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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense, will protect. NawlinWiki 04:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slothism[edit]

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

Hoax article, previously prodded and deleted, speedied per A1, and recreated again this time. Author removed prod, so I am bringing here for consensus Neil916 (Talk) 00:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, violates WP:V; not even a plausible or humorous hoax. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as complete WP:BOLLOCKS EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The information can't be verified; the doctors mentioned at the bottom of the article don't seem to exist. WODUP 00:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. - Aagtbdfoua 01:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax. -- Mithent 01:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above. Lemonsawdust 01:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 01:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - per all above, tagged as speedy.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 02:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete and Salt. Complete nonsense. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but previous deleted versions are all very different from this one so this is not a re-creation per CSD G4. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 03:14Z
• Delete and consider salting per everyone. --Charlene 03:18, 17 April 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. --Coredesat 00:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demonic car concept[edit]

Demonic car concept (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clear WP:NOR - article is trying to create a new definition of a "concept" used in films. A concept which isn't notable enough to write an article about - Googling "Demonic car concept" gives zero results (not including copies of this article). Apart from that, the notable vehicles and films are already listed in Phantom vehicle. Saikokira 00:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, original research and the important information's already in the other article. -- Mithent 01:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom, fails WP:NOR.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 02:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR - there may be plenty of demon cars, and associated articles, but there are no sources on the concept of demon cars - Tiswas^(t/c) 10:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it's not even an article on the concept of demon cars. It's just listcruft OR - Tiswas^(t/c) 13:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It appears to be a subset of the List of fictional vehicles - Tiswas^(t/c) 16:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - same explanation as Tiswas: this is OR. Nihiltres 14:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unsourced, and is really a list of movies. -- Whpq 15:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Good example of what a article should not be.--St.daniel ^talk 17:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research. Realkyhick 18:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR violations. Acalamari 20:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Lemonsawdust 21:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ffm ✎talk 13:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Phantom vehicle. // Liftarn
• Delete - original research. Metamagician3000 13:59, 21 April 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. --Coredesat 00:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of gimmicks in television shows[edit]

List of gimmicks in television shows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Heavy on the OR. WP:NOT Indiscriminate Information. And subjective inclusion criteria. Some editors attempting to create their own definition for "gimmicks in television shows"... and then trying to apply their definition to some TV shows. Saikokira 00:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The page gimmick already has some examples of gimmicks in TV shows, we don't need to have an exhaustive and ill-defined list. -- Mithent 01:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Gotta say delete on this one. Too broad, inevitable OR problems. Goodnightmush^Talk 02:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom, fails WP:NOT. Info in list is covered in main articles.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 02:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced, no criteria for inclusion, and an indiscriminate list. --Cyrus Andiron 12:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Would be a good categorie although even that is a little to broad. --St.daniel ^talk 17:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unencyclopedic, will have POV problems and OR. --Dweller 13:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unsourced, trivial, WP:NOT. Concur with Mithent, a few examples under gimmick are more than sufficient to illustrate the principle. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One man's gimmick is another man's plot device. Very ill-defined and subject to POV. Realkyhick 18:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT violations. Acalamari 20:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Define a Gimmick. Would have some WP:NPOV issues... ffm ✎talk 13:26, 18 April 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. --Coredesat 00:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of short stories that appeared in the New Yorker in 2005[edit]

List of short stories that appeared in the New Yorker in 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an index of short stories in the New Yorker. Nearly all of them are redlinks anyway Saikokira 00:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this kind of list is a directory. The New Yorker is certainly welcome to keep a catalog of stories that appear in its pages. I can imagine there might be some value as a category, but even that's somewhat dubious. Might be worthwhile to talk about some of the major stories that have appeared in the New Yorker, in its own article, but a yearly list? Too much. FrozenPurpleCube 00:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom, fails WP:NOT.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 02:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT and the fact that this would make a much better category than a list. --Charlene 03:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A much better category? Only four or five of these items have blue links. How can it possibly be a category? I don't understand your point at all. Can you please explain? AndyJones 12:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I wouldn't suggest categorization by year, but given that some short stories are notable enough to be on Wikipedia, and that the New Yorker publishes a lot of short stories, having the ability to reference what's been in the New Yorker and what's not might be a good category. OTOH, a lot of magazines publish short stories, so covering them all could be a problem. I'm not convinced of it either way, but I do see some potential. FrozenPurpleCube 18:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too directory-like. AndyJones 12:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete almost all redlinks, and magazine-index information of this sort isn't encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, this definitely falls under WP:NOT#DIR. One could make an argument for categorizing the short stories that are notable enough for a Wikipedia article, although as FrozenPurpleCube states, doing so by year is probably overcategorization. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All red links --St.daniel ^talk 17:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a directory. Realkyhick 18:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete WP:NOT violation. Acalamari 20:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Blatant violation of WP:NOT#DIR. Also, we'd have to start doing this for each year, and that would be a waste of time. Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 21:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. Adambro 22:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Delete This article violates WP:NOT. Wikipedia in NOT a directory. Mayank Abhishek 05:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per FrozenPurpleCube ffm ✎talk 13:26, 18 April 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. --Coredesat 00:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Combine[edit]

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

Fails web notability guidelines, reliable sources guidelines -- It is not notable and doesn't cite sources. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless sources can be added. Even links to some of the claimed academic articles would at least lead me to say provisional keep. FrozenPurpleCube 01:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced. It's an online game, by the way. I wonder why the nominator didn't mention that. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 01:25Z
• Delete. I see notability, but without valid reliable sources I've gotta vote delete. Goodnightmush^Talk 02:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but add sources - I am/was a developer for the game, I can confirm it and "source" it all myself, I can try and find online sources for some of the information as well though. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just so you know, you can't assert sources through personal knowledge. While that may allow you to know things, the rest of Wikipedia can't rely on you being who you say you are. Now you can certainly use that knowledge to know where to look for sources, in which case I'll change my opinion, so good luck! FrozenPurpleCube 06:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI He is who he says he is But you have to remember there isnt a lot of sites that even mention Browser based games much less reviews which is why it is hard to find third party sites regarding it. WillSWC 23:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unofficial fangame - if someone presents some decent sources, I would reconsider. --Fredrick day 10:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I'm a MMORPG player of an older game myself, but without any independent sources listed, let alone verifiable ones, this fails WP:V and WP:WEB with flying colors.  RGTraynor  13:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unsourced -- Whpq 15:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With sources (which it now has) is a fair article. --St.daniel ^talk 17:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The sources listed are self-referential, two of which are from the game's own website. Are there any reliable, independent, third-party, published sources?  RGTraynor  17:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Such as...Not many sites do reviews of Online games much Browser Based games. WillSWC 22:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Many sites do reviews of online games, especially browser based games, well, many is subjective but there are quite a few if you're willing to look. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: People will look at the article before voicing their opinion, simply saying you've added sources won't work unless you actually add them. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all the other deletes. Acalamari 20:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all others, especially RGT. Lemonsawdust 21:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the mere fact that it is a Star Wars video game makes it notable, it fails notability. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just because its a unofficial game doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an article. Give me 5 days and I'll work on it and bring it up to Wikipedia standards. WillSWC 22:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I've found the following 5 Links relateing to the Star Wars Combine which, while not the greatest are "independent, third-party, published", http://www.mpogd.com/games/game.asp?ID=50 http://apexwebgaming.com/profile/162/Star-Wars-Combine http://www.omgn.com/gamesdirectory.php?Item_ID=872 http://top50.onrpg.com/index.php?a=stats&u=1000 http://www.games-academy.de/IGDA/tabelle.php?hauptteil=summaryreports WillSWC 23:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Not according to WP:V. The first one is a bare general information list on one of the thousands of game rating webpages, where the "Review" and "Rating" boxes are blank. The second is the same, likewise with a blank Rating box, where the last update was nearly two years ago. The third is likewise two year old ad copy, with the Recent Review box blank. The fourth is a one paragraph ad copy, with a review of "growing game... and its going good. i wil advice u to take this game." The final one is a series of meeting reports from a Berlin game designers' club, at which one meeting in March 2006 discussed this game. These sources are not reliable sources as Wikipedia defines them. Anything from the mainstream media? Anything in a book? Anything in Computer Gaming World, Electronic Gaming Monthly, PC Gaming or the like?  RGTraynor  23:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Err...Since when has any of those listed Magazines ever Reviewed a Browser Based Game? If they ever have I sure havent heard of them. They do MMORPG games, yes but you have to relize that a Browser Based game of any kind is not often if ever mentioned in main stream media even if its as large as a game such as Gaia Online. WillSWC 05:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: How about it being on the Bobby Blackwolf Show, a podcast from All Games Radio? http://www.swcombine.com/technical/about/Bobby%20Blackwolf%20Interview.mp3 See the bottom link for the .mp3 (I didnt link directly to the mp3 since it takes a while to load and would kill Dial-up.) WillSWC 16:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urge you to read the relevant policies governing sources at WP:V and WP:RS, which would clear up your questions. That being said:

• "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

• "In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight."

• "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

Blogs, bulletin board reviews and podcasts are not published.  RGTraynor  16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Well I'm not going to waste any more of my time argueing with you. Its obvious you don't understand that a Browser Based game rarely if ever warrants printed sources. Simply because somethings not in Game Informer doesnt mean its not worthey of an article. I am tired of perfectly good articles being removed. WillSWC 17:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether browser-based games warrant printed sources or not is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that Wikipedia articles are required to satisfy WP:V. If indeed the outside world takes little notice of most browser-based games, as seems to be the case here, then the obvious conclusion is that such games generally aren't noteworthy enough to merit Wikipedia articles.  RGTraynor  17:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: AFDs last for five days so you still have approximately three days to add those sources. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 02:07, 19 April 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. --Coredesat 00:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PBBG[edit]

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

Classic WP:NEO. None of the sources provided are secondary sources independent of the community striving to coin the term. The article is open about this site proposing the term and its operator apparently created this article. This page, which promises "free advertising" to sites that use the PBBG term in their <title> tags and hints that registering "PBBG-related domain names" is a good idea, suggests that the Google test should be used with caution. -SpuriousQ (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a neologism. Ask me again once it makes it into the Oxford English Dictionary. Actually, you don't have to wait that long. Ask me when pink elephants fly. :) YechielMan 02:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joking: can it be carried by birds? :) Nihiltres 14:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I'd settle for an article in a reliable source on the concept. That could happen soon, or it could not. At the moment, this is promotional. --Dhartung | Talk 06:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unusual to see a neologism that's almost spamworthy. --Dweller 13:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism that almost smacks of WP:NFT and certainly dings WP:COI. "The term PBBG was proposed in early January 2007 on http://www.pbbg.com and is being gradually adopted by the gaming community" Translation: we made this up and we really hope others use it so we can make some money. NB: this is the sole Wiki contribution of the article's creator.  RGTraynor  13:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this certainly seems to violate WP:NEO, WP:COI as per RGTraynor, and possibly WP:NOR. Nihiltres 14:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Badly-disguised spam. Realkyhick 18:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam, and per everyone else. Acalamari 20:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a whale of a tall tale. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 02:00Z

Iqaluit Whales[edit]

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

Article is about a supposed National Hockey League team that won a Stanley Cup and is only three years old, but no indications to support this team actually exists (thus, this is a hoax). Contested prod. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per nom. Lemonsawdust 01:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete complete WP:BOLLOCKS. 75 foot goaltender named Big Whale? -SpuriousQ (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 02:13Z

Stuck Family[edit]

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

An unsourced, non-notable, vanity page. WP:NOT#MYSPACE ConfuciusOrnis 01:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per the nom. Indisputably is what Wikipedia is not. Should be a speedy db-bio/group, really. Goodnightmush^Talk 02:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, created by WP:SPA (GladiGator (talk · contribs), likely WP:COI. Point of article seems to be one particular family, disguised as a genealogical entry, which is also something Wikipedia is not. --Dhartung | Talk 02:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as copyright violation. Mostly copied from this and this. —Celithemis 02:13, 17 April 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 in English. --Coredesat 00:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comic book names in Finnish[edit]

Comic book names in Finnish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT Indiscriminate information. There's little encyclopedic value to listing foreign language translations like this. What next? Simpsons characters in Portuguese? Steven Spielberg film titles in Greek? This would have a place on the Finnish Wikipedia, but not here. Saikokira 01:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- -- Ben 04:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if you want to know the name of a comic in Finnish, go to the article here and look at the interwikilink. This is the English language Wikipedia. Fram 09:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As above, interwiki is sufficient, an all-inclusive Original language names of comics might make sense, but not this. MURGH ^disc. 12:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Really, this one is a no brainer. Why Finnish? Why comics? What context? Where is it sourced? Why in the blue hell do we need it? --Cyrus Andiron 15:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. You've gotta be kidding. Realkyhick 18:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If you kept it, "Star Wars characters in Papiamento" would be notable too. Virtual Cowboy 19:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an indiscriminate list of information. Acalamari 20:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as all above. Although lists of fictious characters in various languages could be informative, they don't belong here. — JyriL ^talk 21:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overbroad in inclusion, and likely unencyclopedic; This sort of stuff seems to work rarely. If you have to do it, cover it in the articles of the characters themselves, or possibly appropriately chopped up in Finnish Wikipedia. (For a good example of how this is done, see Asterix#Comparison of names of major characters; you compare and explain the French (original) and English translations (since this is the English Wikipedia).) You should cover the differing character names only when they're somehow remarkable anyway. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 06:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no good reason to keep it and sets a silly precedent. Incidentally, a good example of this sort of thing done well is at Lord Voldemort. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Poistaa, as per nom.Peeper 10:54, 19 April 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 The Larry Sanders Show. fishhead64 00:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards won by The Larry Sanders Show[edit]

List of awards won by The Larry Sanders Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Ironically, should be called "List of awards lost by The Larry Sanders Show", and as such, the actual awards won (all 10 of them) should be included in the show's main article. This just seems to be an attempt to replicate the IMDb page for this. Great show though, should have won a lot more. Saikokira 00:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. Info belongs in main article.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 02:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Info belongs in the main article RogueNinja_talk 02:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to main article -- Whpq 15:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Condense heavily and merge. Hey now! You can squeeze the nominations down quite a bit by getting rid of the tables. Realkyhick 18:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to main article. Also condense. Lemonsawdust 21:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above to main article. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - info would overwhelm the main article, which needs expansion besides awards. - Peregrine Fisher 22:42, 19 April 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 (marginal keep). fishhead64 00:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Side Dave[edit]

East Side Dave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This biography has no sources and contains derogatory personal information - "...notable for his...notorious boasts, alcoholism, and outlandish claims". The subject is a non-notable radio show character/associate producer. Will Beback · † · 01:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No assertion of notability, no sources.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 02:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:V, WP:BIO. For all the assertions, this fellow has only a hundred Ghits [1], which is a startlingly low total for a purported major radio personality. Just plain no evidence of notability.  Ravenswing  13:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Many statements were made on air on the XM program and are difficult to document, although they can be cited to be direct quotes from the broadcast, personally I've heard verification of all but the hot dog vendor background information. I have added some cites to the entry to confirm the most outlandish claims and more are forthcoming. Noderose 17:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm afraid that statements made on the air don't qualify as "independent" sources with proven fact-checking. If no reliable, independent, published sources are available, then this fellow just doesn't clear the verification and notability bars.  Ravenswing  17:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:BIO, not notable. Realkyhick 19:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think the article needs major cleanup, and probably should be brought down to a paragraph or two (removing all the comedy bits and show humor). But he is a producer & on air talent of a notable radio show (XM & FreeFM). --Bill.matthews 19:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we find a source or two which establish that this person is notable? He's not a star of the show. -Will Beback · † · 19:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, he's not the star, but I would say he has a 'significant role' in the radio show, and even a 'a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.' (per [WP:BIO]] Special Cases: Entertainers) --Bill.matthews 19:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good. If he has a significant cult following then we should be able to document it. -Will Beback · † · 19:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you want documentation, the closest I can think of off of the top of my head is one of the multitude of websites. I would list them but I'm not sure that that would be allowed. Suffice it to say that a Google search of either "Ron and Fez" or "Opie and Anthony" should produce more than enough results. There are three or four major websites devoted to the show, as well as five or six other minor/B-Level sites. If it would be allowed to name the websites for the purposes of research and confirmation, please let me know. DestradoZero 18:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • As for confirmation of his cult following, if there was a way to find out how many people have Dave Identification Cards, that would probably suffice. It amounts to a fan club specifically for Dave. I don't know where you'd find out the number but fans often identify with their Dave ID Card number when calling the show. Noderose 21:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • There are certainly ghits for the show, but there aren't many ghits for the radio personality named "East Side Dave". [2] Numeorus mentions in a fan forum don't establish notability. -Will Beback · † · 22:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like just a guy doing his job. Just because his job is on the radio, doesn't make him notable. It does not look like he has done anything that a million other radio sidekicks have done. - BierHerr 02:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Like certain radio shows, he is one of the on-air personalities as well as simply being a producer. He has been integral to quite a few of Ron and Fez's ongoing bits. If you listen to the show, you know who he is simply because he takes part in SO MUCH of the show. He isn't a sidekick/producer in the manner of the majority of radio talk shows. He should be kept because of his prominence within the show, without a doubt. DestradoZero 18:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Indrian 06:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• done anything that a million other radio sidekicks have done. - BierHerr 02:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DestradoZero --Whackbagger 20:38, 21 April 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. Wikipedia not being paper isn't really an argument to keep an article, and there has to be some other reason. I can't see any such reason being provided here. --Coredesat 00:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of guest stars on The Flip Wilson Show[edit]

List of guest stars on The Flip Wilson Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT Wikipedia articles are not lists of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons. This is a list of loosely associated people, the only association being that they all appeared on The Flip Wilson Show at some point in their lives. No context or information either, just names. This was previously nominated for deletion over a year ago and the result was no consensus, although opinion was 2:1 for deleting it. Saikokira 01:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom RogueNinja_talk 01:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we should take up whether guest appearances lists are notable at one fell swoop; this will get deleted then someone will nominate the endearing List of guest stars on The Simpsons and it'll be kept, proving what? That the list of The Simpsons is encyclopedic while Flip Wilson isn't? That Wikipedia is biased against African Americans? That Wikipedia cannot be taken seriously? Maybe all of those and maybe they are true... Here are a few others I have found: List of celebrity guest stars on Sesame Street, List of The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series) guest stars, List of The Late Late Show guests, List of guest stars on Friends, Recurring Angel guest stars, List of Smallville guest stars, List of Smallville guest stars, List of guest stars on Ellen, List of Andy Griffith Show guest stars, List of guest stars on The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour, List of notable guest stars on M*A*S*H, List of guest stars on The Love Boat, List of guest stars on Will & Grace, List of Chappelle's Show guest stars, List of Family Guy Guest Stars, Guest stars of Class of the Titans, List of guest stars of ER (TV series), a few others exist as redirects to the show's article or a list of all actors in the show. Let's do this consistently. Carlossuarez46 02:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That Wikipedia is biased against African Americans? That Wikipedia cannot be taken seriously? Maybe all of those and maybe they are true." With ridiculous and offensive comments like that it's obvious you can't be taken seriously, so I'm not even going to dignify it with a response. You want to have a discussion on policy, do it somewhere else. And see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS while you're gone. Saikokira 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused about the point Carlossuarez46 is trying to make. He is not arguing to keep this article because of the existence of these other articles. Rather, he is arguing that the result of this AfD ought to apply to these other similar lists, and that a failure to be consistent in this regard reflects badly on Wikipedia. I think it's a worthwhile point. --Maxamegalon2000 05:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I can't figure for the life of me what Mr. Suarez said to provoke such a hostile reaction. I agree with the nomination, but I'm sure we can disagree in a civil manner.  RGTraynor  14:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I placed his comments in italics, so it should have been clear what I found offensive. He suggested that deleting this article but keeping The Simpsons list would show that Wikipedia is "biased against African Americans". That is ridiculous and offensive, sorry if I sounded hostile for pointing it out. I try to be civil, but I have no patience for people who play the "race card". Also, if you look at Carlossuarez46's comments in other similar afds, his opinion on these lists is most definitely that they should be kept, so even though it might not be apparent that's what his intention is here, I have no reason to think his opinion has suddenly changed. Saikokira 02:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom, fails WP:NOT.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 02:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely indiscriminate list. In addition, as this is without any context of the guest appearances, it's pretty meaningless. Ohconfucius 08:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, listcruft. (I tend to agree that the other guest lists should go, too.) Realkyhick 19:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ffm ✎talk 13:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 12:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, WP:NOT#PAPER, but mostly becuase it could be improved. - Peregrine Fisher 22:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, WP:NOT#PAPER, and per precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NOT/WP:LIST. I doubt this is ever going to be improved, or that would have happened in the 12 months since it was last AFD'd. Masaruemoto 05:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Indescriminate list. Indrian 06:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A good example of what a list shouldn't be like. Pufnstuf 23:07, 21 April 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 Withdrawn by nominator. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC) (non-admin closure).[reply]

Infor Global Solutions[edit]

Infor Global Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

CSD G11, but contested by User:Pdelongchamp Withdrawn. The rewrite of the article is good enough for now RogueNinja_talk 02:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Spam for a NN company. TJ Spyke 02:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No longer reads like an advertisement. TJ Spyke 18:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has adequate referencees. "With a revenue of $2.1 billion and over 8100 employees it is the 10th largest software company in the world" is a good assertion of notability. --Eastmain 02:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Adequate sources. Largest private software company in the world, 10th largest software company, 3rd largest business applications provider behind SAP and Oracle.Pdelongchamp 02:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously notable from the article and adequately sourced, Was outrageously full of linkspam, but i just removed it all.DGG 05:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets notability requirements of WP:CORP. A couple of the provided sources are obvious press releases and don't serve to meet the notability standards, but the canada.com, System iNetwork and eWeek.com sources appear to be independent. Neil916 (Talk) 05:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. Nom seems confused as to the particulars of G11. It does not, as some would have it, prohibit articles about companies; it only prohibits corporate articles that "exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person ..." As it happens, the article peddles no products.  RGTraynor  14:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - Well referenced, my citation request was fulfilled quickly.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 15:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The rewrite did the trick. Realkyhick 19:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per everyone else. Acalamari 20:41, 17 April 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. --Coredesat 00:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thrall road[edit]

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

Road of micronotability. The small claims made are the only things which made me bring this here rather than prodding it - hopefully someone who knows the area will be able to confirm or deny the road's relevance in the grand scheme of things. Grutness...wha? 02:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom, not notable.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 02:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Acalamari 02:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The notability is not for the road itself, but for an event that happened there. The event itself was of marginal notability, so the article should go. YechielMan 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Made famous? In what context? Was the movie actually about this road? Filmed on this road? The reader is left to wonder what kind of tenuous connection exists between this movie and Thunder Road. No established notability. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 15:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree totally with YechielMan. Realkyhick 19:05, 17 April 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); article was totally rewritten after nomination. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 11:01Z

Captain Cutaneum[edit]

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

Article is not notable, poorly written and unverefied. I tried to speedy it, but it was contested. I withdraw my nomination, as long as the article is not kept in the current garbage form. RogueNinja_talk 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I've updated it; give it a look. --Charlene 04:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would have speedied it as CSD A7. YechielMan 03:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh boy. I assumed it was some kind of hoax. I googled. He really does exist - he's some kind of public safety character in the Phoenix area, and he's played by a reputable dermatologist. We have reliable sources ([3] and [4], as well as [5] - don't know if a Publishers Weekly blog is a RS), but the article needs to be rewritten. But before I do it, does he pass - well, I'm not even sure what policy this would fall under. --Charlene 03:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep 1 hit in Factiva hinted at notability and sure enough, Google confirmes it: [6], [7], [8], and [9] (same as the Factiva article) are all independent detailed write-ups of this cartoon character. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 03:30Z

Comment In that case, delete as advertisement RogueNinja_talk 03:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hold on: I'm writing a new, NPOV, substantiated article based on Google results. The original article isn't an ad per se, though: it's just a bunch of very sensible skin care tips that don't really belong under this article heading. --Charlene 03:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is notable, then the solution to poorly written prose is to rewrite, not delete. I've stubbed the article to remove the tips, will add the references later because I need to go afk now. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 03:38Z

I'm rewriting it; no need to. By the way, he's mentioned not just in local newspapers but also as the sole subject of a major article in one of the world's most important dermatology journals. That's notable, so I vote Strong keep. --Charlene 04:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup, looks like this guy is in fact notable as per the plentiful reliable sources cited above. Krimpet (talk/review) 04:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, I'm new to this. Presidentlines 04:28, 17 April 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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanocentrism[edit]

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

Original research. Works cited in the reference section are mostly on generic Japanese hitory and/or Japanese nationalism and none of them studies such a concept as "Japanocentrism." There are already articles on Japanese nationalism and Japanese fascism. --Saintjust 02:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is a neologism/protologism, and as constituted might violate WP:SOAP. I also agree that the intended topic is covered through the established topics and articles Japanese nationalism and Nihonjinron. On the other hand, Bhumiya finds lots of holes in our coverage of topics, so I'd like to hear about why he created the article. It's remained mostly unchanged since he introduced it in 2005. Dekimasuよ! 05:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The title is not a protologism. I've found quite a few occurrences of it in books, such as ISBN 0415297907, which covers various aspects of Japanocentrism on pages 91, 123–124, and 193–195, for example. That, and the various scholarly papers on the subject, such as this, convince me that there is a proper documented concept here, that is linked in the literature to other concepts such as Mingei and sakoku. (ISBN 0521003628 discusses the Japanocentrism of the idea that the History of Japan has "an open/closed rhythm", in that it ignores the existence of similar phenomena in Korea and in China, on page 9, for example.) Whilst the article content strays from what is actually supported by the literature that I can find, that is a problem that can be solved by ordinary editors doing ordinary editing, with the aforementioned sources (and others) in hand. Administrator intervention is not required. Keep. Uncle G 08:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Japanese Modernisation and Mingei Theory that you possibly found in google book search only describes the multicultural aspect of Japan's Oriental Orientalism (the very subject of the book) being "Janpanocentric" because while Oriental Orientalism embraces cultural diversity within the Orient it also assumes that the core culture of the Orient is Japanese. "Janpanocentric" here is just an expression the author used (like many other xxxx-centrism) and is not a fullfledged concept on its own, and naturally has got nothing to do with the content of this Wikipedia article. --Saintjust 09:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • False. It has quite a lot to do with the content of this article. For example: What the book says about Japanocentrism on page 91 covers much the same territory as is covered in the article's "Early forms" section. That you think that it's "just an expression that the author used" is belied by what the author xyrself thinks, which is clearly implied by xyr inclusion of Japanocentrism as a subject in the book's index. Uncle G 10:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are about 150 Google hits; perhaps I shouldn't have called it a protologism, though I'm still not convinced it isn't a neologism. The 2005 IJAS paper that you cite does use the term, but based on the abstract, the topic appears to be nihonjinron and its historiography. I'm still unconvinced that the article is on an independent topic. I did leave a note for Bhumiya, by the way. Dekimasuよ! 09:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Counting Google hits is not research. As for the paper, the topic really is Japanocentrism, as demonstrated both by its title and the (second) paper that it introduces, which discusses the adaptation of Sinocentrism into Japanocentrism. Uncle G 10:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at the constitution of the individual Google hits failed to convince me that this is a separate topic. The fact that there are few hits is one that we can consider in judging whether the term is a neologism, even if that evidence is not all-encompassing. Dekimasuよ! 01:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but I recognize that pages of this sort are somewhat subjective and difficult to assess, and while I can assure you that none of what I wrote is original research, much of it is scantly if not uniquely documented. I created this expecting that it would be heavily modified and probably provoke lots of argument, which is a good thing. My chief intention, in creating such a provisional page, was to separate the phenomenon of Japanese ethnic chauvinism from the discipline of Nihonjinron, which I would consider a different matter - related, but unambiguously different, just as, say Democracy in America is different from American exceptionalism. If we were to merge the contents of this page with Nihonjinron, I think it would simply reflect our negative response to Nihonjinron. And I suspect that if we delete this page, it will eventually have to be recreated, since it is undeniable that Japanocentrism exists, and that it is a more general concept than Nihonjinron. Bhumiya (said/done) 14:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the contents of this page were intended to be provisional. My main intention was simply to create an article for Japanocentrism that was separate from Nihonjinron. I am not a Japanese scholar, and was even less of one in 2005, so just about everything on the page is derivative from the sources, which seem sound. My main concern in this discussion is not to preserve my contributions to this page, but to preserve the essential distinction between Japanocentrism and Nihonjinron. Bhumiya (said/done) 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt Violates WP:SOAP;Topic already covered in Japanee nationalism and other related articles. mcr616 _Speak! 17:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't aware that that article was so extensive. I would support such a merge. Bhumiya (said/done) 20:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect to Japanese Nationalism Problem arise from the problem is that every nations, no matter how big or small, want themselves to be the center of the world; it's just how they did and the end results from that that actually matters. However, those are already more or less covered in Japanese nationalism. George Leung 01:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Origional reserach--Sefringle 04:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've checked the number used with google. It seems a jargon used mainly in a few boards. Poo-T 04:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counting Google hits is not research. Research involves reading what Google turns up. It also involves reading cited sources, such as the books and scholarly journal articles that discuss this subject that are mentioned above. Uncle G 12:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's an unsubstantial term. Tropicaljet 07:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the popularity of the term "Japanocentrism" is irrelevant, this phenomenon definitely exists and should be documented. --Candy-Panda 13:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it isn't an original research, please cite some examples of it. Tropicaljet 14:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we've already noted other articles in which this phenomenon is documented. The creator also has said he supports a merge to Japanese nationalism. Dekimasuよ! 10:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research.Watermint 09:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a original research. --Azukimonaka 14:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or possibly Merge with "Nihonjinron" or whatever approriate article. This article seems very redundant, although I too would be interested in what Bhumiya has to say about it. Mackan 16:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate article (Japanese nationalism maybe?). Mackan 16:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Japanese nationalism, on balance. I'm not a Japanese scholar but I support Dekimasu's assessment. For what it's worth, I don't consider this personal research, but considering the scope of our Japanese nationalism article, this page can only be seen as redundant. Bhumiya (said/done) 17:48, 20 April 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 consensus. fishhead64 00:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HAL 9000 in popular culture[edit]

HAL 9000 in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another indiscriminate "pop culture" spinoff article chock full of even the most fleeting references to the HAL 9000, the song "Daisy Bell," or even the name "Hal" being used in any vaguely science-y context for that matter. Chock full of speculation and OR, and a prime example of what what Wikipedia is not. Krimpet (talk/review) 02:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 02:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We really ought to have a centralized policy on these damn things. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What we need is somewhere to put it all. Wikimedia should make a useless-trivia wiki so we can transwiki it all there. Until then, this can definitely be of interests to some people, so I'll give it a weak keep. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A centralized policy is a good thing. So much debate both in afd and edit-wars over issues such as these. On this particular article I say a clear delete. The list is totally unmaintainable, and an indiscriminate collection of information. An article in prose form about the general impact of Hal could be acceptable, a long list of random examples is not. Dr bab 12:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Arctic.gnome. The article-subarticle-delete cycle is crazy. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced. If articles stay unsourced and indiscriminate, then the only place for them is C:\My Documents or /home/user/mydocuments or what have you, not here. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 09:27Z
• Merge to HAL 9000 --Dweller 13:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Let's leave aside the unsourced element, which is bad enough, but this article is crammed with speculation and assumptions, and as nom correctly points out the author/s have declared dozens of SF/media references as having to do with HAL9000 without a scrap of evidence being proffered. What's next, the original Cylons being cited because, well, they're hostile machine intelligences with red eyes?  RGTraynor  14:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to back to HAL 9000. HAL 9000 itself exists only in popular culture, so a separate article about its appearances in popular culture is redundant. FWIW, the claim that many entries are "unreferenced" is also implausible. Most items simply describe allusions in other works, and are quite easily confirmed by consulting them. Entries like that are self-referencing and non-analytic; they need no further citations. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as arbitrary and unsourced list.-- danntm ^T _C 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm sorry Dave, but I'm afraid we can't quite have this article. Some of this stuff is a bit dubious at best. The rest can be kept at the main Hal 9000 article. Assuming it can be verified that is. FrozenPurpleCube 19:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and do not merge at least as a list. I strongly oppose "In popular culture" sections in articles. However, HAL 9000 itself is a part of popular culture and a pop icon of sorts, a section should be devoted to this.— JyriL ^talk 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this article is terrible. Not only is it totally unreferenced - which, in and of itself, is a reason for deletion per WP:ATT - but it's not even an encyclopedic article. I've brought this up again, and again - this is an encyclopedia not a list of trivia. If you are going to have an "in popular culture" article about a topic, it needs to about about the topic in popular culture - this means having sources. This means discussing the impact of the character on the popular culture, with references and examples. This does not means that we should take every single passing reference, throw away joke, mention, name that sounds like, random insertion and put it in an article. This is an encyclopedia not a list of places where something occurs. I mean, look at some of these: Kingdom of Loathing has a red eye item dropped by a robot creature? A computer controlled player has the name HAL 9001? A game mentions something being run by a computer called HAL 9000? Are these really non-trivial references to HAL 9000? If so, then why haven't we had the good sense to put them into an actual article, rather than an unsourced and ridiculous pile of trivia. These articles are the worst part of Wikipedia, and we need to clean them up post-haste. --Haemo
• Delete. Isn't there a 2001: A Space Odyssey in popula culture article as well? Pufnstuf 23:05, 21 April 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 move to domino tiling and redirect to 10000000. John Reaves (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12988816 (number)[edit]

12988816 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

In general, we don't have articles on large numbers such as this. There is no canonical reason for choosing an 8x8 board - why not a 9x9 or 10x10 board? Content should be merged into more appropriate articles, as this is not the location for it. CMummert · talk 02:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with nomination's reasoning. Merge as a paragraph into Pfaffian#Applications and then delete. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 03:17Z
• Delete and/or redirect: fails WP:NUMBER, point 3. MER-C 04:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If I understand correctly, merge and delete isn't an option under the GFDL. That leaves us with the alternative of redirecting 12988816 (number) to Pfaffian, which seems a bit odd ... cab 05:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could move the page to somewhere like Talk:Pfaffian/12988816 (number) and make it a redirect to Pfaffian, then link to the redirect in the AfD talk page banner; this would delete the article and still retain its history somewhere. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 08:56Z
  • Yes, there is nothing in the GFDL that prevents deleting unnecessary redirects. The closing guide for admins explains the recommended practice, which the previous comment summarizes. I don't know where this urban legend began, but this is not the first time I have run into it. CMummert · talk 11:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think numbers like these (with distinct properties) should be included in Wikipedia. This is because it is of some interest to mathematicians. Robinson weijman 10:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable in the field of combinatorics. The article is adequately referenced and not OR. -- Mikeblas 12:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone else pointed out, this does not seem to meet the notability requirements of WP:NUMBER or the informal requirements of Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers. CMummert · talk 12:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep

I submit that this article is notable and should be included in Wikipedia for a number of reasons:

• • 1. There is no other article concerning the number 12988816 (known to me).
  • 2. This article is genuinely useful for reference purposes.

By this, I mean the article "12988816" to be used more as a reference from another Wikipedia article than simply as an article one might look up directly (as a search).

I would normally come to the conclusion that the number (and information concerning it) should simply be added as additional information to a more general article in (the article, in this case, is probably the article on the Pfaffian method).

However, I had occasion to actually look up "12988816" (in an attempt to find out more information on the number), so, it seemed reasonable to assume that if I searched for the number, then it would be very likely that there would be someone else who might do the same.

The number of edits of the article itself demonstrates that there is interest in this number. Note that the article has existed for a relatively short period of time and that it is in this short period of time that the relatively large number of edits took place.

• • 3. There are many articles similar to this one, which are also useful for reference.

For a typical example, the article for the number 495 may be viewed. My point here is not to say simply "there are other articles like this one", but to make the point that it is as useful for reference as some other articles.

• • 4. Professor Michael E. Fisher is an excellent, notable scientist and is a recipient of the Wolf Prize, the Boltzmann Medal and the Lars Onsager prize.

Some of this article concerns some of his work.

I reviewed the Wikipedia article on the notability of numbers. One quote from the article is the following:

"...highly composite numbers are notable enough to get their own article since they were studied by Paul Erdős"

It is understood from this statement that a number can be considered notable in Wikipedia by association with a notable person. While I don't really agree with this rationale, if I am to go by it, then an article for the number 12988816 is justified by the number's association with not one, but three notable people (one of which has a Wikipedia article etc).

• • 5. The Pfaffian calculation method mentioned in the article is a very useful one, applicable to a very wide range of subjects.

The article offers appropriate references to more comprehensive articles.

• • 6. The number 12988816 is the answer to a very common example problem designed for solution by the Pfaffian method.

With regards to the comment made above by CMummert "why not a 9x9 or 10x10 board?", an 8-by-8 board is of considerable notability as a Chessboard.

I honestly think that the addition of this article can only help make Wikipedia more useful and that the benefits of having the article outweigh the drawbacks. Further, the article itself could be used as the location to place more information on the number (existing information and information yet to be discovered).

ZICO 14:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Numbers with notable properties should be included in Wikipedia. I don't think anyone disagrees with this. I think the article should be kept because it is in relation to a commonly used mathematical method. The chessboard/domino question is often used to describe the pfaffian calculation method. The number itself is of interest to mathematicians. I searched for 12988816 after looking at the question, to see if it had any interesting properties. Containment 15:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC) — Containment (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Mathematicians and physicists like Okounkov and Fisher find it interesting. I've added a few more categories to show how interesting it is. I've also created the following magic square (of composite numbers) that has digital root of 7 for both its magic constant and itself just to show how interesting this number really is:

12	98	88	16
46	42	52	74
66	56	64	28
90	18	10	96

Giftlite 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Domino tiling, delete the old name, and give it some real content. It's a sufficiently sourcable topic to be encyclopedic, but as it is now it fails WP:NUMBER. —David Eppstein 16:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still rename, but make this title redirect to 10000000 per Septentrionalis —David Eppstein 17:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. That it superficially appears to be only about an unimportant problem about tiling a chessboard with dominoes may disguise the fact that it's notable because it illustrates the mathematical method, which could be applicable in scientific problems. Michael Hardy 16:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the method is worth covering, but there is another article for the method. Pfaffian#Applications would be a more logical place for this example. WikiProject Numbers (before it was defunct) thought that a specific number needs about three independent notable properties before it merits an article. CMummert · talk 16:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per David Eppstein, and reaim the redirect to 10000000, which should have a line on this number - and does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Generic number. Wikipedia has fallen pretty far if we keep an article that informs the reader "12988816 is the natural number following 12988815 and preceding 12988817." Lots of things similar to this could be said of any large number. Edison 19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regards to the comment made by Edison above, I refer to the article on the number 9. It is a standard opening to a number's article to have something similar to the following: "9 (nine) is the natural number following 8 and preceding 10", thus, the article on 12988816 is completely in line with common Wikipedia practice in stating "12988816 is the natural number following 12988815 and preceding 12988817".
  • With regards to the comment made by CMummert above ("WikiProject Numbers....thought that a specific number needs about three independent notable properties before it merits an article"), it should be noted that the number 12988815 does have at least three independent notable properties, namely the following:

1. It is the number of possible ways of tiling a standard chessboard/checkerboard with 32 dominoes.

2. It is a square number.

3. It is an 8-digit number that has a sequence of three 8s embedded in it, a pattern similar to a repdigit.

In my opinion, point 3 might be stretching the idea a little, but it is a valid point.

ZICO 19:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZICO, someone just deleted "point 3", the repdigit property. I think this is similar to "tampering with evidence." :) Giftlite 22:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it was a weak point anyway... ZICO 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per above. Clearly there are some demonstrable items of interest to this number. It's not randomly plucked out of the ether, it's worthy of note. We have Avogadro's number and many other articles about things that are, to oversimplify for the sake of brevity, "just numbers." For all the reasons pointed out above, I have to believe that this article is genuinely worthy of inclusion. Lemonsawdust 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Sufficiently interesting and distinctive enough to have it's own page. — RJH (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments.
  • So far, there's really only one distinguishing property: this is the number of tilings of an 8-by-8 board with dominos. If we were to relax standards and have articles on every perfect square and every number with a repeated digit, we would have a large number of articles indeed.

The comment "large number of articles" would be an understatement. The number's main known distinguishing property is, indeed, that it is the number of possible tilings of an 8-by-8 board with dominos. ZICO 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Several people have suggested that there are adequate references for the article (or that a number of authors have found this number interesting enough to study). But where are the references to articles or books about this number specifically? (And not indirectly through some other subject.) If we want an article about the sequence [10] of the number of domino tilings of 2n-by-2n squares, then we want an article about the sequence -- not a single entry in the sequence. Several users above have suggested exactly this.

There is a reference to an article in a book specifically about the number 12988816: The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, revised ed., 1997, ISBN 0-14-026149-4, David Wells, p.182. ZICO 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call that an article. Most entries in that book are just a couple of lines. I don't have the book here so I can't check the 12988816 entry, and some entries are a bit longer, but I doubt it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • That the Pfaffian method can be applied to compute this number -- or numbers in this sequence -- should be mentioned in the article about that method. If the article about 12988816 survives, then this tidbit should be moved there; if the article about 12988816 morphs into an article about the sequence, then it should simply be copied (and kept). Also, that the Pfaffian method is useful is a point in favor of keeping the Pfaffian article, not this one.
  • ZICO said, "However, I had occasion to actually look up "12988816"". What was the occasion? (Specific to 12988816?)

The occasion was when I came across the "domino tiling a chessboard" problem. I saw that the solution to the problem was the number 12988816. I looked up this number in order to see if there was further information on either it or the problem. I made the point earlier that if I looked up the number specifically, then it would be very likely that someone else would do the same. ZICO 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The comparison to the article on 495 isn't particularly apt. The guidelines say that articles must stand on their own; that there's another article like it isn't a reason to keep the article. (If someone can come up with a wikilink for this guideline, it'd be appreciated. I can't recall it off-hand.) The comparison to Avogadro's number isn't particularly great either; that number finds wide use in physics in chemistry. The number 12988816 doesn't.

My point was not that the article for the number 12988816 was similar to another article, but that it was as useful for reference as the other article (...when should someone specifically look up the number 495?). ZICO 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to Avogadro's number, it is simply a defined number. There is nothing particularly interesting about the number itself but it is, as you say, very useful in the Sciences. Avogadro's number would be different if we used a different system of natural units. My point here is that Avogadro's number warrants (and rightly so) an article not due specifically to anything interesting in the number. The number 12988816 has at least one interesting property in that it is square (the other repunit point is pretty superfluous). ZICO 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lunch, the link is WP:WAX which expands to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?. But I'd argue against using the mysterious abbreviation WAX. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • If I had to vote, I'd lean towards creating an article on the sequence of which this number is a member (and redirecting this article there) or merging this article into one on tilings (domino tiling or polyomino tiling), on the Pfaffian method, or somewhere else appropriate. Lunch 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A 9x9 board has of course no domino tilings. Jheald 00:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The fact that an 8x8 board has 12988816 domino tilings seems to be notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia, but a whole article is too much. So I agree with David Eppstein and Septentrionalis: move the article to domino tiling and then redirect 12988816 (number) to 10000000. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with having the information surrounding the number 12988816 added to "Domino tiling", "Polymino tiling" or to "Pfaffian method", but I still think there should be an article devoted to the number 12988816 specifically. ZICO 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that there is not so much you can write about the number. "12988816 is the number of domino tilings of an 8x8 board" is pretty much everything. Okay, I'll be generous and say that we can add "it is also a square", but that doesn't make an article. The general formula for domino tilings on an n x n board does not belong in the article on 12988816. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable number. The sequence of numbers of domino tilings might be notable. However, there's no reason for an article with this name to exist. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect, but move content to domino tiling or something more suitable. -- Fropuff 01:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable number. There are infinity numbers, so notability has to be fairly extreme. Someguy1221 20:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Only because it has many properties that you would not find in many normal integers. Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 00:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "normal" or "usual" integer? Perhaps you've never heard G. H. Hardy's story about 1729. What standard would you use for inclusion? Lunch 15:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I note that this almost the only number of this magnitude in the integer category. I am not qualified to judge whether it is notable, but it should either remain as a number article or be deleted entirely. redirecting to another article seems inappropriate. Peterkingiron 16:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia not paper. Herostratus 17:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So would you have tens of millions of stubby articles on all the integers of this magnitude? What of the guideline "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection"? Lunch 18:05, 22 April 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. --Coredesat 01:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flowsense[edit]

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

Contested speedy A7. Neologism, fails WP:NEO. Per the last line of the article, it also fails WP:NFT, and by comparing the name mentioned therein with the username who authored it, it also fails WP:COI. YechielMan 03:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up while watching Ultimate Frisbee one day. janejellyroll 03:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO. The last line, "The term flowsense was coined by Jake "Frogger" Taylor while watching Harvard RedLine play at the Ultimate Players Association's College Nationals in 2006." says it all, especially since the article was penned by Froggerjake. Neil916 (Talk) 05:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Sheesh.  RGTraynor  14:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:NEO -- Whpq 16:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Just because someone contests a speedy doesn't mean an admin can't speedy-delete an obvious case anyway. This is pretty obvious, IMHO. Realkyhick 19:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, per all the above. Agree it should really be a speedy. Goodnightmush^Talk 20:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete nonsense and non-notable. Acalamari 20:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Neil916. -- LeCour^T:C 21:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Neologism. ffm ✎talk 13:30, 18 April 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. --Coredesat 01:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Walters[edit]

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

He's won some poetry slams and shared the stage with some notable artists, but I believe this subject fails WP:BIO. janejellyroll 03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:BIO in its current form: "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Aside from the article subject's myspace page, there are no independent sources provided. Neil916 (Talk) 06:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources listed, fails WP:BIO. --Cyrus Andiron 12:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and userfy ... and, as you can expect, this fails WP:COI, as this is the sole Wiki contribution of User:Joshua_Walters. A dedicated G-search turns up fewer than 70 relevant hits, most of them blogs, Myspace pages and certainly no reliable sources.  RGTraynor  14:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails to meet WP:BIO, no sources -- Whpq 16:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Self-promotion. Realkyhick 19:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO, and there is a violation of WP:COI here. Acalamari 20:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above ffm ✎talk 13:30, 18 April 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. --Coredesat 01:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Bowl[edit]

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

Non-Notable sports league Gorgeous Ferns 04:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely nn. Even calling this a "sports league" seems to be overstating the case. janejellyroll 09:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP is not for things made up in your back yard one day. -- Mikeblas 12:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete under CSD A7, a non notable group. --Cyrus Andiron 12:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree with deleting this as CSD A7 but yeah, it appears non-notable. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 13:56Z
• Strong Delete: Fails WP:V, WP:ORG, WP:NN, WP:NFT and definitely WP:BULLSHIT. Possibly WP:COI as well, as this article is the sole Wiki activity of the creator.  RGTraynor  14:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but not speedy delete. Not notable, -- Casmith_789 (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as a league made up in the park one day -- Whpq 16:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the topic is non-notable. Acalamari 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Truest blue 05:35, 20 April 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. --Coredesat 01:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Kucz[edit]

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

Nonnotable beauty pageant contestant, "now working as a dental hygienist." NawlinWiki 03:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In its current form, the article does not meet the notability standards of WP:BIO, no independent, reliable sources. Neil916 (Talk) 06:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - beauty contest contestant that did not win, and has no other notable accomplishments. -- Whpq 16:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Claims of international modelling seem dubious at best. A google search revealed a total of 8 results, so aside from the pageant entry no sources could be found. Most likely a vanity article creating clear conflict of interest problems, given User:Kkucz and User:Jshamilton have zero edits outside of this and the Miss World Canada articles. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 16:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. No sources, no verification. Realkyhick 19:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:V ffm ✎talk 13:31, 18 April 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. --Coredesat 01:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Officially Unofficial Survivor Elimination Game[edit]

Officially Unofficial Survivor Elimination Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:WEB. Zero non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 04:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:WEB, not notable, unsourced.... Flyguy649^talk_contribs 07:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unofficial indeed: a 700-member forum is a long, long way from notability. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, officially. Not notable. Realkyhick 19:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Acalamari 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom ffm ✎talk 13:31, 18 April 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, including the category. --Coredesat 01:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breeana (Bratz character)[edit]

Category:Bratz characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Breeana (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cloe (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dana (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Diona (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Felicia (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fianna (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jade (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Katia (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kiana (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kumi (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lana (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Leah (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maribel (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Meygan (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nevra (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nona (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Orianna (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Phoebe (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rina (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Roxxi (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sasha (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sharidan (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sierrna (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Trinity (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Valentina (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vinessa (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yasmin (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tiana (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tess (Brazt character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Krysta (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kiani (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lilani (Bratz charcter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sorya (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

You've got to be kidding: an entire walled garden on random non-notable Bratz doll cruft. And not just one article, check out Category:Bratz characters, all of which are also nominated (except the repost). Fails WP:CORP. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ciara (Bratz character). None of these articles have any sources whatsoever. Contested prod. MER-C 04:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters, but I've found a few more "articles", which weren't in Category:Bratz characters. They are now also included in the nomination. These are listed below. MER-C 06:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tiana (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tess (Brazt character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Krysta (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kiani (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lilani (Bratz charcter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sorya (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Comment At least two sources are mentioned on the Phoebe article: Bratz: Rock Angelz (video game) and bratz.com. No vote from me though. Garrie 04:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete As per nom. This is spam at it's worst. --ConfuciusOrnis 05:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. There is no reason every single doll requires its own article. Are reliable, significant third parties discussing these dolls individually? Not as far as I can tell. --Charlene 06:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete all per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Whilst Bratz may be notable, these are not. They vary in their hit-count from teens to upper hundreds, many are from commercial toy sites, or are otherwise trivial mentions in articles about Bratz in general. Ohconfucius 08:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:FICTION. -- Mikeblas 11:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List of Bratz characters. Like it or not, these are very popular with kids of a certain age range, outselling even Barbie. Per WP:FICT, a list is the best way to handle these. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - agree with Andrew Lenahan that WP:FICT is the most applicable guideline -- Whpq 16:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into a single list. They're notable enough to warrant a page on all of them together, though not individual articles. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 16:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Edison 19:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete all. Notable as a group, but not individually. Realkyhick 19:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all If there were 2 Bratz like Ken and Barbie we could keep, but the large number makes each individual one less notable. This all despite the fact that I think WP:ILIKEIT, just because they look kind of cute. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible delete oh Lord. JuJube 23:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:FICT. List already exists. --Alvestrand 13:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Super Strong Delete per nom, is a WP:WG and totaly non-notable. ffm ✎talk 13:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• ugh. DELETE. Cruft at its worst. Is this even referenced out of the manufacturer's website?? ~Crazytales 01:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with Extreme Pejudice. And I thought many TV shows suffered from fancruft. --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:02, 21 April 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. Mangojuice^talk 21:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonlance Timeline[edit]

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

This article was prodded [11] by Fram and unprodded [12] by David Shepheard. Three points were made in the prod which I'll elaborate on.

• Unsourced. Speaks for itself. An article of this sort clearly demands inlines, or at least a comprehensive source list at the bottom. Not a single reference, let alone inline, exists on the page.

I'm strongly against deletion for the following reasons:

• Unsourced - a lack of sources is reason for an article to be cleaned up - not deleted. The Wikiproject Dragonlance have already scheduled this article for clean up work. The article should be tagged with an more appropriate tag and they should be given time to add citations.

The lack of citations is glaring. To source everything in this would require extensive novel citing. You're more the welcome to try, but it's not gonna be a small undertaking. DoomsDay349 04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the citations need fixing. However, I'm not sure why citation can only be done via novels instead of the role playing books. The role playing books present information about Dragonlance in encyclopdic fashion, meaning that you could probably cite this entire article to the latest editon of the RPG. However, if you want information from novels (perhaps to show that multiple sources have been consulted) I think that the Dragonlance Lexicon on the highly respected Dragonlance Nexus website can help. This partially complete encyclopedia of Dragonlance is a work in progress and features many of the events from the Dragonlance timeline (it also gives accurate citations of the novels where information comes from).Big Mac 15:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Violation of plot summary. From WP:NOT, Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. Plot summaries are appropriate when discussing the work in which it appears; this article is a plot summary that exists for no other reason than a plot summary. I think that sums it up.

• Violation of plot summary. The last sentence mentioned by DoomsDay349 says: A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. and I believe the history of Krynn to be appropriate to the representation of Dragonlance on Wikipedia. However, I don't think that it warrants its own article. I think that this article should be proposed for merger with the Dragonlance article. That article just has a small section on the 4th Age which fails to explain the fictional history of the world of Krynn. It may need some additional pruning after the merger, but I'd rather see content repaired than thrown out.

The plot summary on the main Dragonlance article is still in the works; one man (and well, let's face facts on that) can only do so much. I'd like to see a better plot summary, of course, but a lot of this is very minor, borderline crufty information. Even to place this into the Dragonlance article is an unnecessarily long plot summary. The ideal overview of the Dragonlance plot summary would be the core novels only. DoomsDay349 04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Events before the novels form part of the fictional mythology of Krynn and some of these events form the back story for races and organisations in the novels and role playing game. (For example: "Magic Defending Itself" forms the back story of the Wizards of High Sorcery and the "Greygem" forms the back story of many of the altered races of Krynn. Dragonance is a role playing game as well as a series of novels and dismissing events that are not in the novels may stop readers getting an accurate picture of the game. I think that each of Krynn's 5 "Ages" needs some coverage, although they do not all necessarily need to be in the present form or include all of the events currently in the article.

As to your "one man" comments, I'll see if I can recruit some Dragonlance experts from the Dragonlance Forums.com. Some of the original authors and RPG designers hang out there and even if they can't edit articles they might be able to suggest sources to check. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Shepheard (talk • contribs) 16:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm just as active on the forums as you are, I'm sure. I've gotten help from them before but most of them work on the Lexicon, if at all. I ask them questions but that's as far as it's likely to go. Most of the experts there are working on either the Nexus, sourcebooks, or their own things (like the new podcast.) I doubt it'll happen. DoomsDay349 18:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In-Universe. This is, if anything, what truly does this article in. The very nature of the article requires in universe dating systems, (i.e., PC, AC, SC) which clearly violates the policy of out of universe writing when dealing with fiction. DoomsDay349 03:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In-Universe. While I certainly would agree that the article should be cleaned up and/or merged, I fail to see how explaining the concept of a fictional dating system is a violation of policy. A good case could be made for reducing the amount of information in the timeline (as well as for citation and merger) but some of this information is vital to anyone trying to understand what Dragonlance is about.

We're hardly explaining it by listing every in universe date at the time something happened. To do so gives the reader the impression that there was really a time called 100 AC (or whatever) and that something happened then. It doesn't work like that. What it should look like is, "In such and such a novel, this happened." Which hardly works for a timeline. DoomsDay349 04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonlance isn't just about the stories in the novels - it is also a role-playing game - both were equally important to the development of the campaign setting and the stories set within it. The timeline in this article is almost certainly based on the timeline given in every edition of the campaign setting. Even though the article is badly written and overly long, it does already say that it is a fictional timeline, so I doubt that people will think there actually was a year called 100 AC. However, if we cut the article down and merge it into the Dragonlance artical, we might not need to keep all the year references. People need to know what important events happened and in what order but might not need to know exact dates for all of these events. Summaries that say things like: "The Time of Knights lasted from 2000 PC to 960 PC" may suffice.Big Mac 05:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In-universe....'nuff said. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 01:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a maintained article - not an abandoned one, so I think that the person who originally proposed the deletion over-reacted. People should work out where this article is failing and then ask the Wikiproject Dragonlance to take reasonable steps to correct its faults. If they fail to do that in a reasonalbe time period (without explanation) then deletion should be considered. But while there are people prepared to fix things they should be helped.Big Mac 04:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To explain the history of Krynn in a timeline format is unreasonable. It's clearly in universe and can never hope to be anything but. Sourcing could be fixed but even then it would be irrelevant. It will always, always be an over extensive plot summary. That cannot be ignored and must be dealt with accordingly. DoomsDay349 04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an unreasonable format, then please propose a reasonable one. This article contains some important content. It would be nice to have a chance to fix things. The deletion process allows for alternatives to deletion and the original person who proposed this for deletion didn't try that. The article could be cut down (to remove events in the timeline that are of little importance to the Dragonlance saga), properly cited (mostly to the Dragonlance RPG books which give detailed information on Dragonlance history) and then merged into the main Dragonlance article. That article already has a small summary of the events of the 4th Age but lacks information about important events before and after that age. All five ages of Krynn's history need to be explained to some extent, for the reader to understand the setting.Big Mac 05:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note) I replied paragraph by paragraph. I hope this doesn't make things hard to read. I've signed after each. DoomsDay349 04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied paragraph by paragraph too. I think that as there are 3 different topics we might need to create 3 headings for them and argue each case separately. My personal feeling is that the first two arguments can be invalidated by work on the article and that only the third one is a valid reason for considering deletion. Splitting this discussion up might help us understand if other people agree or disagree with part of the reason for this deletion proposal. By the way, as I'm making a counter-proposal that the article is tidied up and merged, I've added some appropriate tags to it. (Thanks for setting up this deletion discusson page - its what the other guy should have done in the first place.)Big Mac 05:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reorganize. I don't believe much in the prod system; if an article clearly ought be deleted, speedy it; if it's at all questionable, discuss it. DoomsDay349 05:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a maintained article - not an abandoned one" This article is more than 2 and a half years old, and the most basic problems (like sourcing) still had to be adressed at the time of the prod. I don't see why proposing a prod is then "overreacting"... Fram 19:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge - per WP:SS, WP:NOT#PAPER. - Peregrine Fisher 15:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my prod nom. It is sourced (primary sources only, no secondary ones), but it still is a purely in-universe plot summary. Fram 19:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - just needs sourcing, which I have begun and will try to continue to do. Having reviewed other articles that were sent to WP:AFD that are in Category:Fictional timelines, this seems to be the one thing that is a true problem with fictional timelines. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Just needs sourcing? What about the, ya know, in universe and excessive plot summary problems? That just kinda gets brushed under the rug, eh? DoomsDay349 18:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the merge option is not a good one because an appropriate place to merge to has not been suggested, the main Dragonlance article would be too large if this was merged in. Adressing the threee concerns raised:

1. Unsourced, this is clearly being adressed. Also this is not a reason to delete whole article, delete any cotroversal or damaging info and tag any likely true but unsourced with Template:fact if there are concerns.
2. Violation of plot summary - A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. - There are numerous DL articles about stories (Books, games, etc), characters and locations, and a timeline article is appropriate to fit these into a context of the overall story. This is very broad, the whole time of Chronicles trilogy is in 6 lines, I don't think anyone could argue that this is going into an inappropripriate level of fancruft.
3. In-Universe - Linked with above point. There is a need for much more work here, I would suggest putting place where major plots of books/games fit directly into the timeline not just as footnotes.

Three valid concerns have been raised about this article, but they are all things that can or are being addressed (though much work is needed) and with users actively editing I can see no reason why they should not be able to use the information available to create a better article rather than having to start from scratch.
My one concern is that the title of the article may be of better use for a future listing of Dragonlance materials published in chronological order. A more appropriate name for this article might be Timeline of Krynn as it is a history of this fictional world on which Dragonlance is set rather than of the Dragonlance concept itself - Waza 22:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution Possibility

OK, I've thought this over, and here's what I'm thinking. We definitely need citations. Obviously. We need to go out of universe, so for instance, "In this novel, this happens. This novel references what happened." And so on and so forth. Possibly something like "In this novel, in the fictional year of 1000 PC (example date), this happens." That solves the out of universe. And then we need to cut down on a lot of the minor details, which we can weed out. So who feels that a merge is a possibility? DoomsDay349 18:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless analysis by reliable, published secondary sources can be found, in which case the article has hope. MURGH ^disc. 00:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article can definitely be sourced (a timeline exists in the Dragonlance Campaign Setting book.) Dragonlance is a major series of fantasy books with 100+ titles, and this article is good coverage of the setting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sjakkalle. Also, it looks like the article is about 50% sourced at this point. Everyking 10:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main deletion argument is that it is a plot summary (and logically an in-universe article): the sourcing doesn't change anything, except that we can easily verify if it is a correct plot summary (and I don't think anyone claimed otherwise). All sources are primary sources, but what Wikipedia needs is out-of-universe articles based on secondary sources. The violation of WP:NOT plus some guidelines like WP:WAF remains even it is completely sourced instead of not or half sourced. Fram 12:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While secondary sources are always preferred, primary sources are fine for something like this. The only time that secondary sources are essential is for establishing notability.Chunky Rice 19:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in-universe Dragonballs -- no, Dragonquest, no, Dragonlancecruft. -- Hoary 10:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The only valid reason for deletion that's been brought up is the lack of sourcing, but it certainly can be sourced. So it's not original research. The in-universe crticism is valid, but is not grounds for deletion. Similarly the plot summary argument I think fails because this article serves as the back-drop for not just one book, but dozens, as well as the RPG and other associated projects. With that in mind, the length is not excessive. Finally, calling something "cruft" is not an argument at all.Chunky Rice 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FICTION tells us that Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. -- Hoary 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Fiction also tells us, "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Well, here's the larger topic:Dragonlance Chunky Rice 00:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is this sourceable? Yes. Ultimately, any entry on this list, whatever its form, should be attributable to Dragonlance material. Plot summary? Non-issue to me, since this is an aspect of a notable subject. Besides, this could be easily converted to page covering what DL material covers what era in the timeline. Honestly though, given how many timelines come up for deletion here, I think something in the way of actual discussion needs to go on. FrozenPurpleCube 22:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are each discussed thoroughly on the AfD debates, and all recent ones have been deleted, and most current ones seem to go the same way. If Wikipedia was ruled by precedent, this one would be deleted as well :-) As for your other arguments, we'll have to agree to disagree on the use of the "plot summary as part of a larger topic" to keep such things as independent plot summary pages without any secondary source, and which, like in this case, don't help at all for someone who known little or nothing about Dragonlance and wants to learn what it is all about. Fram 05:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except, they're not discussed as a whole, but rather individual articles coming up, with no discussion of the subject behind it. Some have been deleted, but others have not. Thus Category:Fictional timelines remains in existence. Given those other discussions, I think it's therefore quite important to discuss the subject overall, not in bits and pieces. It's not a thorough discussion, it's a closer to bickering in some cases. Thus I feel it would be of great benefit to establish some consensus on how to develop these pages. Otherwise, we're just going to get the ugly results we're getting now.

And believe it or not, adding references is not a problem, and I think it would be just as easy to list what books/other material covers what part of history. And that would be a great benefit to anybody who wanted to know about Dragonlance. FrozenPurpleCube 06:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the delete arguments; also, check out this AfD discussion. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 01:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? There is not even a reasoning provided by the closing admin for the deletion, let alone a direct connection between the two series. The only connection I can see is that they're both fictional timelines, but as the subject of that is not under review at this time, the connection is tenuous at best. FrozenPurpleCube 17:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Tell me how this could help out anyone who isn't a fan of the series. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is basically just a article over the plot of the series, somethingWP:NOT doesn't allow. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NOT, A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. Dragonlance has over 100+ novels, a couple dozen RPG supplements, a couple video games, an animated movie based on it, ect. As for it being a "larger topic" on Wikipedia, Category:Dragonlance just skims the surface. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I indicated above, my suggestion is to reference the books and the history together, as that would contribute greatly to the benefit of this timeline for the hypothetical reader. Now it's possible it wouldn't help somebody who didn't care about the books or the setting, but um, yeah, how do you help somebody who doesn't care about a subject? Not exactly a good criteria for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 23:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I actually think that something like this- which is a compilation of information across many books, settings, and so on - is probably more notable than articles on many of the "lesser" individual books of Dragonlance (which could probably be merged into a big "other books in the Dragonlance line" article). It's a useful appendix to the larger Dragonlance article and would be perfectly reasonable fit there if it weren't for summary style. Also, "not useful to people not interested" is a deletion argument I will never understand. The World War II article isn't very useful to someone not interested in finding information on World War II; so what? (As a matter of style, articles should be accessible to people lacking background, for sure, but that's not a deletion issue, that's a cleanup issue.) SnowFire 22:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 04:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The arguments of the delete !voters are desperately unpersuasive. First off, the article is strongly referenced, and I'm unsure what disqualifies RPG books (which like any other have authors, editors, publishers, publication dates and ISBNs) as reliable sources. That readers might be fooled into thinking that these dates are real are covered by (a) the liberal use of the words "fictional timeline" and "fictional events" through the article, and (b) the premise that Wikipedia isn't used by too many complete morons. That the article is of little to no interest to those disinterested in the subject would apply to each and every article on Wikipedia. Finally, the notion that in-universe content invalidates an article flies in the face of overwhelming consensus to the contrary; there are tens of thousands of articles written about highly notable fictional constructs that refer heavily to the fictional milieu. Anyone going to file AfDs on Gondor, Barsoom, Land of Oz, Ruritania, Cabot Cove or Sunnydale any time soon?  Ravenswing  14:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In-universe problems are a reason for cleanup and improvement and not deletion - WP:WAF is a style guideline and not a deletion argument. Excessive plot summarization falls under the same category and is fixed by selective editing and not wholesale deletion. Finally, sourcing in this case is also relatively simple to cure. While I would agree that the encyclopedic value of these timeline articles is weak, they do contribute to the understanding of the parent topic well, and when written correctly help the reader to get a better grasp on what's going on - and clearly don't fit inside the parent article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I don't think it should be merged with the main Dragonlance novel. It seems too big of a topic, and deserves it's own page. But cleanup of it will probably be required. Hlwarrior 00:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article gives over emphasis to presenting an in-universe perspective. It is just plot summary with no room for real world context. Jay32183 00:57, 18 April 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. fishhead64 01:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milton District High School[edit]

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

Thinly disguised vanispamcruftisement for a school reunion. I'd also like to see a discussion on the school's notability, as it seems rather unremarkable. Contested prod. MER-C 04:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked out articles re: other local high schools (Lester B. Pearson, Burlington, ON; M. M. Robinson, Burlington, ON), which have obviously not been deleted. Not sure why the inconsistency here, as they seem no more remarkable than this one.

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. MER-C 05:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NN, WP:V. If, in fact, there are other local high schools that likewise fail to assert notability, sure, nominate those as well. MER-C's point about this being created solely as an advertisement for the school's reunion is bolstered by the fact that this article is the sole Wiki activity of User:Mdhs reunion.  RGTraynor  14:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the only claim to notability is two alumni, and that is not enough. Just for comparison Lester B. Pearson High School (Burlington) has more notable alumni & athletic championships--I consider it borderline notable. As for MMRobinson, it's just now been nominated for deletion.DGG 05:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The discussion of schools has been discussed often and from time to time proposals have been offered but none have reached consensus within the community. Until we decide, I would err on the side of caution and leave the article in place. I think this goes a bit beyond WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because there have been frequent discussions on this specific topic. JodyB 14:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Change to Delete (hope I did this right) After rethinking my position and re-reading prior debate, I realize that a lack of consensus means there is no consensus to make an exception from WP:NOTE for schools. This one does not seem to meet it. Therefore, I change to delete.JodyB 14:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:SCHOOL is not an accepted guideline, so there is no policy statement which says high schools are or are not inherently notable, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes says"Schools are frequently nominated for deletion, but consensus is frequently not reached. Most of the approximately 270 school articles nominated for deletion in the eight months January to August 2005, resulted in no consensus, with fewer than 15% actually deleted. " Pending an accepted guideline for schools, I feel the article should be kept. Most high schools will have multiple independent substantial coverage in newspapers, since they are an important part of the community and a large expense to build and operate, and often get into controversies of administration policy, beyond sports scores and graduation lists. The presence of a sentence in the article promoting a reunion is perhaps a reason the EDIT THE ARTICLE but not a good reason to delete the article. Edison 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the half-year I have been here I have seen this attitude change, and a new analysis would show it. DGG 06:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Err ... the limitations of the cut-and-paste AfD !voting approach shows up when one notes that WP:SCHOOL hasn't been cited as grounds for deletion, and moreover just because some editor wrote in an essay that few school-related AfDs two years ago resulted in deletion doesn't mean that school articles which completely fail WP:V get a free pass eternally. Personally, I find the growing consensus that public schools are subject to WP:V and WP:NN just like other articles quite heartening. If you have actual citations which meet the grounds editors have used, please present them.  RGTraynor  19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge — It's on the small-ish side as a combined Jr./Sr. High School of 800 students. The best approach would be to merge into the Milton, Ontario page. — RJH (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article makes explicit claims of notability in terms of alumni. Any AfD "reason" that cites "vanispamcruftisement" as an excuse deletion is probably worth keeping on that basis alone. Alansohn 04:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. ffm ✎talk 13:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Alumni. Abeg92Hokies! 17:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- TerriersFan 17:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the combination of the Hurricane Ivan radio interview and the censorship row that reached provincial level (both sourced) with the notable alumni is sufficient to meet notability standards. TerriersFan 18:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThis school is notable and the article contains information which is supported by references.LordHarris 19:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. Apart from the fact that high schools are usually kept where there's any verifiable information, this one actually has a few independant references on it's notability to boot. WilyD 20:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as passing WP:N and WP:A in its current form, not because of notable alumni. --Butseriouslyfolks 22:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please it meets the polcy in current form and has improved much yuckfoo 02:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Does seem to meet minimum notability guidelines with content and references. Camaron1 | Chris 18:37, 20 April 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. --Coredesat 01:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fobomania[edit]

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

Article returns after deletion, so let's run an AFD once to decide if Wikipedia wants this. I say it's unsourced and probably non-notable. What say you? — coelacan — 05:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, also stupid. --ConfuciusOrnis 05:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ditto. Chris 05:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - definitely WP:NFT, only 3 ghits. MER-C 05:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 more if you spell it "phobomania". — coelacan — 05:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only reference is self-published. -- Mikeblas 12:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Vaneologism - Tiswas^(t/c) 12:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - see Phobomania also - Tiswas^(t/c) 13:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Its AfD is here. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:NEO -- Whpq 16:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 20:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no content. Just a link--Sefringle 04:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I dare say if we wait a couple of days we'll be able to speedy this as a redirect to a non-existent page since I can't see Phobomania lasting. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, reposted content. ffm ✎talk 13:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable neologism; promotional Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Delete . I wrote that phobomania is invented by the Belgium filosopher Matthias Storme. But on a site where "islamophobia" is put under "discrimination" (or you do mean discrimination of islam opponents by proclaiming they have a phobia) you don't have to expect any tolerance for an other opinion than Islamophielia. Limboot 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite the pomposity of Matthias Storme's article, I'm not even convinced that he is notable himself. Google searching reveals a few articles in English relating him to shady racism-related dealings, a lot of blogs, and a lot of Wiki-mirrors. Regardless, a dubious neologism of his is definitely NN. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable neologism.— JyriL ^talk 21:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt Please see [13] . User Limboot has recreated pages that have already been deleted (Islamophilia). This article should be protected from recreation. --Agha Nader 01:59, 19 April 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 already speedily deleted, ((db-author)). --Coredesat 01:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kayez[edit]

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

Apparently self-authored article about a rapper & music producer, but with no actual recording or production credits listed and no evidence of notability. ShelfSkewed talk 05:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete:, no assertion of notability.  RGTraynor  14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. A search for the company he founded turns up no useful references, with the first google result being the myspace page which serves as a company website. -- Whpq 16:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, and likely COI here as well. Acalamari 20:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above ffm ✎talk 13:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sources, but no prejudice to recreation. Abeg92Hokies! 17:13, 18 April 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M. M. Robinson High School[edit]

M. M. Robinson High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

ordinary high school with 3 well- known alumni, but no other notability DGG 05:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: or to be more precise, one murder victim alumnus (so not much link between the fame and the school / education), and two redlinked "alumni" I have removed because they were probably intended to disparage their subjects (WP:BLP issues). Which leaves us with noone famous because they were at this school or with what they learned at this school, and for the moment no other claims to notability. Fram 10:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:, fails WP:ORG, WP:V, WP:NN. No assertion of notability, no prospect of substantive improvement.  RGTraynor  15:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:SCHOOL is not an accepted guideline, so there is no policy statement which says high schools are or are not inherently notable, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes says"Schools are frequently nominated for deletion, but consensus is frequently not reached. Most of the approximately 270 school articles nominated for deletion in the eight months January to August 2005, resulted in no consensus, with fewer than 15% actually deleted. " Pending an accepted guideline for schools, I feel the article should be kept. Most high schools will have multiple independent substantial coverage in newspapers, since they are an important part of the community and a large expense to build and operate, and often get into controversies of administration policy, beyond sports scores and graduation lists. Edison 19:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Great. Would you like to supply some?  RGTraynor  19:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An addon. WP:SCHOOL not being a guideline means that school articles have to pass existing guidelines (like WP:ORG and WP:N) or they will be deleted. TJ Spyke 20:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:N. 20:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — Acceptible, but the athletics and extra-curriculars sections should probably be culled. — RJH (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a significant high school and I have cleaned up the article and added the necessary multiple references to establish notability. TerriersFan 23:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article has been cleaned up, and looks no worse than all the other high school articles. - BierHerr 02:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As cleaned up, article makes specific claims of notability, and provides reliable and verifiable sources to demonstarte notability. Alansohn 04:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Actually, it doesn't. Of the five links TerriersFan jumped in to add, three are 100% trivial mentions that this was the high school the people in question attended. The fourth is about a karaoke record breaker where the location mentioned was the school. The fifth comes closest, when it praises the high school's children for a charitable drive, but none are really about the school. Are there any sources about the school as WP:V requires?  RGTraynor  13:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable alumni. Abeg92Hokies! 17:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable alums, in this context, are ones who accomplish something. a murder victim may be notable, but not because of his high school.DGG 06:03, 20 April 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 CSD A7. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 09:22Z

Holli Durost[edit]

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

Vanispamcruftisement, fails WP:MUSIC. 7 non-wiki ghits outside of myspace. Contested prod. MER-C 05:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - no credible assertion of notability. YechielMan 06:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Actually, there's no assertion of notability at all, credible or otherwise. CSD A7 and so tagged. (I love the particular expression of her vanity in that she wrote the article, but says that one of her songs is "reported to be about" blah, blah, blah.) Mwelch 06:45, 17 April 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 01:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freshwater State School[edit]

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

Contested prod. No assertion of notability. Garrie 05:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a directory - list of all the staff, address, principles, would list the house captains but cannot for security reasons.Garrie 06:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Garrie 06:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - according to the article, it has a principal, students, staff, houses for sports, rules, and sports carnivals. Which virtually all schools have. They didn't mention the school building though. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 11:11Z
• Delete not notable, and violates WP:NOT. Acalamari 20:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no assertion. Goodnightmush^Talk 20:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- TerriersFan 21:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albuera Street Primary School may be of some value to this discussion. --Mattinbgn/ ^talk 23:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N and WP:A, not even close. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while the article theoretically could be fixed up, the WP:N issues remain. See the other discussion referred to by Mattinbgn over another Australian primary school - I think we agree somewhat that a primary school (being more of them and their being smaller) have a higher bar for notability than do secondary schools. Orderinchaos 04:11, 21 April 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. WjBscribe 01:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J. Garber Drushal[edit]

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

Finsh the sentence: "You know you've been on Wikipedia for too long when..." I found this article in the uncategorized pages. It has all the standard problems for an article on a marginally notable person written by a newbie. User:MER-C, our trusty deletionist, prodded it ten days ago. Then, User:DGG, our resident inclusionist, removed the prod, saying he was the president of a notable college. I'm on the fence - clean up or delete? - so I decided to bring it here. Yes, you know you've been on Wikipedia for too long when you recognize AFD voting patterns in the edit summaries within an article history. :) YechielMan 06:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, college presidents are generally notable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete: ... not absent meeting any of the requirements of WP:V, WP:BIO or the prof test. There is no wide name recognition, no evidence of awards or honors, and there are no sources whatsoever.  RGTraynor  15:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 17:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. College presidents are generally notable, but this article needs sources and verification. Realkyhick 19:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Subject noteable. Article needs Proper sources. It also needs categories. I don't understand why necessary tags were removed here The article is only 2.5 weaks old. It needs traffic to increase its chance of being sourced properly since the original editor seems to be someone who got bored while reading an alumni mag. I am going to retag. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also added stubs. Hopefully, this article will get noticed and sourced. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. College presidents are usually notable and he did publish in the Journal of Higher Education. I added some information and sources to the article and will next add categories.-Gloriamarie 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This one is licking the bottom of the notability barrel... even after cleaning. - BierHerr 02:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep if it can be properly sourced - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All the additional material added and sourced since the AfD has served to convince me that he's not notable. If the best you can say about his academic accomplishments is "he wrote an article once in 1954 and another time in 1968", he's not notable. And while I agree that university presidents are often notable, and this university's president R. Stanton Hales appears clearly notable, I don't see president of a university that's smaller than many high schools to be sufficient by itself in the absence of any other evidence of notability. —David Eppstein 00:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per David Eppstein. Pete.Hurd 20:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Someone who served as the president of a college for 10 years in such an interesting era as 1967-1977 has got to have been interesting, and more than tangentially mentioned in many reliable sources, though probably not a whole heck of a lot on the internet. The president of a university is a public figure whose decisions impact many people: not accepting that as notability is ridiculous. This should stay: it's in need of expansion, not deletion. And the level of sourcing seems just fine to me for now. Mangojuice^talk 21:18, 23 April 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, no assertion of notability in the article, and no sources provided either on this page or in the article make this a easy decision. Future rewrites (if any) must go beyond the "This is a version of <game>. It was written by <name>. It can be played on <platforms>. <external link>" boilerplate description, which is all this article consisted of. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 14:02Z

Sea3d[edit]

Sea3d (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable unlicensed computer implementation of a notable board game JHunterJ 11:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No third-party coverage. Abeg92contribs 14:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't think Sea3D is trivial or non-notable. My main concern is that people who come to the Settlers of Catan wiki page can learn about all implementations of the game. I have added links to the bottom of the Settlers page under the category 'non-licensed' so that people can follow the links without the possibility of confusing licensed with non-licensed versions.--Bcnstony 21:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Where has it been noted? (WP:RS) -- JHunterJ 23:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Merge w/ Settlers of Catan. This game is well noted in the video gaming community as one of the first electronic adaptations of the popular "Settlers of Catan" board game. A Google search alone for "Sea3d Catan" brings up hundreds of results. The article could use clean up and expansion however. Diabloman 05:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well noted where? Is one of the hundreds of Google hits a reliable source? If so, that should be added to the article. -- JHunterJ 11:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I will work on finding some reliable/notable sources Diabloman 13:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I have found many notable websites referencing Sea3d (Home of The Underdogs, the MobyGames forums), but on further consideration I've changed my suggestion to a merge with the article on Settlers of Catan; I'm not convinced an article just on Sea3d could be more than a stub.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diabloman (talk • contribs) 05:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  As an unlicensed derivative work, it really shouldn't be merged into the Settlers of Catan page, IMO. -- JHunterJ 10:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears your concern with this page is that it is unlicensed. How is this different from the XBOX version of Settlers of Catan? Other than a different name, the games are identical. Are you suggesting that this is a moral issue?--Bcnstony 03:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No. My concern with this article is its notability. My concern with the new proposal that it be merged into Settlers of Catan is that it is not a Settlers of Catan game (for legal reasons, in this case), and therefore not topical for the Settlers of Catan article either. -- JHunterJ 03:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to board game article. —Ocatecir ^Talk 07:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no reason to merge an non notable online version of the game to the main page for it. Fram 10:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and strong don't merge - articles should stay on topic, and not start listing unofficial computer implementations that someone happens to have written. Percy Snoodle 11:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Merge if its existence is relevant from the perspective of the Settlers of Catan game, but if it'd just be a link to a download, it seems likely to fail WP:NOT#LINK.--McGeddon 12:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I suppose I should put my formal vote here as well. -- JHunterJ 13:42, 17 April 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 revealed religion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revelation religion[edit]

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

Neologism, phrase does not seem to exist outside of article creator's opinion. It's not a speedy deletion candidate though, so here we are. — coelacan — 06:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think perhaps the person was thinking of Revealed religion and possibly this could be a redirect to that.--T. Anthony 09:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The phrase, "revelation religion", does exist in a blog and a forum. However, it is up to the author, Limboot (talk · contribs), to provide references to reliable sources that use the phrase. --Kevinkor2 09:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's a neologism not referenced anywhere - Tiswas^(t/c) 13:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A redirect to Revealed religion may be pertinent, as above - Tiswas^(t/c) 13:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - do not redirect, if it's an improper term, it can be confusing, and as an encyclopedia, we do not want to do that. Part Deux 17:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Part Deux here. We do not want to reinforce mistakes. We make an exception when it's a very common mistake that we expect many people to use as a search term, but this is not the case here. A redirect would make things worse. — coelacan — 17:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to revealed religion. Not a common term, but it has been used in scholarly sources; there are some examples on JSTOR from the 1930s and before, and here's one 2004 economics paper (PDF). It seems a plausible enough search term for me, and since there's no need to mention the term on the revealed religion article I can't see how confusion would result. EALacey 18:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• r per EALacey ffm ✎talk 13:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per EALacey - clearly a synonymous term.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:42, 18 April 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.