38] I'm tending to agree with BlarghHgralb below. Ichormosquito 15:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason Internet memes get nominated for deletion is because they are typically so short-lived. There's just no comparison between this guy and Clara Peller (the "Where's the beef" lady). Outside of a small group of fans, no one knew this guy before a few days ago. "Where's the Beef" is still part of America's cultural memory over two decades later. Maybe everyone will remember "Leave Britney Alone" a year from now, but right now there's no indication that this guy's fame is more than "a short burst of present news coverage." Furthermore, the guideline states that "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." Eseymour 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just about to say the exact same thing. Some phenomenon may be temporarily famous on the internet, but unless it has some impact on the wider world, it's not notable. (Examples of internet phenomena that did achieve wider impact are Lonelygirl15 and the Star Wars kid.) Clara Peller is familiar to a generation (even if they don't know her name) because she was on national television; Chris Crocker is unknown beyond the relatively small blogging/forum/YouTube community that discovered him in the first place, and is likely to remain that way. Terraxos 16:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the Where's the Beef lady had an impact on a generation, but you would never know that in the 80s. How are you so sure that Crocker wont become a new annoying catch phrase. After all it's only been a few days. Saopaulo1 05:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what exactly makes Chris Crocker any less notable than the Star Wars kid or Lonelygirl15? They've receieved about the same amount of coverage as Chris Crocker has. --BlarghHgralb 16:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the articles. The Star Wars kid was spoofed in multiple TV shows; Lonelygirl15 was covered in the New York Times, and spoofed in the trailer for Date Movie, amongst others. That's wider notability, and Chris Crocker has not achieved it. Terraxos 16:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes MSNBC less notable than the New York Times? --BlarghHgralb 16:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the MSNBC source is a blog. The byline is accompanied by a cartoon caricature of the writer. This is not typical of straight news articles on the site (or anywhere). Eseymour 16:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'm not sure you can dismiss the YouTube community so hastily. Internet video and YouTube in particular are big deals, as sources like this one released yesterday assert: http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/09/13/video/. Internet video has a mainstream appeal; we're not just talking about memetics.

Ichormosquito 16:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, and - 'hivemind deletionists'? 'Come out of their basements'? Please try to WP:AGF.Terraxos 16:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability only lasts if there is a good reason for it to last. A person born in 1857 might still be notable today if s/he did something of lasting importance; but someone who was simply well-known for a while, then faded away, might not be. See Notability is not temporary, which states that if someone was only notable for a brief period in the past, they may not meet the notability requirement for Wikipedia today. Of course, in this case, it's disputed whether Chris Crocker is even notable now, let alone 100 years in the future - hence we're having this AfD. Terraxos 17:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it troubling that you skipped over WP:BIO's "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." According to this source, he had a "cult following", a direct quote, even before the Britney video. According to this one: "Crocker has been posting videos on YouTube for six months and has acquired quite a fan base." Ichormosquito 17:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it equally as disturbing that you are using that as the sole criteria towards keeping this Internet fad. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find ironic that you are also using something as the sole criteria toward deleting the article. --BlarghHgralb 17:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not my sole reason for wanting to keep. He's been covered by multiple secondary sources the world over. He's also been on the Howard Stern Show, and his video was featured on CNN, Fox News, and Keith Olbermann. To counter accusations of recentism, I have pointed out this article from May 2007, in addition to making the fanbase and cult following argument. Ichormosquito 17:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, you guys have convinced me: it looks like Chris Crocker has received more mainstream attention than I realised. I still DON'TLIKEIT, but I accept he meets notability, and have changed my vote above to Keep. Terraxos 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important distinction - There's a difference between the "Britney" video being notable and its author being notable. The fact that there have been X million views of the vid and various parodies made strengthens the case for the video being notable, but not necessarily the author. Eseymour 17:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LEAVE WIKIPEDIA ALONE! - The Daddy 11:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • This vote for Keep is mine. Forgot to login. On another note, the article may want to plug Seth Green's parody of the "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE" video. --Ted 23:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Page views on YouTube mean nothing. If they did, Yu-Gi-Oh!: The Abridged Series wouldn't be a protected title. (I believe the WP:ATA section is called WP:BIGNUMBER). As for the press coverage, it is about the video, and that is the only thing he is notable for. WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS apply. --Phirazo 23:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hang on, I could have sworn that an article about this same guy was up for deletion a couple of months ago...pretty much the same content, with the major exception of the video which is such a subject of interest...or maybe I'm just imagining it. Anyway, I'm a bit divided here, because several things are clear. 1), this person/the video has indeed recieved significant coverage by the media, which makes it seem as though it is in line with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, 2), notability is not temporary, and this person/video may or may not have the longevity necessary for an article, 3) even if notability does exist, it is quite likely that the notability is of the video, and not the person, and that to have a biographical article for a person, while it is in fact a creation of theirs that is notable may be a bit of misplaced judgement, and 4), this article seems really familiar. So overall I don't have a resounding opinion here as to whether or not to delete. One thing that I will say is that Wikipedia definitely needs more clearly defined guidelines as far as intenet celebrities and viral videos are concerned, and fast. Calgary 03:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment And yet, I can't turn a corner without hearing about Perez Hilton, in the real world as well as online. And to address your questions about the Crocker kid: 1) What do marketed sales have to do with celebrity and fame, let alone simple notability? 2) Yes, unfortunately, he has made public appearances on TV. But, again, what does that have to do with anything? Does your life revolve around television? The frightening and annoying nature of this example aside, I find the mockery of Internet fame amusing...when Lucille Balle left B movies to go into television, televison stardom was mocked and looked down on. It was more than just a few rungs below even B movie stardom. So the fact that you seem to imply that appearing on television makes someone a real celebrity, as oppposed to an Internet one...well, it's amusing.--Adam the Alien 04:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First off, i'd like to thank you for your reply. Now, i'm not saying i'm a constant TV watcher at all but i've never seen any public appearances from this kid so I was wondering, excluding his "Leave Britney Alone" video, how he has even become an "internet celebrity". As for the marketed sales thing, I see a celebrity as someone who at least makes a profit from something or is involved in something that sells - musician, actor, all that. Could even go as far as saying a painter or author but I have yet to see this kid become a celebrity. Furik 14:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep in mind that Wikipedia recognizes a celebrity as "A celebrity is a widely-recognized or famous person who commands a high degree of public and media attention.". Celebrity has absolutely nothing to do with the significance of a person's contributions or, more to your point, the medium of a person's fame. Television may have been around for longer, but the internet is one of the most major forms of media in existence, and comes close to rivaling television as the world's greatest media outlet. That being said, regardless of how much legitimacy one may feel the internet reputes, the internet is indeed a media outlet, and must be recognized as such for a definitive conclusion to be reached here. Calgary 20:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found some evidence that the man is in fact Kirk Johnson. I typed his name in google (along with "goatse" so we can results of him and not the boxer) [40]. Most of the results say that the man is Kirk Johnson. Not only that, I viewed the HTML source of the goatse.cz mirror, and the keywords in the code contained "Kirk Johnson" in it. Here is the source: 

<HTML><HEAD><!-- Start Quantcast tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://edge.quantserve.com/quant.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
_qacct="p-95ACIuCMJpQa2";quantserve();</script>
<noscript>
<img src="http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-95ACIuCMJpQa2.gif" style="display: none" height="1" width="1" alt="Quantcast"/></noscript>
<!-- End Quantcast tag -->
<TITLE>Goatse - the official site</TITLE>
<META NAME="Keywords" CONTENT="Goatse, Goatse.cz, Goatse.cx, Goatsecz, Goatsecx, Anal Stretching, Goatse Man, Kirk Johnson, 
Shock site, Tubgirl, the giver, the receiver">
<META NAME="Description" CONTENT="The official Goatse site at Goatse.cz. Visit us to find what you're looking for...">
<META NAME="Author" CONTENT="info@goatse.cz">
<META name="Rating" content="General">
<META name="Robots" content="All">
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<FONT SIZE="5" FACE="Helvetica, Arial, San Serif, Serif, Times"><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="+2">
....
style="text-decoration: none" href="http://goatse.unfg.org/whygoatse.htm"><span style="color:#000000;">dolphinsex</span></a>*
src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript">

</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
_uacct = "UA-422197-6";
urchinTracker();</script>
 </BODY></HTML>

Now, if you look on the line that says 'META NAME="Keywords"', you'll see Kirk Johnson's name in the list of keywords. Not only that, you can also see the alt attribute "stinger" in the source aswell, which was removed recently.

Also, on the goatse mirror, there is an information page that's a biography of goatse. They also mention the identity of him [41] (safe to view). It says he's a regular poster to the newsgroup "alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.male.anal". Since it's mentioning that Kirk Johnson is the goatse man and a regular contributor to an anal site of some sort, I don't think this is violating the WP:BLP policy. And to make things even better, the work on that site is licensed under the GFDL, just like Wikipedia.

Second, it also mentions the origin of the alt attribute "Stinger" of the #quake channel, and the origin of the word "goatse". Although it says some of it is from the Wikipedia article, notice how it says "some of it".

Now, I know this may not be sufficient evidence for the origin of the term "goatse" and the "stinger" alt, but I think it's sufficient evidence that the man is Kirk Johnson (The page source, the google results...). Any questions? --AAA! (AAAA) 09:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... but when I first started reading your comment it appeared to be a heavy dose of original research, once I got to the end however and saw the source I can tell now it is ok. So I'll say this looks fine and you can add it in, so long as you carefully source it and do not add in any of your own extra original research. Mathmo Talk 21:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Do a google search for "Kirk Johnson" and "goatse" and you'll see evidence that the "Goatse photograph" is of Kirk Johnson, and yet, despite the research done by AAA!' (AAAA), as well as Goatse's identity being "known" (as much as anyone's identity can be know on the internet), the Goatse Wikipedia article does not mention him by name. How is Kirk Johnson any less notable than Chris Crocker? I'd say he's not. But it doesn't matter: Goatse guy (and many others) is known by his "work" on the internet, as is Chris Crocker. Delete Crocker's name and make the article about his viral videos. The videos, not the person, are what's significant culturally. Zebraic

Comment. Seriously - you just posted this massive piece on the article's talk page, are you hoping to build interest in that article or some other agenda? I'll give you a good faith pass that you are just providing a lengthy example but I think brevity would help make your point. Benjiboi 05:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm merely defending my stance. I have NO agenda about the Goatse article. I just cut and pasted my argument because my argument is the same. I really would rather not talk about Goatse, in fact. I'm merely using an illustration. Zebraic 08:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Edit: And you're probably right about the brevity; I felt like I ought to be thorough at the time. That's a good point, though. Thanks! Zebraic 09:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Took a lot of the HTML out to make it shorter. Zebraic 19:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must delete? -- But|seriously|folks  06:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you bother to read my argument? Why do these things always burst into flame wars? That comment is dismissive and inasmuch I find it bordering on a personal attack on me. Please don't do that. Thanks. Zebraic 08:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read it, but I guess I don't understand it. It was obviously well intentioned, so I have stricken through my flip comment. Please accept my apologies. -- But|seriously|folks  16:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Apology accepted. If you go to the discussion of the article we're reviewing, there's a shorter argument by me, following this one, under "Viral Video?". Like I said on the talk page, I'm through talking about this though. Zebraic 19:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTE "In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." This is 15 minutes of fame. Delete it. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's admirable that you are willing to note policies but it would be better to follow them Per WP:NOTE. Benjiboi 06:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

  • Comment. Actually both are notable and should be kept. Benjiboi 08:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I figured. :) Keithbrooks 09:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well if you're gonna keep this page then I think this youtube Vid should at least be on it. Evolutionselene 10:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Go for it! It speaks to his outrageousness and the public's williness to fall for and feed upon it. Benjiboi 10:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The homophobic slurs ("ginger beer"=queer) aren't going to help your case, and aren't appropriate here. --Proper tea is theft 15:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not your place to lecture me on what I may or may not say. Comradeash 20:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but this is a public forum, and such deregatory terms are unnecessary.
  • As it says in the infobox, it isn't policy and it isn't binding. Comradeash 20:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but it means that you have no point whatsoever. "The only reason he's famous..." is irrelevant. We're not discussing whether or not he should receive an award; we're discussing the article. Irk Come in for a drink! 18:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another arbitrary section break[edit]

FURTHER NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM - FURTHER NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Indent reset * Comment. The MySpace and Youtube refs were used to provide factual information about what was said, how many views, date added, rankings at each site, numbers of videos on site presently, etc. to supplement what WP:RS were asserting. Per WP:SELFPUB may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

I wouldn't have kept any material in that I thought was violating the spirit of these policies and indeed have been working to revert and warn editors who have been adding material that does violate policies. Benjiboi 23:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you have to use self-published material to establish notability outside of his one video, then he isn't notable outside of that one video. --Phirazo 00:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You're absolutely correct that's why notability is establish with WP:RS first then WP:SELFPUB used to supplement that information. Benjiboi 01:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT, this article is about a living person who has received a significant degree of attention by both the internet community and major world media outlets, thus it is a sutible topic for wikipedia.
WP:BIO, does this article meet the requirement of notability? He meets "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The coverage is not trivial because it is so widespread internationally. He also meets "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." as described on several of the news sources and thus qualifies under "Entertainer". Is the notability temporary? The major media attention may be temporary, but it is documented that he had posted videos on youtube that received significant numbers of viewings as far back as January, which suggests that his following is not temporary.
--Mattarata 19:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree to a point and sadly that point seems to be getting a bit blurry as traditional media and new media outlets merge and challenge the traditional news models that many experts were trained in. I hardly expect this to be the last case we see of online celebrity raising such passionate ick feelings. Benjiboi 00:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without exaggerating, there are millions of YouTube participants. When one of them attracts large-scale worldwide attention from the media, it is not unreasonable for Wikipedia, the sum of human knowledge, to cover them as well. Yamaguchi先生 00:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment here was more on the Internet as a source of coverage than as a source of celebrity (to that, see the comment above mine). The question, I think, is this: does large-scale worldwide attention from the media mean as much as it used to? Powers T 02:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not, but what's the alternative? Just use the random opinions of WP editors? The media still have finite resources, and cannot cover everything, so they do provide a useful 3rd party filter for WP content. They can't make someone famous every day, so if we get say one new media darling per week or so, or 50 cases like this per year, so what? We are creating new articles at a rate of around 50,000 per month. It just doesn't matter. Better to stick with a reasonable system that mostly works, than to try to fix something that's not broken just because we don't like 100.00% of the outcomes. Dhaluza 13:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "whew! take a breather!" section break![edit]

BAM?????--Jac16888 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Disagree. He is mostly notable for one event because of wider public recognition but clearly had a huge cult following prior as well as prior media interest, coverage, a TV deal and a working relationship with MTV. Benjiboi 15:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well many websites owners, websites, myspace and youtube users may have what you consider a "huge cult following", but they don't get their own page. Does having 1,000 subscribers and 1 million views to my youtube give me a huge cult following and notable? No. No MTV deal has been sealed yet. There is nothing stopping this person from being forgotten within months.--The Negotiator 15:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if they get media coverage for such maybe they do, Crocker certainly did. And it wasn't me calling it a cult following it was member sof the media although with so many people subscribing I think it's hard to disagree with that. If, as you suggest is possible, he falls from our collective consciousness the article can certainly be re-interpreted for just the video alone. Regardless he has gotten plenty of coverage with or without the MTV deal in place to assert notability which is what this AfD seems to need.Benjiboi 18:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WngLdr34 15:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but, the lonelygirl15 article isn't about a person, its about the hoax that was lonelygirl15, it says nothing about the real person behind her.--Jac16888 18:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look no further than Jessica Lee Rose, we do have an article about the person behind the persona. RFerreira 19:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but reading that article, she has notability both from and beyond lonelygirl15, such as lonelygirl was actually a paying role, and has since been in a UN antipoverty campaign--Jac16888 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this discussion is a greater embarrassment to WP than the article was before it was rescued. After improvement, this whole discussion is moot anyway. Also the point about goal post shifting is right on target. People who contribute content to WP have a right to expect the community to respect its own standards, and not delete work based on arbitrary standards made up after the fact. Consensus can change over time, but it should not be interpreted as changing from time-to-time. Dhaluza 19:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "goalposts" have always been the same - show Crocker is notable outside of one video. He isn't. --Phirazo 19:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete Mr.Z-man 05:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yellowknife MPs and MLAs[edit]

List of Yellowknife MPs and MLAs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant list, this information already exists in the Yellowknife, Northwest Territories article and numerous other articles relating to elections and the assembly, nothing links here and it won't grow any bigger. Cloveious 13:05, 12 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, Vassyana 03:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 05:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV Photog[edit]

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

Since the last AfD two years ago, the article has not been expanded, nor have reliable sources been added. Two websites are given as sources, which have "TV Photographer" or "TV Photog" in their title; but that doesn't even define the subject. Some seem to understand the term as a colloquial abbreviation for Videographer (then it should be a redirect), other say it's an independent concept. Both views actually appear in the last AfD. But how should we decide, without a reliable source? -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 11:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep, without prejudice to a continuing discussion as to whether a merge is the correct editorial decision. I second Edison's compliments on an excellent scholarly AfD discussion.--Kubigula (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angaur language[edit]

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

This language might be a hoax. According to the article, it is one of the official languages of Palau (contradicting that very article which states English, Palauan and Japanese as the official languages of this country) and that it is spoken in the island of Angaur (again, contradicting). Article has no sources. The Ethnologue has no records of this language. Google search retrieves Wikipedia and its mirrors. Húsönd 03:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 22:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Angaur; muliple reliable sources give weak support to this having in the past been a distinct dialect. An extinct or nearly extinct language can still be notable. If we don't know enough about it to discuss its special vocabulary, grammar, differences from related dialects, etc. then merge it to the locality. (And complements to all for having a scholarly and collaborative AFD without the incivility that disagreements sometimes descend into). Edison 15:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. CitiCat ♫ 03:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu and Buddhist architectural heritage of Pakistan[edit]

Hindu and Buddhist architectural heritage of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page simply mentions the histories of the Vedic period, a summary of the picture, and a few historic sites in Serikistan. Anything in this article that is not already mentioned elsewhere, should be merged with the Hinduism in Pakistan, and Buddhism in Pakistan IP198 21:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :This article does not only include a writeup of the pre islamic historic sites in Serikistan but also provides a comprehensive list of links to articles in wikipedia relating to architectural sites in other areas of Pakistan viz

It has also received various wikiproject Classifications . Intothefire 05:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No consensus. CitiCat ♫ 04:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu and Buddhist heritage of Pakistan[edit]

Hindu and Buddhist heritage of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Almost all of this information already exist in other articles, and what is not can be merged. This article does not talk about the Hindu and Buddhist heritage of Pakistan, but states the histories of Sindh, Punjab, and Peshawar. The histories of these regions already have articles, and the rest of the material can be merged into Hinduism in Pakistan, and Buddhism in Pakistan IP198 21:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The religious heritage of a country is a fit topic for an encyclopedic article .The article could be compared for instance to the importance of the Hellenic religious heritage of Greece . Cheers Intothefire 18:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Amin[edit]

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

Non-notable person: Fails WP:BIO, no non-trivial Wikipedia page links to him, content is unsourced and based primarily on one person's first-hand observations, difficult to impossible to find sources on Google Deusnoctum 20:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

White Terror (United States)[edit]

The result was Delete. Alabamaboy 00:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Terror (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I just created this article to separate it from the article on other White Terrors to which it seemed to have no relationship, however on googling for sources I'm starting to think that this is complete OR. Does this name have any respectability and or common use? I'll leave to others to decide. Nwe 16:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Amazon.com sales rank does not mean the book isn't a a valid source. You're not going to find many books with a high sales rank on plenty of academic subjects that belong in an encyclopedia. The book was published by a major university (Louisiana State University), meaning it probably underwent some form of editorial review and is suitable as a source. The real question to ask is did the term "white terror" as used in the article originate from this book, and has it been used since? Sbacle 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Talbott[edit]

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

The subject of this article is an amateur comparative mythologist who has some quirky theories but hasn't received the recognition required for a notable Wikipedia article. In particular, he, as a subject, does not rise to the level of WP:BIO. Nondistinguished 15:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered) Nondistinguished 16:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text removed that was posted by a banned user

Comment: Non-mainstream ideas need to be notable to be included in Wikipedia. In particular, you haven't answered the basic point that the article fails to rise to the level asked for of WP:BIO. If subjects of articles aren't notable the articles should be deleted. Nondistinguished 19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly User:ScienceApologist, I recognise your prose style a mile off! LOL You make take that as a compliment if you wish; it is however just intended as a neutral statement of fact, not as a personal attack. Your assertion "Non-mainstream ideas need to be notable to be included in Wikipedia" displays the very nub of your agenda, doesn't it? Are you implying that "mainstream" ideas do *not* need to be notable to be included in wikipedia? Basically, you just want to eradicate "non-mainstream" ideas from wikipedia, don't you? Why are you so scared of them? If articles on them are well written, from a neutral point of view, and verifiable, what is the problem?--feline1 20:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing somebody of starting a sockpuppet account for conducting witch hunts is a serious offense. You should not be making it here. Nondistinguished 20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you already told me (months ago) that your User:ScienceApologist account was technically a "sock puppet" by rules of the policy anyways... I don't really see what difference it makes what login name you use anyways, it's only a handle! It's your actual editing style that's the important thing.--feline1 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time that I ever had contact with you since I started my account. Nondistinguished 20:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it doesn't really matter, does it? Let's just say once upon a time there was another editor called User:ScienceApologist. He seems to have since departed the community. It's a shame he's not still around, cos I think you would've gotten on with him so well. Man, seems to me you two guys were like peas in a pod - same views, same interests, even exact same writing style, same excellent knowledge of wikipedia policies and guidelines (gee, you picked them up real quick, I must say! Me, I've been here years, and I'm still learning). He gave me a bit of a hard time on the Immanuel Velikovsky article, but I guess come to think about it, he did spur us to improve the article and make it more verifiable and neutral. Yep, sure miss that ole' ScienceApologist. --feline1 20:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my agenda to exclude or include anything in the encyclopedia except for those articles which do not live up to the guidelines and policies set forth by the Wikipedia community. My agenda is not what makes WP:N a guideline for Wikipedia. Instead community consensus is what determines the applicability of certain inclusion and exclusion guidelines. If you dislike notability as a requirement for inclusion of Wikipedia articles, you can discuss your objections at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Here is not the place to do it. Please respond directly to the objections I outlined in my nomination. Nondistinguished 20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already given my vote for the article's deletion. There's little point in you trying to harrass me into changing it. And if you continue to delete my comments calling them "personal attacks", there's not much point me bothing to type anything at all!--feline1 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Anyways, if the consensus of the vote turns out to be for "delete", that's fine by me.... --feline1 20:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have pointed out that your opinion is contrary to the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. You have not responded to this. Also, WP:AfD is not about "voting". Nondistinguished 20:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text removed that was posted by a banned user

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Peters[edit]

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

Again, I don't think this girl's notable. Fails WP:PORNBIO. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The copyright issue is a compelling argument. If someone wants access in order to merge some of the content, feel free to contact me.--Kubigula (talk) 04:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween 6: The Producer's Cut[edit]

Halloween 6: The Producer's Cut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Copyright violation, lists storyline, plot, and other aspects of an unofficial never released version of a film, claiming it to be a "Producer's Cut" implying it was created by the Producer of the original film Ejfetters 13:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. The page really isn't encyclopedic and is in copyright violation. The main changes can be noted somewhere on the main article but the rest of the information no. Plus it goes into detail about the various bootlegs available and that in itself is illegal, bootlegs. Wikipedia shouldn't list a movie's various bootlegs and how to tell which is which. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 18:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers. Some of the information is vaulable, but needs to be greatly condensed. The main problem is the copyright issues and the fact that this version of the film simply doesn't need its own article. Cut the bullshit and integrate the rest properly into the main article. --Bacteria 02:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Dellonte[edit]

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

Italian author who appears to have only written one book (which doesn't have its own article. Other than that the article makes no further assertions of notability. The CSD tag was removed by another editor and it was given stub status. Doesn't meet WP:BIO WebHamster 23:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't think this should be deleted. Carlo Dellonte is a published writer and hence has a growing number of fans. Please, since this is my first article contribution to wiki, let me know what i should do to prevent articles from being deleted. thank you! Just to point out: Carlo Dellonte wrote 'The Hollow House'. He also published: 'Lost e i suoi segreti Un libro di Carlo Dellonte e Giorgio Glaviano'. Furthermore, he recently started working for a radio (radio 3) show called "La Storia in Giallo" (which would translate into something like "Detective History"). The show deals (quite broadly) with historical murders and mysteries and it is made up of a radio-drama + interview with expert on the topic. His occupation: research and write the radio-dramas. So far he has written two; one aired in May (on Mary Shelley and the "mysterious" invention of Frankenstein) and the other will air in September (on the Sci-fi writer Philip K. Dick). Also, for those Tesla fans, there will be a 3rd one on Nikola Tesla. Therefore I still think Carlo Dellonte should stay in the writer, poet or playwright stub. Some external links for your reference below. Thanks

--Nvasi 05:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, the review in the scotsman quoted says " I cannot imagine what virtues the publisher could have seen in this" DGG (talk) 18:58, 1 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep, at least for now. As Kubigula mentioned, things can always be reexamined in the future if need be. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jurijus Kadamovas and Iouri Mikhel[edit]

Jurijus Kadamovas and Iouri Mikhel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Despite having sources for this article, editors involved are not sure that the material is notable enough to warrant an article in WP, so we are asking the community at large to comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was do something or other. This is an interesting discussion but it's probably time to move it back on to talk pages. Clearly this material is not going to be deleted, but it's just as clear that editors find using "Simulism" as an umbrella term problematic (definitely a neologism). I would suggest merge discussions at Talk:Simulism. Mackensen (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simulism[edit]

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

This is a remarkable article, with good content, but the theory itself was dreamed up a year ago by Ivo Jansch, who wrote at that time: "Lately I've been having these crazy thoughts about what the implications would be if the world as we know it wasn't really real but a computer simulation....I found it kind of fun to discuss and ponder the subject and I needed a place to write down my thoughts, so I installed a wiki....and somehow the term 'Simulism' seemed appropriate and the domainname wasn't taken yet, so here we are: [45]. It's almost like creating your own religion, only, it isn't." Quote from [46] This page violates WP:N and WP:RS. Anarchia 11:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Clearly, as the main author of this article, I would be aggrieved to see it deleted. I believe it has an integrity, in that it is about the belief that the world as we perceive it is simulated, rather than the technical details of how it should be done, or whether or not it is actually simulated. There is a long history to this idea, which, I think is not covered elsewhere. The article began as a counter to simulated reality which, quite honestly is a mess. I have no idea why the afd on this article is being suggested, but I would suggest that whoever suggested it, looks at the simulated reality entry, and compare the two.
--TonyFleet 19:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put an AfD on this article, first, because some of it seems to be original research, and, second, because as far as I can determine using google and academic database searches, 'simulism' is not a generally recognised term. (It used to be used in biology, but in a different way.) Tony, you are undoubtedly correct about the simulated reality page. And, for what it is worth, I meant it when I said that the simulism article is remarkable. But, why don't you use the information you have gathered to improve the simulated reality article? There are already multiple article dealing with the brain in the vat, evil genius, etc ideas. Anarchia 04:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between this and Simulated reality, Evil genius, Brain in a vat, etc., etc., etc.? Ewlyahoocom 06:05, 2 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, Mackensen (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is no established notable theory called 'simulism'.Anarchia 04:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There is a notable theory which is about the world not being 'real', and completely illusory, and it has taken many forms. This is described in the article. This theory does not have a name (but lots of different names). The article brings them together and uses a name coined recently. That, I would argue is legitimate, and is allowed in many other contexts. For example, Fictional technology just brings up a whole load of mirrors of the wikipedia article. There is a genuine concept, and clearly the idea has currency. The name, though may be unique to Wikipedia, and even if it is not, are we sure that the name was not intiated by the Wikipedia article?
Even if we were to accept the argument that the title is not 'notable', then that is an argument for moving it, but NOT for deleting it. I understand what you are saying, but the issue here (at the moment) is whether or not the article should be deleted. I think there is enough in the article to make it of value so that it should be kept in some form, and could end up being expanded. The argument that it should be merged with another article needs to be had at another time.
In addition, I think that to put an AfD on this article, "because some of it seems to be original research", (as stated above)is not actually a valid reason. There are lots of articles, parts of which have been tagged as "original research", and very few of them are proposed as afds; the way to deal with them is to tag the offending parts and request that they be improved. I am not sure which sections of this article actually are being referred to here, and it would be useful to have these identified.
I believe that the article needs to stay, and it needs to be completed as it was originally envisaged (please see the underlying code for the full extent of this article).--TonyFleet 15:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you say there is a long and significant history of people exploring the idea that humans do not have contact with so-called 'reality'. This idea is covered in many articles in wikipedia: Brain in a vat; Evil demon; Cartesian skepticism; idealism; simulated reality; Phenomenalism; Phenomenology; Simulation hypothesis; Transcendental idealism; Dream argument; Allegory of the cave, and so on (I will find more if you wish), as well as discussions on the pages of individual philosophers. I think a very good reason needs to be given for beginning another page that contains information that ought to be on these other pages.
It is true that an article that gathered interesting ideas from material that ought to be on these other pages could be interesting. But, this raises at least two questions. Is the construction of such a page an act of original research of a kind that violates WP:NOR? What should the page be called? I am not an administrator, so I don't feel qualified to answer the first question. However, assuming that there is a consensus that such an article is necessary, it seems inappropriate to call it 'simulism'. The term 'simulism' is not a notable or recognised term; it clearly violoates WP:NOR, and, I believe, violates it in an important way. First, encyclopedias are supposed to report on things; they are not tools for propogating individuals (or small groups of individuals) ideas. Second, 'ism' is a suffix that is usually added to words when there is a substantial body theory existing in an area to provide a quick way of refering to a position. I just don't think that it is okay for individuals to coin neologisms that sound as though they reflect a substantial theory, and then use that neologism to refer to something they, or a few people have just dreamed up - especially when there are closely related existing philosophical theories with other names.
The simulism article was created by someone(s) with good research and writing skills. Why not use those skills to refine existing articles on the same topic?
I am not going to contribute to this debate any more. I am only one person, and I think my position is obvious. If others disagree with me, that is fine. Anarchia 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - consensus, closed early per WP:SNOW. - KrakatoaKatie 03:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godverdomme[edit]

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

Dictionary definition, already exists on Wiktionary Blair - Speak to me 11:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: If this AfD results in the page being deleted, please tag GODVERDOMME MAN! with ((db-r1)). GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Punkmorten 06:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blackpool Sands[edit]

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

A disambiguation page that disambiguates between two nonexistent articles. Neither shows in the log, so I guess they weren't deleted, but I still can't see the utility in this page. Dylan 10:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Thompson[edit]

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

notability, possible vanity page, probable violation of WP:COI Chris 03:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD g10 attack page. Non-admin closure.--JForget 22:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris chow[edit]

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

At first glance this only seems like an unreferenced article; however, further investigation of the credits of the movie in question leads me to believe that this might be an attack/hoax page. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 10:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete all a1 (empty), Wikipedia is not for reprints of the Bible. NawlinWiki 11:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revelation 20:14[edit]

Revelation 20:14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is a sole Bible citation; the Wikipedia policy states "Source text generally belongs on WikiSource". However, if you feel this citation is a suitable topic for encyclopedic article please provide reasons. Kubanczyk 09:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages (same reason):

Romans 3:23 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Romans 6:23‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John 1:12‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Revelation 3:20‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 15:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastbourne Dynamos F.C.[edit]

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

Amateur football club playing three divisions below Step 7. No reason for notability (e.g. cup runs, formerly playing at a higher level) as the club was only formed a couple of years ago. Article also appears to have been written by club chairman and he has contested a prod on it. Number 57 09:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete all. — TKD::Talk 20:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian H. Paz[edit]

Christian H. Paz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(View log)
Encuentro de 3 en 1 cuarto (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aborigenes en la Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The only assertion of notability is his having directed three films, two of which are also nominated in this afd (the third is in another afd). These "films" are 6, 13, and 20 minutes long, and their only assertion of notability is having been directed by Christian H. Paz. So, a circular lack of evidence of notability. Someguy1221 06:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. MessedRocker (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subdreamer[edit]

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

A content management system, just like all the others. No evidence of widespread use or significance. Article was started by a single-purpose account but has attracted some edits by other interested editors; these have not remedied a fundamental paucity of sources and a lack of demonstration of notability. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please read the log a bit more carefully. I recreated this page on 5 September, it was deleted due to its prior history (i.e. spam) but I got it reinstated. The deleting admin said it was an error on his part to delete it. All prior history is irrelevant because the original content no longer exists and none of the original contributors are adding to the article - therefore our motives are the same as on any other Wikipedia article.
Please also read Talk:Subdreamer. I find it extremely frustrating that people keep flagging this page for deletion. How is it supposed to grow into a better article if you don't give it a chance?
All of my arguments on the Talk page still stand. Please do not delete this, I already got it reinstated once. JamminBen 09:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note There was no discussion, in which other people than the contributor and User:Jmlk17 participated. I wouldn't have nominated for deletion yet, probably would have been best to wait a bit after the DRV to see if the article was improved, however it is unacceptable in it's current state, fails WP:VERIFY, WP:SPAM (14 links to the website in such a short page, come on). Personally I couldn't see any real proof of notability. I hope this AfD won't be speedy closed, or that would mean only User:Jmlk17 would have a say on the deletion (no original AfDs: page was speedy deleted, also the DRV was only open for 45 minutes Wp:drv#Subdreamer_.28closed.29). The page was undeleted, unsalted 21 minutes after having been tagged, so I think the AfD should stay open to have more views. My opinion for the moment is Keep to allow for improvement, but relist if no proof of notability if given. Jackaranga 10:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If possible avoid phrases such as It is a "powerful yet simple program", by the way. Jackaranga 10:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply OK, for starters I have removed the phrase you mentioned. I can remove some or all of the 14 links you mentioned, I have no issue with that, but where else do you get sources from a list of features besides the official website? If I take them out and someone adds a citation needed tag, it's just going to go round in circles.
Also, if this article is not worthy, why aren't some of the other similar articles being raised here too, such as e107? The e107 article has quite a few similarities to the Subdreamer article, and that hasn't been flagged. JamminBen 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message on your talk page to some policies JamminBen. Hope you read them, can't really discuss much here if you don't know about the basic ones. I'm not sure lists of features are encouraged either. There are loads of things on wikipedia that need deleting, I don't know if that article you mention is one, but such a comparison is rarely well greeted in an AfD discussion (see WP:WAX not an official policy). Jackaranga 12:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, point taken. Thanks for the info, I will check it out. JamminBen 12:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep...for 1 week and re-evaluate. At the end of that week, delete if no 3rd party, neutral, note worthly enhancing progress has been made. DigitalNinja 03:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I haven't been able to find sources either. I thought there would be some as Subdreamer seems to be well-known. If there are sources, they're pretty well hidden. For what it's worth, I got the ref tag working... you might find it easier to click Show Preview after making a change instead of making lots of changes in a row. JamminBen 02:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good call on the show preview button...forgot about that :) (actually, I didn't think I needed it. Guess I was mistaken!) DigitalNinja 03:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Notable sources need to be external. I added Subdreamer to the list of content management systems when I created the page. That doesn't automatically make it notable, it's really just for reference. JamminBen 04:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Maxim(talk) 20:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chuff Chuff[edit]

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

Term is British slang for house music rave. No sources. SolidPlaid 08:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS Discworld[edit]

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

This book of gaming instructions has not received coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject as evidence of notability under WP:Notability. The text of the article appears to be WP:Fancruft, as it does not contain context or sourced analysis, or detail on a work's development. Fans of the GURPS series will argue that notability is inherited, but this is not the case. --Gavin Collins 08:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing to Keep based on new referencing... thanks, Turlo! Pinball22 15:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources added. It is important to note that in addition to this being the only game devised for Discworld, it is an article about all the books in the series, not just one. More refs being worked on. Turlo Lomon 20:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've asked the nominator that in what might be half a dozen other AfDs. I don't think we've received an answer. --Kizor 00:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pant, pant, pant Ok that one is done. Next project please? Turlo Lomon 21:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 21:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed Ehsanul Karim[edit]

Waleed Ehsanul Karim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Pilot from Bangladesh. No reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. ~Eliz81(C) 08:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walden West[edit]

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

Outdoor school for children. Had been nominated for deletion before and was kept, but I can find no claims of notability in the article, or reliable third party sources to establish notability. ~Eliz81(C) 08:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. — TKD::Talk 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genki Rockets[edit]

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

Non-notable band that isn't even really a band; it's a "virtual band" that doesn't even really exist in normal form. Sole claim to fame is a holographic performance at Live Earth, which isn't enough to meet WP:BAND No albums, one iTunes release, Only one independent source cited that isn't otherwise promoting the band's recording. They just haven't met notability standards yet. Realkyhick 08:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Wolf[edit]

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

Spammy, no sources, no evidence of notability. All edits are by accounts with o history other than to this individual and linked articles on the school he attended and the releases listed. Since these album articles contained one short sentence plus the track listing already in this article, and no assertion of notability, no references or sources, I have removed them. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 18:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moshpit Tragedy Records[edit]

Moshpit Tragedy Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable record label. Few claims of notability, trivial references (based on their press releases). Company website has no Alexa rank; while there's a fair amount of Google hits for "Moshpit Tragedy Records", only 79 unique ones among the first 1000 (Google never displays more than 1000 search results). Delete, unless notability is independently established. - Mike Rosoft 07:45, 12 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, Mike Rosoft 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been updated and now contains scanned review of label's release from magazine, mp3 link in which radio show host speaks about label and free downloads for 36 second segment, entire show and segment are both linked as well as urls. Also quotes from third parties, interview snippets, bands which are recognized by wikipedia and mention the label on their pages, references, etc have all been included. Do you know how long it will take to have the deletion tag removed? Has notability been proven enough? If anything is done improperly please just let me know here. Thank you. Moshpit tragedy 21:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huon, there are two links from the radio show. One is a smaller snippet, please have a listen to that one. It will help, as the host says the label is giving away free music and how people can get it. I haven't included any of the label's press releases as an actual reference, only as an outside article for more info for readers. I am just a fan of the label but have done too much work to let it go. The Extinction of Mankind release is high profile, and so was the Eyehategod cancellation, thats why it is noted, it was a talked widely about among metal and punk fans. If it is decided more is still needed please let me know, I know it can be proven because the label's stance on the current record industry and their actions are at the forefront in terms of direction for small labels.Moshpit tragedy 21:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun an article on co-founder Rayny Forster who is a notable singer and was written about in many magazines and other sources. Included there is a link to his old band's label's (Cargo Music) site about the band which mentions him and also a review which mentions his singing style in Heckler magazine which is another reliable source. I am determined to find enough info for this as it is out there. Will add more magazine ads and expand on the founder and his other notable projects. Thanks. Moshpit tragedy 22:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. I have been in touch and have received word that there is such news coverage being published very soon and I will link that up immediately. Thanks for your patience with the newbie. Moshpit tragedy 23:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just added another reference which has a short writeup for a magazine's website and not a press release. It contains the founders names, and has some of the bands listed here. Also Extinction of Mankind are very well known, they had a split record with Doom, who sold 15,000 copies of one EP ("Police Bastard" number one selling crust record of all time). I am also going to add some more scans from magazine coverage. Moshpit tragedy 15:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Have added over 12 reviews of the label's releases from reliable independent news sources. There is more coming. Can we take the deletion notice off?Moshpit tragedy 17:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added new Review link, its in Dutch I believe, and roughly translated says something pleasurable about the label for putting out the release. Probably still not enough for you but there is more coming if I can get it up in time. If not I will recreate the account if that is allowed when there is something even more concrete if all this is not enough for you, and I'll leave out all the small link stuff if its of no use anyhow. Thanks to everyone for their time.MetalPunk013 15:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Added section about the label's ridiculously limited edition T-shirt for the band Fuck The Facts, a very well known working band on a large label, Relapse Records. Includes quote from bands website and reference. http://ftf.electrocutionerdz.com/index2.htm It is about three quarters of the way down their news section, Dated Jan 1. Also in their links section they call Moshpit Tragedy a "Punk Grind label from Windsor ON" These shirts were of special interest because of the groups status and the fact that only 20 were made. MetalPunk013 14:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 01:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Pullin[edit]

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

Stub page about a professor, that has existed in its present two-sentence form since Oct 2003. Nothing mentioned to establish notability. SolidPlaid 07:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per nom. --Crusio 09:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per David Eppstein. --Crusio 18:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snaps (game) (3rd nomination)[edit]

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

Non notable game. A google search again shows that the majority of hits have nothing to do with this game [49]. There are no sources listed, and nothing referenced to verify the claims of this article. This 'game's article needs to have multiple, reliable, independent, non-biased, third-party sources cited, which it doesn't and I was not able to find. Furthermore, this is basicly a re-worded version of the previously deleted page but Wikipedia is STILL not a how-to guide. Notability standards usually require citing more than one major news source. I looked at a few of the Wiki guidelines and we must note that Wikipedia is not a Publisher of Original Thought - Specifically - Original inventions: If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move (or punching game), it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. You can review the previous nomination here - Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 06:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request Could you please link the previous nomination discussions? Turlo Lomon 06:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no don't delete, it was useful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.143.37 (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge Mr.Z-man 05:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Army Gunz[edit]

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

Non-notable song. Single source says it will be last collaboration of the musicians. No mention of charting. SolidPlaid 06:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 20:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

22-7[edit]

22-7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola 05:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian H. Paz for the director of this film. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 09:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 01:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steal This Film[edit]

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

My reasons for nominating this now are the same for supporting deletion during the first nomination. This article provides no evidence of notability through the provision of multiple, reliable, independent sources. Those sources provided on the page (as well as those most immediately apparent from a google search) are either forum threads or blog postings. The arguments presented for keeping the article during the first discussion were essentially suggesting that WP:N be suspended for this article, because its subjects discussed very "important issues." Someguy1221 05:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The "reviews" are blog postings or near-equivalents. Someguy1221 05:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I will have to disagree with your analysis of those sites. I did not consider them blogs when I was going through them. Turlo Lomon 06:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thankyou, I have added the reference in the introduction of the article, but it needs a rewite to make it flow better. I will add it to my list of ones to do, but if anyone else could have a crack at it that would be great. Fosnez 07:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thank you for not assuming good faith. I thought I stated my reasons quite clearly above. The keep !voters from the last AFD seemed to be ignoring WP:N. I had doubts that a few people who thought the movie was so important it didn't need good sourcing could form a good representation of what the larger community concensus would be. And just to nitpick, it was "no consensus," not "keep." And concensus can change. Someguy1221 03:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Wikipedia's Assume Good Faith Policy is pretty clear that it isn't required to be blind to consider good faith. Renoming before an article has had an opportunity to be resourced after a failed AFD seems to qualify in my book. Pharmboy 21:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Six weeks? I guess we just can't see eye to eye on this. Someguy1221 21:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to have to agree with Someguy here that the previous discussion specifically ignored the discussion of notability. However, I feel that notability has been established, and that this is no longer an issue - for either debate. Turlo Lomon 07:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan-Centric[edit]

Fan-Centric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced, original research, dicdef. Alksub 05:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brujos[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article is a patent dicdef that already exists on wiktionary. Bfigura (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 05:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nervous Lies[edit]

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

Episode is already covered in article List of Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes under HBO Special (1999). Also this article was created by user who has been permanently blocked for vandalism. Msw1002 04:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete copy/vio. Sandahl 05:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edna Eicke[edit]

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

The subject is not very notable, the article is not sourced & the entire article is a copy vio of [52]. These things suggest to me that this article needs to be Deleted. Spawn Man 04:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast museum of photography[edit]

Southeast museum of photography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article doesn't assert notability, is made by User:Smpmuseum, who obviously has a COI based on their user name, and the article is not sourced. Delete. Spawn Man 04:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep (non admin). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 03:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Phoenix (organisation)[edit]

The article asserts no notability, and has no real world sources to discuss it; as such, it is just a repetition of the plot of several Harry Potter books, and since the plot of those books is covered in their own articles, this article is just duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 04:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are apparently just arguing now for the sake of arguing. The 925 Google News hits I just mentioned obviously are the real world context, and the fact that the Order of the Phoenix is in the title of the book and film is precisely why it's notable. Finally, WP:FICT is not policy and therefore invoking it in an AfD process is not criteria for deletion. wikipediatrix 22:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've shown that the book and the film are notable, not the organization. notability is not inherited. You need sources about the organization, not about the book and the film. Being a guideline does not mean you can ignore WP:FICT for no reason, WP:ONLYESSAY. Jay32183 23:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONLYESSAY isn't policy either. wikipediatrix 23:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't appreciate being called a "nazi", please be civil. [[Guest9999 09:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Comment, I DID NOT call you a "Nazi" I said that you were taking a "Nazi" POV. There IS a difference! ** ko2007 ** 14:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Deletion is a last resort" is not an argument for keeping. The order is keep, merge, transwiki, delete. The article fails the inclusion criteria, so "keep" is out. "Merge" creates too much of a burden on the main page, so we cross that out. With "transwiki", you'll need to say where to transwiki it, and that place would have to accept it. They may not if they feel what they already have is better. So we are, in fact, down to "delete". Jay32183 16:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was transwikied, it would probably go here http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Order_of_the_Phoenix but I don't see any reason they'd want it.--Gyrcompass 18:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like the best transwiki target, but I think their current article is better than ours, even by fan site standards. Jay32183 19:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FICT is just meant to show how WP:NN can be applied to articles on fiction. WP:NN requires evidence of significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources - no evidence of which have been shown in this discussion. I agree the information should be available on the internet for those who want to use it but I do not think it should be on Wikipedia. [[Guest9999 18:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ludlam[edit]

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

Not notable green candidate using Wikipedia as a soapbox. He is the "leading Green candidate" for Western Australia's Senate seat. Google news archives gives 5 hits Green plus Scott Ludlum. 96 UNIQUE G hits, mostly blogs. I do not see significant news coverage. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete, non-notable bio. The bulk of the article was mass-copied from Bobby Morley. There are no references relating to Martin. —C.Fred (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jace Martin[edit]

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

Most of the article is gossip/un-encyclopedic info about the person, article is unreferenced, very little info to prove notability. Tiptoety 03:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Octal. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Octomatics[edit]

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

Previously PRODded but recreated. PROD reason was: "non-notable project to encourage the use of the octal system (base 8); Wikipedia has an article about octal but it is not clear that this particular project is worthy of an article." I agree with that, so I propose the page be deleted. Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request Could you please add the link to the previous prod? Turlo Lomon 06:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was deleted and thus the previous prod was not visible. I undeleted the previous revisions so that you can have a look; the PROD reason I cited was added in revision 45061570. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the case, insert links to those sources that clearly fall under WP:RELY. The ones mentioned above don't cut it, and there don't seem to be any scholarly articles on the topic, if that's what you intended to hint at in your mention of citations. Barring that, the article probably should be deleted until a clear case for Wikipedia:Notability can be made. MrZaiustalk 07:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC) PS: You have a ~5 day probationary period to flesh it out while the AfD is in progress[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star wars titanium[edit]

Star wars titanium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As per WP:NOT#INFO, Wikipedia is not a discriminate collection of information. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 03:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep and rewrite.--Kubigula (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyEclipse[edit]

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

I don't believe this software/company warrants an encyclopedia article, and as of now, the article is written like an advertisement. SaveThePoint 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be curious as to why you feel we do not warrant a page. We have over 1.2 million Google links, over 500,000 users of our product and have been in business in this highly competitive industry since 1996. We have been sited in multiple books and other published works as a leader in developer productivity and learning. Over 80% of the Fortune 100 companies are our customers. I fail to see how we are somehow illegitimate.

The article in question states only factual information and is not arbitrary. Any claims made are backed up directly with reference or are easily verifiable. Compared to other comparable tools, we have followed suit in form, function and neutrality.Jense 20:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article contain only one reference. If you could supply the rest (the books where are you cited for example, as these are easily verifiable, but not easily findable), perhaps there would be less doubt about notability --Mpx 16:04, 15 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, CitiCat ♫ 03:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the notion this software is non-notable and a derivative of free software, the claim is false. Over half of the software included in the distribution is proprietary, and the value add of the software is in its integration of open source tools that are notorious for incompatibility. Not sure of the agenda to remove, as all other tools in this space are allowed to remain, many of which have far fewer users and notoriety.

Mike - sorry about the deletion. Inadvertent.

As for notable references to the product...

Jense 21:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CNNBS[edit]

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

Insufficient notability of the group itself, even if members might be notable. One member link refers to soccer player, not musician. CobaltBlueTony 14:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took link away from member. Band is gaining notoriety, plus is my favourite rnr band. Also, there are no articles with same name. please, leave the article up... I'll keep it updated with info. i'll fix it. Juliette Moore 17:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per asserted notability ('"Rock Band of the Year 2007" prize in Buenos Aires', going on a national tour) provided citations are added to support these claims. I also assume that there are independent reviews of this band, given these claims, so links to them should be added to support it being a notable group. DMacks 17:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the author[edit]

I've added some references of gigs and articles related to cnnbs! I really hope this helps! Thank u all :) Juliette Moore 06:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just need to keep the one in capital letters. I'm new! I didn´t know how to do it. I don't want/need both articles. Thanks for your help Juliette Moore 14:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get that message out please? Juliette Moore 21:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From JulietteThanks for the tip! I've found a couple of third party articles and have referenced them in the article. will continue to look.Juliette Moore 22:52, 6 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, CitiCat ♫ 03:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Californian Guns[edit]

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

Contested prod, removed without comment by anon IP editor. Non-notable slang term, no sources, no verification, not much of anything -- the article is all of three sentences long. Realkyhick 03:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. SPAs taken into account. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PDF-Office Professional[edit]

PDF-Office Professional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Originally PROD'd, but PROD removed without commment. This is a shareware program with no external evidence of notability. Delete. Isotope23 talk 03:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.it-enquirer.com/main/ite/more/pdf_office_7/ http://www.designtaxi.com/news.jsp?id=1510&monthview=1&month=11&year=2005 http://www.planetpdf.com/enterprise/article.asp?ContentID=This_week_in_PDF_-_Planet_PDF_goes_on_the_road&gid=7499 http://www.mactechpress.com/news/?p=1009761 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.130.43.195 (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelso's Pizza & Pub[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kelso's Pizza & Pub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to be sufficiently notable to warrant an article; prod removed, I am placing it here. Into The Fray T/C 03:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The JPStalk to me 10:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, what about Pizza Shoppe? It's a HUGE Kansas City chain, but it keep getting deleted too... <cries> Everyone dislikes my articles.. PS: The main reason I want Kelso's not to be deleted because it's my fave pizza place, and because my grandpa knows all about it... he was friends with the guy who started it, Bill Kelso and even delivered beer to them back in the days of beer trucks and he even worked at one or two of the ones past, and could tell you exactly where all of the 5 or so previous ones were. It's a part of me in a way, that's why I care so much. CloversMallRat 22:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You probably gave the others a reason to delete this even more. You obviously have a COI (Conflict of interest) and this has clouded your judgement over the article's real notability... Sorry dude, but this article just isn't notable. Spawn Man 05:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. If you want to write about the place because you love it, that's a worthy goal. But Wikipedia isn't the right place to do it. What you should do is write a magazine article, or a novel, or a collection of poetry, and submit them for publication to an appropriate publisher. Then you can express your love for Kelso's and help it become more widely known. Maybe someday it'll even become important enough for someone to write an article about it here. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats a conflict interest? 0_o I mean like, my grandpa knew the guy who owned it and worked there - it's been around a long time.. that's all CloversMallRat 19:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - It's a conflict of interest inasmuch as you appear to have an emotional attachment to the subject matter of the piece. I am personally touched by your interest in it and wish that it were notable so that it could stay, believe it or not. But it simply does not seem so. The only suggestion that I could make to you at this point is that you attempt to establish its notability. A visit to the local library might be in order to see if there is any significant news coverage, if the company has played a significant role in local history, etc. I looked on Yahoo!, Google, Google News and Google's News Archives, but was unable to find anything that changed my mind. Please see verifiability and conflict of interest, notability guidelines and notability guidelines for companies. Good luck to you. Into The Fray T/C 01:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel for you Mallrat, I really do, but I'm not going to pander to a sob story - Fray, let's not give him false notions; Kelso's Pizza & Pub is not notable, there's no two ways about it. If we say that there's a chance it might be notable if he works really hard trying to find something in a local newspaper, then he'll never be able to discern what articles are notable and which are not. We'll just end up with another AfD and more time wasted. Mallrat, let me give you a demo - Fifteen (restaurant); notable... Kelso's Pizza & Pub; not notable. Per your question over what a COI was, I would suggest you read both WP:COI and also WP:Notability. Hoepfully you'll keep editing here, but please do make it about things which are notable. Regards, Spawn Man 09:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was: Deleted - lacks context (unsourced/made-up neologism), WP:SNOW. - Mike Rosoft 16:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enthusiasticer[edit]

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

Tagged as speedy, but neologisms aren't speediable. However, I trust that the AfD editors can get a huge lump of snow all over this one Daniel Case 02:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subway menu[edit]

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

Unencyclopaedic and close to being an indiscriminate collection of information. A couple of paras in the main article would suffice. —Moondyne 02:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]



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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fireball (Charmed)[edit]

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

No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 02:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Maxim(talk) 13:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ibero-American Literary Awards[edit]

Ibero-American Literary Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page consists of mainly wikilinks, it is a mess. The page is named "Ibero-American Literary Awards", but contains little or next to no information about awards, only writers who have won, which is doubtful because everything is unreferenced. LaNicoya 02:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you visit the list of literary awards page and note how many of the pages linked to there are for reference purposes. Ibero-American Literary Awards is intended to serve primarily a reference purpose. If you have questions concerning the validity of the factual information contained within the article I would kindly suggest you to consider doing something which is often done by intelligent people in such situations, and which you might perhaps have inadvertently overlooked doing: look it up. Your most humble servant, Rubbersoul20 11:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we want to delete it friend? You never know, (Unlike some of us who lack the curiosity for such things), there might be somebody out there for whom such information is worth perusing. --Rubbersoul20 11:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dhartung, my dear, I disagree with your idea that "individual awards should have their own articles" -- What do you suppose reference pages are for? ...(hint, hint: for reference). The meta-list at the bottom does not 'assume' anything, my dear. Show me where it asserts that "all the awards represent equal merit or are for comparable things." I tell you what: If you show me where that is asserted i'll give you 100 dollars. As for the article being 'odd and anti-encyclopedic': let us not ostracize wikipages for being a little different from the others. Wikipedia, in case you have not noticed, has many reference pages under its belly. Your most humble servant, Rubbersoul20 11:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]



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

The result was Keep. Carlossuarez46 17:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bandit Run[edit]

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

Non-notable event. No references, article created by apparent SPA, article is a complete mess. LaMenta3 05:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throw Your Hands Up[edit]

Throw Your Hands Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable single. Inclusion in the article about the album should be plenty as I can't find indication that this song even charted. LaMenta3 04:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep - Nomination withdrawn without delete vote. (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 14:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamat (sailing)[edit]

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

Non-notable yacht. Article also has some serious referencing and POV problems. LaMenta3 04:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been sourced and improved to my satisfaction. LaMenta3 14:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Hassall (musician)[edit]

John Hassall (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possibly notable band member. BLP article lacking sources since October 2006. Mr.Z-man 04:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Townend[edit]

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

Fails Notability test. Unimportant curator Tovojolo 01:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. Personally, I see this as listcruft, but both sides have good arguments. Upmerging all the rosters to the main artile wouldn't be a bad idea as well, they're small enough where it's within reason. Wizardman 16:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topps All-Star Rookie Rosters and related articles[edit]

Very trivial info on who were on who were considered as Topps best rookies per year, borderline WP:OR here, as a person can look at the small little baseball trophy on the card and create an article based on that. Not considered as a major award and no sources to indicate any notabilty. Adding the indiviual years articles as well. Delete All Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 01:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I need someone to update my monobook for that, I'm horrible with them. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 15:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mastery International School Bangalore[edit]

Mastery International School Bangalore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tiny school that does not establish notability. Went with AfD over speedy all the same, though. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 01:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There still aren't any sources for it, and as Keb25 said, it reads exactly like an advertisement. GlassCobra 22:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Kiara Hunter. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in Somerset County, New Jersey[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of cemeteries in Somerset County, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was originally deleted at an AfD last year. With the consent of the original closer, DRV overturned to determine if consensus has changed over time. (Not the strongest DRV rationale, but I won't argue with the original deleter.) Deletion is on the table, as the list lacks sources, and might be called excessively granular. Xoloz 01:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Grave[edit]

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

Non-notable music genre. Only two examples of bands, one of which is non-notable in itself. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 01:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montclaire Elementary School[edit]

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

Article is about a local elementary school with no assertion of notability, nor it doesn't seem it is really notable. Also the Notability taggged has been placed since May 2007 and nothing significant has been really made to make it look like this is a notable place and it also fails WP:V. Delete JForget 01:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep, as references to significant coverage in multiple third-party, reliable sources have been added, thereby meeting the requirements of the general notability guideline. John254 00:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detska Kitka Choir[edit]

Detska Kitka Choir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is insufficient evidence of notability. Prod removed by creator after adding link to the choir's web page but no independent sources. FisherQueen (Talk) 00:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates vs. Ninjas Dodgeball[edit]

Pirates vs. Ninjas Dodgeball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete has been speedy deleted twice recently but the author says that there are more sources he's adding, I'll let the community decide whether the new sources (a preview of them are here) is sufficient; I think not. Carlossuarez46 00:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.I. Pacific Games[edit]

U.I. Pacific Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is a crystal ball for a company that has yet to make a name for itself. Article should be recreated once the company makes a name for itself. Burzmali 00:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Result based upon combination of the arguments below and the blanking of the article by its primary contributor with an edit summary indicating the article subject had requested removal of the article. Allen3 talk 14:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Cohen (economist)[edit]

Lauren Cohen (economist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lack of notability. WP:PROF probably applies here and Cohen does not satisfy any of the criteria. He comes closest to Number 6: "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." However, there is no evidence that the awards he received are notable. Carabinieri 00:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like weightlifting si a sport different from powerlifting, see [62] versus [63] --Crusio 17:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes the proper move would be to Lauren Cohen (powerlifter), but he borders on notability as an economist, his profession is as an economist and if you look in the external links at his CV it suggest that will be his focus going forward. Powerlifting is an article and thus seems notable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say that an OTRS ticket doesn't seem like a strong reason to delete something considering almost no one can see it.IvoShandor 06:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Maxim(talk) 01:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nethera Studios[edit]

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

Article is a crystal ball at best and a hoax at worst. Their product ("Red Kangaroo") doesn't seem to exist, or at least isn't notable enough to show up in Google. Page should be created if the company does anything notable. Burzmali 00:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep, stubbify, rewrite.

Rio Bravo Cantina[edit]

Rio Bravo Cantina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Restaurant "chain" lacking sufficient notability. Basically hasn't been edited for over a year. The article creator made 13 edits total, 9 of which pertaining to this article and an entry on the Río Bravo (disambiguation) page. — [ aldebaer ] 00:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Groundless AFD. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marwan al-Shehhi[edit]

Marwan al-Shehhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article should be merged with Mohammad Atta. al-Shehhi is a non-notable figure whose only claim to fame is killing people on September 11th. He is the subject of pratically no citations (unlike Atta) except mentioned in passing. The event, Septebmer 11th, is notable, not al-Shehhi. Goss9900 00:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are unaware of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, please read up, as that comment is totally inappropriate in tone. CitiCat ♫ 03:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm aware thanks. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

You may suspect but you are incorrect. September 11th made me remember that the victims of terrorist attack articles are routinely deleted citing non-notability. Moussaoui and Atta, I can see. al-Shehhi, non-notable...sorry. Goss9900 04:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to the new article 1993 CIA shootings per Thomjakobsen's suggestion at the bottom of this discussion. The subject is notable only for his involvement in that event (see also WP:BLP1E). Sandstein 19:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Official Wikipedia policy is very clear in what to do in this AFD; Delete and Redirect. Wikipedia policy is clear that AFD's are not a vote. Therefore, with due respect to the opinions of the other editors, we should comply with Wikipedia policy and redirect the al-Shehhi article to United Airlines Flight 175 See [64] WP:BLP1E

Mrs.EasterBunny 22:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Correction: I've examined the logic and wikipedia policy actually says the article must be directed to "United Airlines Flight 175", not the "Hijackers of United Airlines Flight 175" The hijacker article (which I started) must be deleted along with al-Shehhi, according to WP:BLP1E. Sorry for the mixup. Mrs.EasterBunny 16:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus Mr.Z-man 02:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castaway Entertainment[edit]

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

Page has been a crystal ball since 2004. While I don't know if the company has closed up shop yet, they haven't had any news in 2 years. Page should be recreated once the company establishes itself. Burzmali 00:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment So Bill Gates and Steve Jobs leaving their companies to start a new one (but not releasing anything for three years) would not be notable?(I think that would be VERY notable... what have Bill and Steve been been working on for three years? Must be big!) I agree that the article needs fleshing out, but the sum of its parts (Employees) makes it notable, considering the Blizzard North history. - Fosnez 07:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the time this happened (9 people from Blizzard's development team walking off to create their own company), this was considered a significant event, and it was documented as such. It is clear in the notability, the notability is not temporary. Turlo Lomon 07:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely then the trade journals have written about how these guys haven't produced squat? What I'm getting at here is if they are so notable, why hasn't their lack of product provoked comment anywhere that can be cited? SolidPlaid 08:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found an interesting reference that should be added. [65] Turlo Lomon 09:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And more. [66] [67] [68] The information from these articles really needs to be added to main one. Turlo Lomon 09:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the lack of product — games can take years to develop, and the fact that the company hasn't released anything yet isn't necessarily going to be considered strange. -- Vardion 20:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red 5 Studios[edit]

Red 5 Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was a crystal ball back in February 2006, and their project still doesn't have a name. Page should be recreated after the company establishes itself. Burzmali 00:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of articles about untitled projects that are notable. IMO the fact that the team leader of the World of Warcraft design team founded this company should end the notability discussion. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-12 23:19
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS does not justify keeping an article, and notability is not inherited (even if it were Rob Pardo, Jeff Kaplan, and Tom Chilton are listed as the designers of World of Warcraft, and Mark Kern doesn't even rate a mention in the page.) Burzmali 00:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that because the Wikipedia entry on "World of Warcraft" does not mention the team leader and art director, those people are not notable? Interesting perspective. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-13 00:38
The tone of this comment is not correct. If it comes off as condescending because of my bad attempt at sarcasm, I apologise. You're quite right that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS should not be an argument for notability. Mainly I feel that this article is bound to eventually meet the notability guidelines, so deleting now serves little purpose, even if it tends towards WP:CRYSTAL. I tend to stay out of AfD discussions since I don't agree with the notability guidelines and am a fundamentalist inclusionist, so please take everything I say with a grain of salt. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-13 00:56
No offense taken, but this article, as 3 others I nominated at the same time, all seem to be trying to ride Blizzard coattails to notability (see Blizzard Entertainment#Former employees for my hitlist), before they have even announced their projects. Burzmali 01:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep but clean up article, with cleanup needed by any contributors with medical/cardiological knowledge (as QRS suggested). Alabamaboy 00:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Gray[edit]

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

Article evidently written by subjects son. Violates WP:NPOV, WP:Autobiography. 2) WP not a family history site WP:NOT. 3)Multiple assertions not supported by verifiable references. 4) Author never signs posts. 5) Postnominals GIRE. There is no G ranking of membership of the Institute of Radio Engineers. 6) Contains nonsense in section "World War 11"; eg: relative to "suck up marks" and "Radar" "that he used during Coral Sea Battle". A non-commissioned rank would not have authority to perform action claimed. An exaggeration at least. See also http://www.st.net.au/~dunn/ausarmy/3ac2ard.htm and acknowledgement at bottom. 7) In "vindication" reference to US patent 6,144,879. A search of this patent shows it to be a nonsense patent as evident to anyone trained in cardiology. 8) On the talk page it had been suggested the author should rewrite the article. No attempt made. 9) Talk page concludes with an unsigned illiterate & offensive statement. QRS 00:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Re "Paul Trainor" see Nucleus Limited and 'discussion'.QRS 06:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I still have concerns about the "attack page" issue WP:ATP. Seems like it would be a good thing to re-create the article immediately after deletion, to wipe the attack page history off the record.OfficeGirl 11:24, 17 September 2007
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete (Note: One of the keep !votes was cast by a sockpuppet of an indef banned editor, and was disregarded.) — Caknuck 05:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BulletBall[edit]

Bulletball / Inclusion Sports has become a Senior Olympic Sport and is utilized as therapy by military hospitals. It has somehow grown since the American Inventor TV appearance into a sport known throughout the country and in other parts of the world. Review their face book bulletball game site as well as inclusionsports to get caught up on their advances since 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.77.203 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The discussion was previously closed by the nominator, therefore there is a serious conflict of interest per WP:DPR#NAC. Relisting in a fresh AfD to generate more consensus. --DarkFalls talk 06:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please provide some links to some of these "news articles"? If someone would just do that, it's notability could be established once and for all. Until someone can provide references for the notability, then I'm sorry, but it's just talk. Wikipedia requires references. And except for the minor appearance on American Inventor, noone has been able to provide a single valid source for this game's notability, despite lots of talk like this. - TexasAndroid 11:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's a misuse of the relisting process to ask for a "more thorough discussion" when lots of people already debated this. You know, I can understand when only 2 or 3 people ventured a comment, but you folks can't do this every time an AfD "doesn't go your way". Maybe it was kept, maybe it was deleted. Who cares? Don't try to sell us on some nonsense that the discussion wasn't "through enough" if you didn't like the outcome. Mandsford 17:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith here. The relist was performed by a previously uninvolved admin. A couple of us have already expressed on his talk page that we think that reopening this was not the right course of action, but there is absolutely no reason to think that this had anything to do with it not going "his way", when he was not previously involved with the situation. - TexasAndroid 18:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply This is the second time I've seen this, and the first time was not long after we started seeing articles relisted for a more thorough discussion; and while I agree that something should be relisted if there was little debate the first time (3 comments), it's like asking for a "more thorough election" after a everyone has voted. Bonus points to the first person who points out "AfD isn't a vote". Yes, I know, we don't keep a tally, but I vote keep or I vote delete... and if I don't do either, I'm merely making a comment. Mandsford 22:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to American Inventor As I stated last time, it's simply not notable. BB was rejected, and the winning inventions don't have articles. When we see it on Walmart's shelves, then we can recreate it. For now, it's a game that only exists in the heart of its inventor. The existence of a website for the game or YouTube popularity or Google hit counts does not make it notable, either. --User101010 11:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep per Snow/Nomination withdrawn - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez 13:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gumtree[edit]

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

Does not assert notability. Cites only one third party source, which is itself very brief. The JPStalk to me 10:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Keep now that article is referenced. The JPStalk to me 11:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Yamakiri 10:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I had a quick look for sources after filtering out all (well, most) of their sites from Google.
  • Called "immensely popular" by the BBC 1
  • in July Computing magazine quoted their Head of Technology, "[We] recently broke into the top 20 most popular web sites in the UK." 2.
  • A more detailed report of the eBay buyout from the Manchester Evening News 3
  • confirmation of the top 20 sites thing and Gumtree apparently has 18.4% of UK classified site visits by June 2007 4.
  • IT Pro article about a technology rollout 5,
  • brief mention in the Good Web Guide 6 (Not sure whether this is reliable source?).
  • Brief mention of the buyout in ZDNet, more from ebay's point-of-view 7.

Would any of this help assert notability? I don't really have an opinion about the article either way. Alternatively, information could be merged with Ebay or Kijiji (what an awful name!) --Kateshortforbob 11:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Possible Keep and SNOW - When in San Fransico you look for flats/jobs on Craigslist. When in London you look for flats/jobs on Gumtree. I am invoking common sense/Wikipedia:Ignore all rules on this one. As you can see here, Craigslist is compared TO Gumtree, not the other way around, infering that Gumtree is locally notable (and it is). Also of note, Ebay owns Gumtree[69][70] - Fosnez 11:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More references - MySQL Press release, Sage Business Awards 2004, Press releases about: [71][72][73][74][75][76]
Comment I have extensivly referenced the article now. Fosnez 11:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to withdraw my nomination now that the article has more references. I haven't seen the rescue task force before: I like the positive tone! How do you respond to users (such as the one this morning) who attempted to use this to advertise their service? (check out the history.) The JPStalk to me 11:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Eagle 101 (t c) at 23:57, September 12, 2007 (UTC) per WP:CSD#G4. Non-admin closure. --Darkwind (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh! the Abridged Series[edit]

Yu-Gi-Oh! the Abridged Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page is a ((deletedpage)) elsewhere. Borderline G4. Will (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And before anyone kicks up a fuss: Yes, I do watch TAS, and I enjoy it. But at the moment, the article's full of crap. Will (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, IMO. It's a perfectly notable item, and if it gets a cleanup tag and gets cleaned up a bit, it could be a fine article. PKKnoHaseo-san 22:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete all. These articles are still unsourced, and WP:V / WP:NOR, as core policies, are not negotiable. All but one of the "keep" or "merge" opinions do not address this issue. As to the merger proposals, unsourced content should not be merged, but Fbv65edel has provided links to similar, sourced content that could be. Sandstein 22:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Also nominated
Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nearly, three months on, there has been no attempt to source the pages at all - the only thing sourced throughout the set of five is the cutlist from OotP. As it stands now, it's still the original research I nominated first time around. Will (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • These are not reliable sources -- these are fan sites. This is reflected in its history. Per WP:RS, "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." Anyone can publish a page like that and cite it to be used on Wikipedia -- that's why we have these standards. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the additional sources, Factmonster.com does not seem to exude authority. Additionally, the web page based on FreeWebs.com is a personally published page, not a reliable source, either. The article from Associated Content would possibly be appropriate for implementation into the film article, not this spun-off sub-page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a fansite does not automaticaly make it unreliable. The Lexicon's reliability has been testified to by Rowling herself. Will (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But is it an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight, like mainstream newspapers, magazines, journals, academic studies? It's still a personal webpage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you want to merge content that is not backed by authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand? The only contributors here have been the editors themselves, and it's not encyclopedic to let them decide for themselves, after comparing two different resources, what differences to note between the two. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you can find multible HP fansites with information, it can be in the Wikipedia page, but as a section, not as its own page. This is very important info to include in the films' pages, however. harry potter book movie differences - Google Search Libertyernie2 19:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is also this article from Digital Spy, a reputable science fiction publication. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that article before, and I think that it would be acceptable to use. Most of the resources provided, however, do not seem to meet reliable source criteria. I would suggest using the DS citation to create the appropriate sections (Writing seems best). But on the whole, this article's content does not warrant encyclopedic existence. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We've just started to write a very condensed version of the articles on subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Notability/Differences. For Order of the Phoenix, I found a great source at Salon.com, an interview with the screenwriter, in which he discusses the reasons for cutting a number of scenes, as well as Rowling's views on film changes. MTV wrote about the change in Kreacher's role. Miranda Richardson commented in a red carpet interview for movie 4 about the cutting of her character in the fifth. So there are a number of sources which document the changes, which we will use to write two to three paragraphs, approximately, to make a new section in the film articles. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've basically completed primary drafts of the cutting down of information. See subpages 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 for our planned merges of each article to its film article.. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the film and book are notable, however the subject of the article - their comparison - isn't sufficiently notable. Addhoc 15:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC) (duplicate)[reply]
  • I don't believe that this is a case of WP:SNOWBALL -- there's been merge recommendations, which is distinctly different from delete recommendations. There's no need to rush the AfD process. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think Happy-melon is (necessarily) suggesting the articles be deleted -- just that they at least be redirected to their film articles, and a new section be added to the film articles, as written on the subpages linked above. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I mean is, there is no likely AfD outcome that will not result in this replacement occuring. Delete --> articles are deleted, the drafts are inserted into the relevant film articles. Merge --> articles are redirected, the drafts are inserted into the relevant film articles. Redirect --> same as for merge. The only outcome that will not result in these articles being blanked is Keep, which I have explained above is extremely unlikely. Given that this is almost certain to the outcome of the debate, why wait unnecessarily? Happy‑melon 20:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So my point is no access detail, no need for seperate pages and a still an appropriate way for inexperinced readers to understand the minor changes between the books and movies and perhaps to not include any small or irrevant facts of things that can be explained in a character bio. As a last resort I would choose to Transwiki it to the Harry Potter Wiki and would urge other people who want to remove this stuff to consider that option. -Adv193 05:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Keep, merge and trim. It is important to have such an article. it displays the difference between the books and the films, and hence the interests in the viewer vs reader, which is a very important film technique, especially in harry potter. Since harry potter books are so long, its important that they only extract the parts within the books that appeal to the viewer, and more importantly the subject audience, -(after all they are only making these films to make money and win awards). If they include all the lessons, and conversations within harry potter, frankly it would bore the audience to death. an example is the 4th book, where the middle of the book, which was a degraded cliche, was mainly cut out, and the 3 tasks, and the yule ball were shown, as they appeal to the viewer. If we delete this section we will be delete an important dimension to the anaylisis of harry potter. addy-gAddy-g-indahouse 22:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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