< August 13	August 15 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 23:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inlet Square Mall[edit]

Non-notable mall, fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To be honest, I fail to see the point of the entire category, save for "Guinness Book of World Records" types of things, but then one could argue that that is not encyclopedic either. jddphd (talk · contribs) 01:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This mall certainly ranks among the non notable. --Stormbay 02:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With four anchor stores, this mall might fall into the super-regional category, which would likely make it notable. But the author failed to cite anything that would prove that, so off it goes. Realkyhick 03:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not even close; this PDF says it's only 425,000 sf. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. This type of thing always make me wonder if advertisement is a factor. Brusegadi 20:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above--Sefringle^Talk 05:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The user who created this shares the same name as the article, User:Inletsquare. Black-Velvet 12:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This reads like PR copy (note the hours of operation) for a advertisement. Not only is it just apparently another non-notable mall, but it has zero references. Nothing is mentioned that would make it notable. It's not even borderline keepable. — Becksguy 15:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sean William @ 03:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spheroprobability[edit]

Google brings up precisely one hit - a citation of a paper by the apparent coiner of the phrase. I don't claim to know or dispute whether the content of this article is valid; however, I am challenging the notability of the term. Oli Filth 23:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources to which to attribute notability. Half the linked sources are WP:COI. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as possible fringe theory. Thin Arthur 08:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the author of this article (User:Scarbrtj) is T.J. Scarbrough, the guy who coined this term; see Talk:Spheroprobability. This falls foul of WP:OR. Oli Filth 09:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung and nom. --Aarktica 17:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not fringe theory, rather it appears to be the medical and engineering application of the statistical concept of "Sphere of Probability" (a 3 dimensional version of Circle of Probability) to improve medical radiation therapy for cancer by decreasing the probabilistic error in aiming and focusing the radiation beam(s) at the cancerous tissue in the body. Sphereofprobability has been published in peer reviewed journals, and the author is not the only person involved. He was one of an eight member team in one article, and not part of another. No COI here. The author was up front with his involvement and is not pushing this. I think it barely passes the notability test (within the medical community, if not the greater one) and it has verifiable and reputable references, so it's not OR. BTW, the number of Google hits are not necessarily an indication of notability, especially in the academic/scientific arena, as many potential sites are behind subscription/membership walls. Keep as per WP:HEY also. — Becksguy 18:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, the term "spheroprobability" can only be referenced to a single conference paper (I'm not even sure if it's that). If there are other papers that use the term, by all means correct me. As I said at the outset, it's not the content of this article that I'm concerned about (I'm sure it's all scientifically sound), it's the notability of the term "spheroprobability". If an author introduces a WP article on a neologism that they have coined, but cannot be sourced elsewhere, then that is OR. Oli Filth 22:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please time extend this discussion a bit. — Becksguy 23:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goin digital[edit]

An unverified neologism nominated for speedy deletion. I'm bringing it here for discussion. Ma x im 23:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:NOT#DICT and WP:NEOSxeptomaniac 23:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not speedy deletion categories. Just writing Delete unless indicating CSD criteria is much more helpful for the closing admin. Ma x im 23:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Unverifiable too, really! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Sxeptomaniac -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources whatsoever, neologism. Realkyhick 03:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment unlike other XfD's it is not the practice to use the symbol vote here--the bold face alone makes it easier to track. DGG (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 23:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads Up! (band)[edit]

No evidence of notability per the criteria of WP:MUSIC — Swpb^talk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 22:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Released one full length album and "mysteriously" broke up. Only link on page is to Myspace. Not notable. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 23:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete This. This Band has a very large following and is highly regarded by much of the the bay area music community. Rhbeatz 01:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the Reliable sources independant of the band and its members to prove it? -- saberwyn 01:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The name of the band makes it extremely difficult to find Ghits [1], so unless the creating editor knows how to find reliable sources, this article is going to be deleted. Bearian 00:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. As mentioned below, this is not the place to discuss whether an existing redirect should be deleted; WP:RFD is. — TKD::Talk 06:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bangin' On Wax 2... The Saga Continues[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bangin' On Wax 2... The Saga Continues

The article has been moved and no articles is linking to it. Tasco 0 22:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article should be deleted due to no articles is linking to it and it has been moved.--Tasco 0 22:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just leave the redirect in place? humblefool ® 00:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no links to this redirect, and the exact sequence of words and periods is unlikely to be typed in by a user. If they did, WP's search would likely lead them to the correct article. Realkyhick 03:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't burden us with images when bullet points will do! Splash - tk 08:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it wouldn't since the capitalisation would not get picked up. Splash - tk 08:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it would.--Tasco 0 16:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a redirect resulting from a move, and is a plausible accidental link target. Redirects are harmless, routinely retained after a move and anyway this is not the place for dealing with deletion of redirects. That's over at WP:RfD. Anyway, keep, as I already did several times. Splash - tk 08:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable last events[edit]

An incomplete and never completable list. May be interesting to merge into respective article(s), but a page like this does not need to exist. Could easily become 1000's of MB in length, but no reason to be. Jmlk 1 7 22:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator, its a well referenced almanac like entry. There are three publications that list last events, so it certainly is notable. Each new entry is notable since newer ones are sourced from reliable media, and most have their own articles already. Any article can become "1000's of MB in length", but its pure crystalballing to speculate that any will. The biographies, and collected papers of George Washington fill whole library shelves. The collective papers of Thomas Edison fill an entire bunker in East Orange, New Jersey, yet somehow the Wikipedia biographies on them seem to be stable at their current size, plus or minus a few percentage points. All articles, such as list of popes, and list of heads of state will grow infinitively, if we assume time is open ended. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the essay at WP:LISTCRUFT (The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable). And possibly Wikipedia:Overlistification. Neither are policies, but both have merit. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into appropriate parent articles - these bits of information are useful separately, but there's no common thread which makes them belong together. For example, the last survivor of the Titanic is unrelated to the last televised tobacco commercial, other than in that they can both be described with the word "last". Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Norton. Quite maintainable, because there are no new "last Mayflower Pilgrims (1699)" or "last Passenger Pigeon (1914)". The normal collaborative editing process can restrict the list to significant and unique "lasts" such as these and the last surviving veterans of major wars. Things that are "the end of an era" and are recorded in reliable and independent sources as such. As Norton said, there are several published reference works with just such lists as these, showing that lists of "lasts" are significant, satisfying WP:N, and there are multiple reliable and independent references for any individual entry (otherwise that entry would get removed by editors). Edison 00:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an arbitrary list and I think it is WP:OCAT Corpx 00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any overlistification here. The criteria, if well defined, seems pretty specific (a list of final events), so long as the list is well maintained (I think limiting it to historically significant eventss isn't a bad idea). So long as (1) the subject of which it is a final event is notable, (2) the final event itself is notable, and (3) the fact that it is the final event is notable, then you have a list with a very specific criteria, which is neither too narrow nor too wide, compiling information that is notable, of historical significance, and of common interest. No overlistification there. Calgary 01:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is a "final" event? Any event with the word "last" in it? There should be lists for every event with "middle" or "first" or "second" etc.... Corpx 02:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a surprisingly well-defined and organized list, complete with sources and references, as well as books dedicated to famous lasts. Using categories wouldn't address this and the material is both encyclopedic and interesting. Alansohn 01:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem that I see with the article is that it is not a list of notable last events so much as it is a list of deaths. A good deal of it lists the deaths last people to survive a notable event, or the last people to die in a notable event. Now, notable last events are indeed very notable (my, that was redundant), but last deaths do not necessarily have the same historic significance (and if they do, it's not as obvious, and must be judged carefully on an individual basis). I do believe a list of notable last events, or the last of a series of notable events is very encyclopedic and should be kept, and expanded. The deaths, however, I'm not so sure about, and I think that even if they are not deleted, they should be split into a separate article.

In addition, I think we can take the word "notable" out of the title, as I think the notability of the events is a given, considering it's on Wikipedia. And it could use some better organization, or, if not, the entire thing should be incorporated into the main timeline. Calgary 01:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not unmaintainable, given that in this instance "last" does not mean "most recent", but "final". Once the last World War One veteran dies, there will not be any more, because World War One is not going to happen again. There are some instances where an item has to be removed. If another man walks on the moon, Eugene Cernan is gone, and so, too, is the list of "last man on the moon" because it will return to the meaning of "most recent". This does need to be trimmed, however, if it's going to avoid being properly labelled as indiscriminate information or mere trivia. Consider Gerald Ford as the last surviving member of the Warren Commission... is it a surprise that a group of middle-aged men from 1963 have now passed away? If you're going to keep this, you gotta say "no" more often. Mandsford 01:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are only two sections here (by topic), but I could see tons of other topics, each of which would have to maintained... And the citations alone would be awful. Unmaintainable. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, assuming proper maintenance and sourcing. It satisfies WP:N, and concerns about this stretching to infinity are misguided for now, especially given WP:NOT#PAPER. Let's not forget that, in addition to being informative, Wikipedia (within limits, and we clearly are within those limits) should have some fun or at least lighter, more trivia-like areas too. Biruitorul 01:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: article will continue to expand until the end of time. I mean it goes all the way back to 1453, for crying out loud. Yeah, let's include every single event that ever happened in the history of forever while we're at it? Ksy92003(talk) 02:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the end of time...now that's a notable last event. Calgary 02:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am worried too. At the rate new entries to the article are being added, in another 500 years there will be, based on my calculations, 4 dozen entries. Thats double what we have now for the past 500 years of human history. Will 4 dozen articles be "1000's of MB"?--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've proposed a criteria/ideas for cleanup on the talk page of the article, in case ayone's interested in an outline of a criteria by whic to judge the article (although I agree that the article doesn't quite meet these standards at the moment). Calgary 02:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any truly notable events/deaths into individual date pages (if not already included) then delete. Thin Arthur 08:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per R.A.N., but add more sources. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it could become a bad article, sure, and so could every article here. I think a better title is needed, but there is otherwise nothing wrong with it at present. DGG (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Norton, RAN, DGG, et al. Sources are pretty good, so WP:RS does not matter here. Neither does WP:N apply, because the content is cleary notable and encyclopedic. It is not complete junk, either -- it's a list, but not cruft, and can be maintained to a viable size. So it should be kept. Bearian 00:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also like how it was re-named. Bearian 00:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but break into multiple sections, the last monarch of Afghanistan is nice and all but how is that relevant to the last surviving WW1 veteran? Perhaps a more categorized approach. I would like to see a list of the world's last monarchs. List countries which had monarchs and when/who the last one left their thrown and by what means. But the page should perhaps be a Last survivors of Historic events. The last tasmanian tiger is interesting but it should be added to a separate list denoting known last extinction. So the problem is not the List itself but simply the ambition the creator had. What it needs are parameters. Last what? Last survivor of titanic is interesting but should be separate from others. Basicly you would have a page which would offer an index of these other lists. This is needed as many of these overlap and are cross referenced. It should be limited to living things i feel, as were we to get into, last alarm clock with an F# bell produced may become a little overspecialized.
Keep. I find it useful.QueenAdelaide 06:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:USEFUL is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep all three articles. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power pitcher[edit]

Per WP:DP - this article content is "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia", as this is more an colloquialism for baseball fans; and a very subjective topic. While the information has been sourced, the sourced information is really not applicable to the perceived goal of the article. Further, one of the sources has been "misquoted", and it makes a major difference. It's a great effort, but that is a separate issue. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 22:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages ~~for the reasons stated previously~~

Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 22:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm excusing myself from this discussion entirely. Hence I'm striking my above comments and they should not be considered when determining the outcome of this AFD. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 05:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The articles fall clearly in the Category:Baseball terminology area which is encyclopedic. The two main types of pitchers (those who rely on velocity and those who rely on accuracy) merit their own articles. I am not sure there is a significant misquoting, but will fix it if it exists and is pointed out. These two articles are as important as all other articles on ((Baseball pitcher))--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They all play the same position. Just because they do their jobs differently from one another does not mean they each get their own article. Where are the Shortstop that steals bases and Shortstop that doesn't steal bases articles? They don't exist, because they all play the same position and any different characteristics of the players can go on the position articles themselves.►Chris Nelson 22:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You guys were actually pretty quick on this, i'm actually going to be adding similar articles to this. As Tony is already against this, i don't know that adding more would somehow convince him otherwise, but Chris - you may want to withold your statments for just a few minutes in case you decide you are on the keep side of the issue. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 23:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll never be on the keep side of the issue, I believe there is no logic to its existence.►Chris Nelson 23:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT power pitcher and control pitcher were created in support of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chris Young (pitcher) so that readers don't have to read a lengthy pitcher article to understand the two main pticher types. I am sure there are several articles that would be better served with such articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Herculean-like Strong" Keep - There are different types of pitchers in the same way that there are different positions: left fielder, right fielder, center fielder, first baseman, shortstop, etc. They all do one thing: field, yet they all do it differently. Shortstops and first baseman field ground balls, the LF, RF, and CFs all field flyballs and ground balls through the infield. Control pitchers throw for accuracy, power pitchers throw for strikeouts, starting pitchers pitch for distance, relief pitchers pitch a lot less for quick outs. Set-up men are there to protect the lead... they all do different jobs, and we have different articles for the different infield and outfield positions, so I don't think there should be any reason to not have different articles for the different type of pitchers who all play differently. For example, Tim Wakefield is a pitcher who throws for accuracy, a control pitcher, while Roger Clemens or Randy Johnson are power pitchers; they throw for strikeouts. Are you denying that there's a difference between starting pitchers and relief pitchers? No; they have the same job, but they do it differently. There are different expectations of them by their managers and pitching coaches. You say "Just because they do their jobs differently from one another does not mean they each get their own article." So what, is what I have to say to that. Pens, pencils, markers, crayons, etc. all do the job of making marks on paper. But they all have their own separate articles because they are all different, much in the same way that all pitchers do the same job, yet they are all different. Set-up men, closers, middle relief pitchers, long relief pitchers, and starting pitchers all pitch, but they all have different responsibilities. Control pitchers have the job of inducing lazy fly balls or ground balls. Power pitchers have the job of striking out their opponents. Same job, yet they do them differently. Although they are both pitchers, they still have a vast majority of differences. And Chrisjnelson, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. "We don't have an article on y, so we shouldn't have an article on this" isn't a valid reason for deletion. Ksy92003(talk) 23:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basic characteristics of Young's style should be in HIS article.►Chris Nelson 23:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the thing is, there's either logic for both Power pitcher and the articles I made up to exist, or there's no logic for either. The logic is the same.►Chris Nelson 23:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also, Jmfangio, I'd have to disagree with your statement that this article is "not suitable for an encyclopedia." Why is it not of encyclopedic value? Because it's a baseball term? That's not a logical reason. There are other articles that are far less encyclopedic. "Power pitcher" is really notable because baseball teams have a couple power pitchers and other control pitchers. In the baseball world, we see them all as very different in the way that they all have different expectations by their managers and teams. Ksy92003(talk) 23:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They all do the same thing.►Chris Nelson 23:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what to you mean they have to have the same logic or no logic? That's like you're comparing apples and oranges. They are two different things entirely, and you can't compare two entirely different objects. And as far as the "Shortstops that don't steal bases," shortstops aren't hired by teams to steal bases. That's not their job. Their job is to play shortstop. Shortstops that steal bases and shortstops that don't both play the shortstop position in exactly the same way. But power pitchers throw strikeouts and control pitchers don't try to do that. That's what makes them different. And again, you can't compare apples to oranges. Ksy92003(talk) 23:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay fine - Home run hitters and Singles hitters. Apples to apples.►Chris Nelson 23:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree that the content is nonencyclopedic; I also think it is demonstrably false that the content is too subjective to be encyclopedic. There is widespread consensus on which pitchers are power pitchers and which are control pitchers and on how to distinguish the two statistically. -- Dominus 23:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Keep control pitcher; redirect fireballer to power pitcher. -- Dominus 22:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still VERY subjective.►Chris Nelson 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you listening to me, Chris? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You can't use as a reason for voting to delete an article that "Oh, but we don't have articles on X, so we can't have an article on Y. Ksy92003(talk) 23:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but there are illogical things about that policy. So screw it, this makes more sense.►Chris Nelson 23:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You seem to have added fireballer, which is a very colloquial term for power pitcher. It should be redirected and merged into power pitcher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 23:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there are several types of deceptive pitchers who are neither power nor control pitchers. I think one type of deceptive pitcher is a knuckleballer. I also think some great pitchers have been curveball and screwball pitchers who are trying to fool hitters. I am not sure these deceptive pitchers are control pitchers, but with the template all parties interested in pitchers will be free to make additions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Screw it, this makes more sense?" What kind of crap is that, Chris? Also, conversely that's like saying that we have to have articles about everything just because we have something. So, just because I have a dog, does that mean that I have to have all the dogs in the world? You also take an "All of nothing" approach. You say that either we have everything or we have nothing. Stick to this article, not on other articles that we don't have. Ksy92003(talk) 23:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've misunderstood me. I'm not saying this article shouldn't exist because those others don't. If there wasn't an Article on Georgia, I wouldn't say there shouldn't be an article on Tennessee. What I'm saying is that this article should not exist for the same reason those other articles do not exist already - not enough reason. It makes no sense to split up articles about sports positions just because they don't all do everything the same way. You could theoretically do that for every position in every sport. But we don't, because those differences alone do not warrant another article. The solution that should be obvious is the just have Pitcher and have subsections about different kinds of pitchers. There should not be possession and speed receiver articles. There should not be power and and speed running back articles. And there should not be power and control pitcher articles. All for the same reasons. Articles on athletic positions are enough, and there should be subsections for different types.►Chris Nelson 23:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough basis for full article. Content belongs under pitcher. This article was once merged into pitcher per talk page and advertised merger banner. Then someone resurrected the article. Cuvette 23:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important baseball term used in a multitude of broadcasts, articles, and conversations about baseball. And, quite a few Wikipedia articles. Kinston eagle 00:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't know that you need a whole article about power pitcher. Can't you just explain the different types of pitchers in the pitcher article? I don't think the distinction between a power pitcher and a control pitcher is great enough.. not the same as a reliever and a starter.. who have different tasks. Spanneraol 00:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would say that this supports delete. I think that the talk page is really where most of the discussion should go so i'm going to go and open it up. This way we can leave this page for voting. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 00:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A deletion discussion is not a vote. Kinston eagle 00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The point is that places like Chris_Young_(pitcher)#Pitching_style need explanation for the common fan. A brief article is superior for them than wading through a larger all-encompassing and somewhat irrelevant article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tony, it seems to me that the issue is explained fairly well in the Chris Young article itself.. the concept isn't that complicated that it really takes a whole other article to explain it Spanneraol 14:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Young is a WP:FAC, which means it is probably written more clearly than most articles that would benefit from linkage to the articles in question. Whether or not you can glean the difference from the Young article hundreds of other pitcher articles could benefit from links to this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into a pitcher article. There is not enough sources to justify this article Corpx 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kinston eagle - i'm not following. I never said that people should assert a recommendation (aka - a "vote" of sorts) without discussing. I suggested that the discussion on the talk page and "votes" (which are recommendations rather than true votes - this isn't a WP:STRAW anyway) here. WP:CON might be easier to obtain that way. As it doesn't appear that all the parties are familiar with WP:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD (such as having the primary editor identify themselves); I suggested the talk page so that adjustments could be made without confusing the consensus. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 01:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this and Control pitcher, perfectly reasonable explications of baseball concepts. If you don't believe that there are enough sources to support an article, go check out a copy of a book like The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers and read it. Go ahead, I'll wait... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all (back) into pitcher or spawn a new Pitching techniques article if the parent is too long or there's enough info about these for their own page. That way the various terms for each type of pitcher can be covered ("deceptive pitcher", "knuckleballer", "power pitcher", etc.) together, solves problems of multiple terms for the same or overlapping types, explain/compare/contrast instead of trying to explain each on its own or having to add somewhat boilerplate context material on each. This solves the concern of having to "wade through" the whole pitcher article (though one can link to sections regardless). Certainly the topic of pitching styles and types is encyclopediac, no need for lots of less-formal pages and trying to assert notability for each in particular. DMacks 01:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This comes close to being "unsourced". While you have the guts, at least, to make sources, you need to improve in that respect. Using the word "velocity" and citing to Merriam-Webster doesn't add anything to the article. Suggestion: google the phrase "power pitcher" and read some more. Mandsford 01:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per TonyTheTiger. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into a section of pitcher. The individual articles are not notable enough to stand alone, but a section in the main article is easily acceptable. Realkyhick 03:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into pitcher. I'm usually for keeping all types of articles, but in this case, the terms are too vague to warrant their own articles. The subject matter fits well within pitcher though. X96lee15 03:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone who considers the difference between a pitcher who succeeds using velocity and one who succeeds using accuracy to be a vague difference may not understand baseball well enough to warrant a vote. It would be like holding a business discussion about companies who compete on price and those who compete on quality and describing the difference as vague. They are two different types of pitchers just like they are two different business models.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Vague" as in "the categories are not mutually exclusive", not "vague" as in "definition of term". But thanks for giving me the example, it really helped with the discussion. X96lee15 15:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question to all If we did a "merge", might i suggest that we only did a partial merge. Again, the concept isn't inherently bad, but the information available in these articles is somewhat misleading and the sources are not really "applicable" as they exist. Would that be agreeable? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 03:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As TonyTheTiger has been the only user to edit the article, he knows more about the information in the article than any of us. If the article is merged, then I suggest that he play a huge part in merging the information. But first things first: let's decide whether the article should exist or not, merged or whatever, and then decide what should be merged to where, etc. I still hold my "keep" opinion, but let's just wait for this to play out before discussing what to do with the information if it's deleted or merged or whatever. It still could be kept. Ksy92003(talk) 03:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT The AFD nominator has withdrawn his nomination statement. Does that make this AFD moot?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm thinking... that will be up to the closing admin to determine, I suppose. Ksy92003(talk) 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not make it moot as there are delete/merge votes here Corpx 18:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is my luck, I have an article headed to no consensus on its own talk page merger discussion. People get disatisfied with that result and AfD it. Then withdraw their AfD statements and it is still on the fence about to get pushed over into AfD neverland. This AfD should have never happened and there is a lot of opposition to the merger. I hope it is enough to "confirm" the no consensus that should have been a satisfactory resolution. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Power keep per other Keep comments above. Newyorkbrad 20:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A number of these terms, such as "fireballer" and "control pitcher" are already in the List of baseball jargon, which is a glossary of everyday, mainly informal terminology that's part of the game of baseball as it is played, watched, broadcast, and analyzed but doesn't need to have a separate WP article nor is it likely to be covered in some other general article. IMO, quite a few separate articles on everyday terminology can be deleted, and readers will find both definitions and explanations (and links to main articles and references when appropriate) in the glossary.--Mack2 18:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Numerous terms on the list you mention have ((Main)) tags, including Control pitcher. The fact that a one line definition in a list has a dedicated main article is a good thing and helps the encyclopedia.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - If enough reliable sources think the topics are good enough for their publication, who are any of us to say that the same topic is not suitable for this encyclopedia? There a lot of questions these articles can explore - the meaning of Power pitcher and how that meaning may have changed over time, details on those who were/are considered Power pitcher's and any comparisons among that group, power picture's influence on the game and influence on the game over time, etc. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 03:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reputable sources seem to make a notable distinction, and it seems encyclopedic enough to me. Maxa megalon 2000 05:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Power pitcher and Control pitcher; redirect Fireballer to Power pitcher (since these are essentially synonymous terms). These topics easily meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines—that is, they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there are reliable sources and interested editors to work on these articles, and they are important to the sport of baseball. BRMo 14:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ksy92003.--Truest blue 14:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ksy92003. This article is encyclopedic. --Borgarde^talk 11:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's like a wrong convention in here.►Chris Nelson 17:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, who are you to say that our opinions are wrong? Look, I know I've supported you in the past, but just because you have one opinion doesn't mean everybody else is wrong because they share a different opinion, okay? Ksy92003(talk) 04:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is still young, how can it be improved on if you delete it? merging the whole series of article related to this one would make the main Pitcher article stupidly long. --Dan027 07:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is well referenced, its notable, its young, it deserves to be kept --Childzy ₪ Talk 22:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was copyvio of http://www.lunenburgoperahouse.com/flash/rhude.swf. W.marsh 23:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Rhude[edit]

This screams "copyvio" at me, but google shakes it head at me. So are his exhibitions encyclopedic, is this a copyvio? Splash - tk 22:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO~~; notability not asserted~~. Exhibition record does not establish sufficient notability. Freshacconci 22:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is asserted where there are numerous exhibitions claimed. That's why I didn't speedy it. Splash - tk 23:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. There may be numerous exhibitions claimed, but they are not of a level to establish notability. Freshacconci 23:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 23:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Run Into The Sun[edit]

"This song, if it exists, is not listed anywhere in connection with this film; Billboard does not give out film awards; I suspect frivolity" was the CSD reason given by User:Pegship. Since it is not CSD criteria, I've brought here for discussion. Ma x im 22:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolity might not be a CSD criteria, but this hoax should still be deleted. humblefool ® 00:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Humblefool. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. How far down that list was it again? Realkyhick 03:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Complete hoax, and if by some miracle it's not, it's not even remotely close to notable. fuzzy510 06:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. --Aarktica 17:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hibrida[edit]

I don't know what to make of this article, and so I didn't want to speedy it in ignorance. However, it seems like an organisation of little consequence, but AfD's leisurely processes would do well to examine this a bit. Splash - tk 21:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N, WP:CORP, WP:V. Jauerback 22:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jauerback, fails WP:CORP and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Although an interesting idea, the article fails every guideline noted above. Bearian 00:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 18:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Sangree[edit]

Tagged as an nnbio, but it very clearly includes assertions of notability and is not a speedy. Nevertheless, those claims look marginal at best, and AfD is here for that very job... Splash - tk 21:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems largely forgotten today; there are almost as many Google book hits for "Allen Sangree" as regular Google hits. However, his work was reviewed in the New York Times, which suggests he was somewhat important in the early 1900s. I'll bet this article could be expanded with a little effort and access to the right resources. Zagalejo 21:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to fill in some of the information as I can dig it up. BTW - I am an "interested party" in this topic - Allen Sangree was a great-great uncle of mine. My reasoning for adding the page is: he was a journalist for the New York Evening World around the time that Joesph Pulitzer was running it, he covered the Boer War in South Africa specifically following General Christaan De Wet and it appears that he was critical of the British in his writing, he was a sports writer who covered baseball and has been referenced in several books covering baseball, and it appears that he somehow got involved with trying to dig up dirt on one of the founders of the American Federation of Labor, Samuel Gompers . So far I have been just uncovering references. And finally yes I understand the article is a bit weak right now, but I believe that I might be able to at least fill out some of his history with proper references. CheyenneWills 23:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have started to add some more information that will hopefully address the concerns. My biggest problem at the moment is tht I do not have access to some of the original articles (either on paper or in digital formats) I have been relying on google books to obtain what information that I can. I should hopefully be able to supply some personal information (such as where and when he was born, when he died, etc.) once I have talked with some of my relatives CheyenneWills 07:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At present, a fairly well referenced and carefully researched article. DGG (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 02:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanyukta Shrestha[edit]

No assertion of notability, POV, and created by User:Sanyuktashrestha, whose only contributions are on this article and its images. Biruitorul 21:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oh noes! WP:Vanity. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO - lacks articles talking about him Corpx 00:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Chase me and Corpx. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Asserts notability as having won two prices, one for animation and the other for his other art. I am not sure that these two prizes are significant. Did the prev. commentators take account of them? DGG (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible a neutral article could be done on him. But given (1) the lack of a coherent referencing structure and with it reliable sources that would allow us to gauge his notability and more importantly (2) the clear conflict of interest in someone whose sole work on Wikipedia has been to upload a biography of himself, this version should be scrapped. Biruitorul 06:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to fail WP:N. there is only one link which could be counted as a reference, and that is a trivial one, where he exhibits with 10 other tibetan artists Ohconfucius 10:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Mango juice^talk 03:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watercone[edit]

This is a well-meaning article that is clearly unencyclopedic in both tone (which is sofixable) and content. It appears to broadly deal with a commercialised version of a product known to desert island adventurers around the world. I took off a speedy tag as I do not agree that it is blatant advertising, and the PROD tag I replaced it with was removed consequent to the addition of some external material [2]. Nevertheless, at the present time this does not survive notability tests such as those in WP:CORP for the marketing company nor general encyclopedic tests of impact. Delete. Splash - tk 20:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of homework reveals that the generic name for these devices is a Solar still. Redirect there. humblefool ® 00:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful and redirect to Solar still. Dbromage [Talk] 01:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Dbromage. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Humblefool. --Aarktica 17:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Solar still. A brief reading of the article reveals nothing unique or useful to merge; it's largely advertising and how-to content. --Darkwind (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Turner[edit]

This is a self-promotional article with no references to second-hand sources establishing notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julinar (talk • contribs) 20:09, 14 August 2007

Comment - This nom is ~~broken and incomplete, not to mention unsigned and~~ the only edit of the nominator. —Travis^talk 20:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've put the correct template on the article. FiggyBee 21:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. Also, I wasn't aware one had to be notorious to have a wiki article; notable, perhaps ;) ... anyway, Delete, editor of a magazine is not notable. FiggyBee 21:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources talking about her Corpx 00:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's a WP:AUTO issue here, too, as User:Crashdmt created the article on Diane Marie Turner, and that user's only edits have been to this article. Plus the above mentioned WP:N :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. Hugely messy article, autohagiography and spam to boot. Bearian 00:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raman_Table[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Raman Table

The page appears to be an advertisement, is written in practically unintelligibly poor English, and cites no sources. --Angio 19:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I'd have CSD'd this one jddphd (talk · contribs) 19:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, non-notable subject. —Travis ^talk 20:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 22:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 23:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raman_gim[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Raman gim

The page cites no sources, appears to be an advertisement, and is written unintelligibly. In addition, the now-deleted user appears to have had as his only purpose on Wikipedia the creation of this and other articles on the supposed Raman system, all of which are written in this manner. --Angio 19:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and possibly unsourceable. I was only able to find Wikipedia (& mirror) pages about the subject. Jakew 20:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, non-notable neologism, and possibly self-promotional. —Travis ^talk 20:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:RS and WP:V deficiencies as well as possible WP:COI. --Aarktica 18:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton^One 16:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies[edit]

No genuine assertion of notability, shoddily referenced, and above all, egregiously POV. Created by one User:Hauenstein, who has exactly two contributions, both to this article. Biruitorul 19:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: User:Alansohn has made substantial edits to the version I nominated, and gone a long way to address my NPOV concerns, though WP:RS and WP:N remain potential issues. Biruitorul 01:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a well-sourced article that describes a program making explicit claims of notability. While it may have been created by an individual with a connection to the institution, the article has been edited multiple times by about ten other editors since its creation and stands on its own regardless of the insinuated taint of its original creation. Where is this POV described in the nomination? Alansohn 20:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, for starters: "generous contribution" (of Hauenstein, of course); peacock POV quotes like "a unique perspective... an amazing network"; "one of the American leaders in presidential studies"; "provides insight"; "the most incisive news and commentary"; "wasted no time getting started"; "a dizzying 11 public programs"; plus use of the first person: "We sponsor...". Would you like more? This is advertising, plain and simple. Biruitorul 20:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is the institution non-notable or do you have content issues? Every single one of the issues you've raised (and more) could be address in seconds if you have a genuine interest in resolving the issue, rather than using the nuclear option of destroying the article because there are extremely minor issues. Did you make any edits to the article to address your concerns, and more importantly, did you place any POV tags or make any constructive comments on the article's talk page. Using AfD in lieu of making any effort to cleanup the article -- or have anyone else clean it up to your satisfaction -- is utterly counterproductive. Alansohn 22:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lack of NPOV and RS are not "extremely minor issues" - check WP:TRI if you don't believe me. I see you have made significant edits, and I commend those. Sourcing for the body of the text and an assertion of notability would be nice, but there is a real chance of me changing my vote. However, I will wait for what others may have to say on the issue. Biruitorul 01:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I think that Biru has a point. Although I think that a good article about the Hauenstein Center could be written, some intern has cobbled this one together from press releases. If it's deleted, it can come back without the POV-laden literary flourish. If the article can get rewritten (and warning to the author, every one here on Wikipedia has the right to edit "your creation") to look like an encylopedia article instead of a tourist brochure, I'd change my vote to keep. I would wager that Mr. Hauerstein and the Grand Valley State faculty would agree that this article needs to be reworded for the good of mankind. Mandsford 21:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said - I have no prejudice against recreation, provided NPOV and RS. Biruitorul 01:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt a good article showing notability could be written--a minor research center at a minor sate university. But if someone wants to try, fine with me. The present one is a rehash of various elements in the web site. DGG (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the article is much improved after User:Alansohn's edits, though I still doubt the notability of the center. There are no sources cited from the scholastic worlds of presidential history or political affairs that would truly demonstrate notability. --Darkwind (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Nelson[edit]

Article was originally prodded, but unprodded multiple times. One of the unprods yields the comment "can't see why a pure factual article was removed - needs expanding though". Original prod nominator is currently on vacation, so I am nominating this on his behalf.

Personally, I feel this actor is not notable enough to warrant his own article. He had a couple of minor roles in films, including a stint in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix as "Slightly Creepy Boy"). Deathphoenix ʕ 19:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be a minor actor, fails WP:N. Wizardman 19:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Minor roles in minor films; only one major motion picture, and only five roles in six years. If he plays someone we remember, perhaps we can re-add. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 19:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO - no noteable roles. Only actors who play roles that are significant in the production they were involved in should have Wikipedia articles. He only seems to have been an extra in the Harry Potter film in question. Lra drama 19:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Smokizzy (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - his roles appear to have been non-notable thus far; WP:BIO doesn't appear to have been met. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frag - when his role consists of a description, you know he's not notable. David Fuchs^(talk) 21:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously not notable enough. Bella Swan_(Talk!) 22:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bang! - not notable enough to warrant a place in the content. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless the "Holby City" role was significant — that show is sort of a British equivalent of ER. If reliable sources are added, I could be persuaded to change my !vote. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, the one keep opinion was apparently based on a misunderstanding. Sandstein 19:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cordelia Naismith (Lady on the Embankment)[edit]

Apparently a minor character in a novel that does not even have its own article yet. Wizardman 19:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it may be a very poor article in terms of content, but I get the impression that this character was the basis of one of Holmes' investigations, in which case she wouldn't be a minor character. In which case the article should stay. But, I'm not sure as I haven't read the book in question, but I thought I should point that out. It definately needs renaming though - Cordelia Naismith (character) would be better or just the name on its own. Lra drama 19:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence why I brought it here. It might be a more major character than it looks, bu the article does a poor job of showing it. Maybe someone will see this and show its notability. Wizardman 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems weird to me. "The Adventure of the Lady on the Embankment" is a short story by Bujold (involving Holmes), but I don't think there's quite enough to sustain an article on the basis of a singular story in this case. I won't say delete, but I am slightly dubious at this point. FrozenPurpleCube 22:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep - I am the creator of this page but not the content. Some unsigned user added all the content shown on this page to the Cordelia Naismith page. The characters are completely unrelated, except for the fact that they share the same name and are created by the same author. I felt that they should be separated. SO I did it. However, I know nothing about the character beyond what the unsigned unknown user added. I am making no claim about the value of this character page, I just think that it should be separate from the Cordelia Naismith page. I was hoping for the unsigned user to actually contribute more. Dachande 02:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The protagonist of each individual Homes story is notable, as is the story, there being criticism on all of them. DGG (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, this isn't a Holmes story by Arthur Conan Doyle, but one by another author using the character. FrozenPurpleCube 02:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the topic to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 02:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable secondary sources can be found. Incidentally, if deleted, it would be worthwhile to mention at Cordelia Naismith that the author used the same name in an otherwise unrelated story. Indeed, that's the sort of real-world context that WP:WAF recommends. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Posse[edit]

There is very little content/context in the article, to the point where I don't know if this is notable or not. Wizardman 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom + very, very few hits on Google. Fails noteability for sure. Lra drama 19:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced article and seems like non-notable fictional characters--NAHID 19:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above jddphd (talk · contribs) 19:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator Defense Force[edit]

Article was previously deleted via Speedy Deletion as non-notable. The page has been recreated. The band in question was formed in August 2007 according to the article itself. The band fails WP:MUSIC. A search through Google for the band shows a single result which is a Digg entry made by the article author pointing to wikipedia. Fails WP:RS, and WP:V Whpq 19:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This band should definitely have their own Wikipedia page, because they are one of the fastest-growing bands to come out of Oregon, and they have become very popular and well-known in the underground indie rock community. They have even received a good deal of airplay with their song "At Least I Tried". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiura22 (talk • contribs)

Comment - You can help your case by documenting the airplay with reliable soruces. Also, based on your username, would you happen to be the Thomas Hiura identified as a band member? You should be aware of conflict of interest guidelines. -- Whpq 19:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Assuming username indicates membership in this band. Obvious WP:COI. jddphd (talk · contribs) 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unfortunately, the author's statement of radio play might be considered an assertion of notability, which kind of removes the "speedy" option. However, any band created in August 2007 who posts this comment on Digg - which gives it one of its two total Google hits - should be speedyable. Doesn't even see WP:MUSIC on the horizon, unless there's something else hiding out there that I can't find. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was one who had speedied this one and I think it just doesn't cut it. It seems a pretty straight forward decision. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 20:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per jddphd, clearly fails WP:MUSIC. Thiura22 needs a warning about WP:COI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if you accept the external links as sources, there are not any reliable sources independent of the subject to demonstrate notability. Aboutmovies 04:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND, hasn't got any single or album released according to the article, no reliable sources provided. Mel sa ran 14:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Nabla 16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biker Metal[edit]

I can't find any evidence or reliable sources to indicate that this is indeed a notable subgenre of metal. The article isn't forthcoming with them, either. Crystallina 19:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as marginally notable with under 1,000 Ghits [3] but not readily verifiable. Bearian 01:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, there do seem to be sources available that mention "biker metal" ([4]) but the question is, is it a subgenre or just a description? Either way, as Crystallina points out, the article in its current state is definitely not worth keeping, as if you take the weasel word away you're left with a sub-dicdef. If this can be expanded then I'd be for keeping. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep / wangi 19:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales[edit]

AfDs for this article:

He may have founded wiki, but is he really noteable? The founders of IMDb et al don't have their own articles, so why this guy? Fails WP:BIO and the WP:N test. Bravedog 18:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy and obvious keep with 48 reliable sources and a multitude of international media appearances, this nomination is just plain silly. You might want to read WP:Notability. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can see where the nominator is coming from, but am in between. Not all sources are reliable, see this example. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 18:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep. Bad faith nom Dina 18:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moon landing[edit]

Clearly a hoax. Most reasonable people know this was filmed on a backlot in Hollywood. Fails WP:V and a host of other stuff. Moonerlanding 17:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this as a bad faith nom. Dina 17:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD A7 by me. Dina 18:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri spice[edit]

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Bushcarrot ^Talk _{Please Sign!} 17:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. xbox360wraith, read up on our policies before further commenting, positive or negative, especially WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Kurykh 23:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChatterBox Video Game Radio[edit]

Not notable per WP:WEB. Contains no reliable sources Me5000 17:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local broadcast radio show = very narrow scope of notability Corpx 00:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NicM 08:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep You guys are such dorks. It's info to a product that exists, are your lives really that affected that a 1 page brochure about it is on this site. Jesus there's an entire section devoted to local radio station affilates, but a show on one of the affiliates somehow doesn't qualify. Loosen up. xbox360wraith 08:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wants this list to work on categorization or other alternatives, let me know, and I'll undelete into user or project space. — TKD::Talk 23:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games based on licensed properties[edit]

Arbitrary, incomplete and very crufty. Is it really nessacary to have a list with every video game based on every movie or franchise out there? Perhaps merge each section with the appropriate franchise article it is based on? Rackabello 17:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ridiculous listcruft. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am usually hard on lists, and this one is one 'em. Triple3D 00:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per list of loosely associated topics Corpx 00:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as listcruft but consider turning some into categories. Category:Video games based on comics is no more or less useful than Category:Films based on biographies. Thin Arthur 09:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split I have been working on splitting this [5] in line with other similar lists - in particular Lists of films. It has a well defined remit (or the individual entries would have after the parts are split off) and similar lists are useful and well maintained are superior to a category (as they can be well policed - there can be problems without solid policing) see e.g. List of fiction works made into feature films. (Emperor 21:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 12:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Leila Joranera[edit]

No evidence of notability. FisherQueen (Talk) 17:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madison has modelled for Prada and cant believe this is coming into discussion

— Kenny69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Corvus cornix 18:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madison needs to fire her agent, then, since she has zero Google hits under "Madison Leila Joranera" or "Madison Joranera", and only one role as "Madison Wilkins". Delete, hoax. Corvus cornix 18:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are found Corpx 00:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with only one hit and c. 1,000 Ghits [6]. Neither a hoax nor notable. Bearian 01:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By what reasoning do you come to the conclusion that this not a hoax? Thre is no evidence that Madison Joranera and Madison Wilkins are the same person. Corvus cornix 21:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn by nominator, default to keep. Kurykh 23:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore City College Football[edit]

This page does not belong on Wikipedia as wikipedia is not a memorial site for the experiences of students on teams. This would not be found in an encyclopedia. BCC Football has no real tie to notablitly other than the fact that George Young coached the team. There are many high schools that have had major league coaches as well as player go on to the professional leagues. Not a single one of those programs have their own page. This isn't the space for that it belongs on the schools' sports program website. What is notable about the team is what is most covered on the page and that is discussion about the "City-Poly" football rivalry which is the oldest on any "public high school" in the country. That rivalry is not limited to these eras of coaches at city alone but should mention info about both schools. I would suggest the creation of a page that covers the City Poly rivalry.--Bcc07 17:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am withdrawing my nomination of this article for deletion. After writing up my reasons for deletion, I realized that I should have requested that this article be moved to City–Poly football rivalry and not nominated it for deletion. Is it possible to withdraw the nomination? --Bcc07 17:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and move as per nom. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Baltimore City College is the oldest high school in Maryland and the third oldest in the country. In the past year, editors have tripled the size of the article about "City", probably due to the volume of available verifiable information on the school and its hundreds of notable graduates. Several spin-off pages have already been created with regard to the school: History of Baltimore City College, Bancroft Literary Association and Carrollton-Wight Literary Society (the school's debate team) and List of Baltimore City College people. These articles were created when the information they contained grew too large for the City College main page. As I developed information on the school's football program, I decided it to contained too much information for the school's main page and created the article in question two days ago. The article is, by no means complete, but already contains information on three notable coaches, inclduing the aforementioned George Young, at the institution, several players from the team who went to the NFL or achieved noteriety in their own right, and the more two dozen Baltimore City and Maryland State Scholastic Association championships won by the team. Furthermore, the article takes on even greater significance when one considers the tremendous obstacles the team has had to overcome, just to remain in existence. It is an inner city high school football team that is living up to and in some cases surpassing the 150 years of history that preceded it. The rivalry between City College and Baltimore Polytechnic Institute is one of the oldest rivalries in the country, but that rivalry is simply part of the football program's history. The football program, including its history is what is notable.For these reasons tha page should be kept. 67knight 20:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)creator[reply]

Keep - as is- provided the article is expanded as promised. High school football is big, especially in Texas, Ohio, California and Florida. Didn't realize that Maryland had such a rich history. Triple3D 00:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Computerjoe 's talk 12:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty (group)[edit]

Non-notable group that fails WP:BAND and WP:N. Lacks any kind of sources for WP:V. Speedy declined because they are signed with Universal Records. Jauerback 17:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite entirely, as this is a thinly changed copy-and-paste from their All Music Guide biography (as printed here on Billboard.com). The article's thin on verifiability, but their current album is charting with Billboard (#18 on the Top Rap Albums and #40 on Top R&B/Hip-Hop), and their previous albums, especially from 2001 and 2003, seem to have reached some pretty good levels of notability. Needs stubification for now, rewrite by someone with knowledge of the band and music, and sourcing. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the article and added references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.63.89.99 (talk • contribs)

It's been three days and nobody's responding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.63.89.99 (talk • contribs)

Weak keep articles which say things like "The duo... are still struggling for attention" don't sound promising, but hits on specialist album charts imply that they have notability within their field. Better sourcing would be appreciated - do they have reviews in the music press? Iain99 07:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable charting on Billboard passes notabilty. Precious Roy 16:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"articles which say things like "The duo... are still struggling for attention" don't sound promising" I rewrote that.

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

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

The result was keep. — TKD::Talk 22:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why I Hate Abercrombie and Fitch: Essays on Race and Sexuality[edit]

No demonstrated meeting of WP:NB. Qqqqqq 16:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Benjiboi's improvements made all the difference. Qqqqqq 16:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 16:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I agree it's not demonstrated, but the claim that it is "used in Queer Studies in Universities" seems to meet criteria 4 of WP:NB. Needs referencing though. FiggyBee 16:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely weak keep. If references are provided to indicate that this book really is used in queer studies, then keep the article, if, at the end of five days, no such references are provided, delete. Corvus cornix 18:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment refs added. Benjiboi 09:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviewed in several scholarly journals, including Women's Studies Quarterly, College Literature, Journal of Popular Culture, and GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies. (Unfortunately, I don't have links, but all these reviews are listed on Academic Search Premier.) In addition, I've found it listed on a number of syllabi. Zagalejo 22:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added the refs from Zagalejo's syllabus search to avoid duplicative work.

Keep per FiggyBee and Zagalejo. Benjiboi 07:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~Another one that needs a lot of work (a lota lot), but it makes the grade, barely.~~ Agree with FiggyBee and Zagalejo, just like Benjiboi. And I think Corvus cornix concerns have been addressed. — Becksguy 09:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Strong keep now. Benjiboi has added more than enough references to show notability. Good job! — Becksguy 02:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian 01:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it would need to be tidied up but i cant see why it needs to be deleted entirely(Pi 22:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swindley[edit]

A person in a Youtube video. Speedy deletion tags were removed by page creator User:Mosler64. FiggyBee 16:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very informative article you delete it someone else will put it back on! User:Mosler64

Delete. No notability whatsoever. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 16:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with above: absolutely no notability. Oregongirl0407 17:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, & already resulting in the vandalism of other pages; classy. --mordicai. 17:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Salting is probably in order.

Deeply Sorry I just want to keep the page for people, but it keeps being dismissed, the only way to get people to listen is to edit other articles. JUST LEAVE IT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosler64 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 14 August 2007

Delete And to prevent the author or others from carrying out his threat, salt as well. Non notable. —Travis ^talk 17:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crookham Krakatoa Football Club[edit]

Contested speedy deletion. This amateur village football club has never played at a level higher than the Aldershot & District League (level 12 in the English league system) and appears to have no other claim to notability. No reliable sources found. ChrisTheDude 15:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 15:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find non-trivial third party sources in Google.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Club has not played at level 6 or above and is not notable for any other reasons. Number 5 7 15:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Level 12 isn't notable and no other claim for notability has been made. --Scottmsg 15:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources underpinning any notability claim. Bridgeplayer 15:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks any reliable sources to support notability.-- danntm ^T _C 16:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all above. How about Snowball Delete. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 16:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. --Malcolmxl5 19:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to recreation. As DGG points out, sufficient secondary sources could conceivably be produced to create an encyclopedic article on these verses. At that point, these articles could be re-created directly, incorporating the secondary sources. Alternately, consideration to a centralized article or discussion could be entertained by the involved editors. However, the delete voters' arguments are compelling for the articles as they now stand. MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psalm articles[edit]

The material does not seem to justify separate articles for these psalms. --Eliyak T·C 15:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Granted they're not good right now, but I'll try and expand them if that would be agreeable. As chapters of the Bible, there has to be a wealth of info on them from which articles could be created. Carl.bunderson 18:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep likewise. I am acquiring one or more commentaries on the Psalms shortly. Rich Farmbrough, 21:27 14 August 2007 (GMT).

Delete-- I seem to recall a bru-ha-ha about bible verse articles about a year ago. John 3:16 should get an article; there's nothing that can be said about these verses. Delete both. humblefool ® 00:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The resent articles are extremely sketchy, but we are judging the notability of the subject. Every individual psalm has had hundreds of pieces of criticism and analysis over the two and a half millennia since they have been written--and in fact, the NT verses in the articles represent some of that, and the fact of the quotations by itself has a similarly large amount of analysis. The Bible has been the chief intellectual concern of millions of people for thousands of years. DGG (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 00:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 00:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Psalm article contain anything of value. Some have trivia about where they are said by various groups in prayers which can be dealt better in a centralized article about the prayers themselves (List of Jewish prayers and blessings, Prayer in Christianity etc). A few have large "in popular culture" section which are not about how they culturally impacted on the world but trivia about how someone quoted a bible verse in a TV show from the 70's. The Psalms in question have almost nothing beside translations in the article. In fact per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text we should have just redirected it without an AFD, but once it started we should probably see it through. There was a similar discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psalm 143 - which resulted in a delete and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psalm 103(a group deletion of all psalm article that currently existed) - which resulted in a keep (Most people said that there is plenty to say about a Psalm besides its translation - but a year and a half later the articles look the same and I haven't yet seen anything which should be in the articles). Jon513 20:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable. Amazon Book Search lists 182 commentaries on (not translations of) the Psalms; the Oxford University Library Catalogue [7] lists 5,776 works on the Psalms (including translations). These articles may need work, but the potential is certainly there. We already have the beginnings of a good article on The Song of Hiawatha - surely an individual Psalm is a poem with at least as much notability? 79.73.45.86 00:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along same lines as reasons User:Jon513 gives. Even the article on Psalm 23 is little more than a huge dump of pop cuture trivia. Mangoe 20:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find it useful.QueenAdelaide 06:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly Delete these two articles, but Keep most other psalm articles. This deletion should be without prejudice to their recreation, when some one is prepared to provide a proper article. The text of the psalms should not be quoted at length: that should be in Wikisource. Once the text is removed, there will be little or nothing left. There is no reason however why commentaries on (or other discussions of) particular psalms should not be encyclopaedic and thus why there should not be articles on them. This will on occasions involve the liturgical use of particular psalms and the historical context in which they were written (where known). There is a problem over the numberring of the later psalms and I would suggest that this should be that of most English language bibles, but an "other uses" link should be provided at the head of each article, for the benefit of Jews and others using the other numberring. Peterkingiron 15:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Psalm 69 is briefly quoted in the article currently named Claimed Messianic prophecies of Jesus, but that is also to be rewritten. In time, an article on Psalm 69 will be useful for a fuller discussion of views on its interpretation and claimed fulfilment in Jesus. The article has some value even now by linking to the citations in the Gospels. It is also a useful placeholder for the link to Ministry (band)'s similarly-titled industrial music album. I would therefore keep Psalm 69 but delete Psalm 96 as it stands. - Fayenatic london (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In response to DGG, and 79.73.45.86 who both point out that there are a lot of commentaries on Psalms and therefore should be kept. I would like to point out that there are many many commentaries on every single sentence of the the bible. One could in theory write an article for every single bible verse and quote Nahmanides, Rashi, Abraham ibn Ezra as well as all the Christian bible scholar, and all the bible critics. That would be a bad idea. Beside the fact they they are unmaintainable, there are major themes in bible (especially in psalms), and having an article on every chapter make it so you can't see the forest from the trees. Better to deal with themes (musical adaptions of Psalms, Psalms in prayer etc). If one would want to write a summary of the every verse of the bible according to each commentary I think wikibooks would be better suited. Also I have not seen even a single one of these bible commentaries quoted in any of the psalm articles. In fact I am not quite sure what type of information you think do belong in the article (the articles are now translations and trivia) - you just seem to be convinced that there must be something to say. Jon513 14:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both without prejudice for recreation. Psalm 96 could just as easily be placed in Wikiquote, as it seems to be nothing other than a brief introduction, text and translation. Pslam 69 could potentially say more, but right now it doesn't have sufficient content to justify a separate article. It would be nice to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible get a bit more help in working on articles of this type, but that group doesn't seem to get much help. John Carter 15:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per above. The centralized discussion above does for 96, and 69 has no useful content. --Darkwind (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — TKD::Talk 23:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upwardly global[edit]

Looks like self-promotion. Is the organisation notable? -- RHaworth 13:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article -- Upwardly Global is a great organization, based in San Francisco and New York, and is indeed reputable at placing qualified candidates in specialized jobs.

Keep This newspaper article [8] shows that this article is notable enough to be kept. However, this article does need to be cleaned up to read less like an advertisement and show a NPOV. Tarret 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Google shows we can get good third party reliable sources on this. Tag as reading as an advert and clean, but I see no issues with regard to WP:N or WP:V in just a few minutes of digging. Pedro | Chat 15:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The organization is notable--when in doubt, always google it and check the website for press, etc. before suggesting deletion. Does read like an advert, though. I'll clean it up; I volunteer for this organization and am familiar with it.Ncg713 16:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Conti[edit]

Looks like an autobio. A previous version was speedied as nn. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 13:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It could use a few more references, but what is there I believe already establishes notability. Turlo Lomon 13:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Notability is asserted, but it really needs referencing.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep. I will add many more references (to his publications, etc). We are uploading notable astronomers that work at the Space Telescope Science Institute for the forthcoming launch of a collaboration with Google.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty001 (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 03:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but not everyone who works on a notable project is notable. "Chief Engineer for the Data Management System domain at the Hubble Space Telescope Science Institute." however is. The article is chock full of personal puffery. Read WP:COI and don't upload material like this. And you say "upload" -- where did you copy it from, and did you give us a license? Even if you did, this sort of material is not encyclopedic. Write neutral encyclopedic articles about the important people. And don't list every one of their published and unpublished papers--the most important published ones will do. After it's kept, I will reduce it to proper content and size and style. DGG (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This material was take from Space Telescope Science Institute Annual Reports (STScI) for the most part. STScI is operated by AURA under contract to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). This publication is in the public domain because it was created by NASA. NASA copyright policy states that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertoconti (talk • contribs)

Please don't refactor this discussion. --Tikiwont 09:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously an autobiography, and as such does not conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --Camptown 14:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quadbox[edit]

Fails WP:BAND. Only source I could find using Google did not list the label the band signed on to, and it even based its information from the Wikipedia article. No other reliable sources can be found. Panoptical 13:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are many, many marginally important groups that do not meet WP:MUSIC.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass WP:BAND and WP:V. ~ Wikihermit 15:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Wikihermit •Malinaccier• ^T/C 16:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 22:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AlbumPlayer[edit]

No evidence of notability; prod removed without comment by creator. FisherQueen (Talk) 12:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of notability per nom and insufficent third party reliable sources to verify this. Pedro | Chat 12:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pedro, no reliable independent sources. Panoptical 13:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dickpussy[edit]

prod contested, no reason given. Article to me is unverifiable (Personally, I am not going to the trouble of finding the Playboy article in question.) But even if it is verified, I don't think this is wiki worthy. Postcard Cathy 12:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Non-notable neologism and Wikipedia is not a dictionary (dicktionary?). It also sounds like nonsense and/or something made up in school one day. —Travis ^talk 14:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per both of the foregoing comments. No WP:RS, nonsense, and crap. --Evb-wiki 14:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lololololololololol. Seriously though, Strong Delete. Belongs in Urban Dictionary, not here. TheLetterM 14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, and it isn't even listed there. —Travis ^talk 17:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if it is a legitimate term there are insufficient sources to expand to a full article. Bridgeplayer 15:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. It's not patent nonsense, but violates WP:NOT#DICT and WP:NEO and is unsourced. Hell, snowball delete to avoid others wasting their time here.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bogus dickdef. Edison 16:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all the wise arguments above. --mordicai. 17:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as... um... dicdef. Jakew 19:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dickdelete save it for urban dictionary (not even there?) Bulldog123 19:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen many better candidates for snowball closure than this. —Travis ^talk 19:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BJAODN perhaps? Carlossuarez46 03:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Helping.Brusegadi 15:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, move to BJAODN. Mel sa ran 21:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic, and also per WP:POV. LOZ: OOT 22:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think its a dicdef at most, but do I understand the nom to say she thinks it is unreferenced because she wont go to the trouble of finding the reference? How does that contribute to building an encyclopedia?DGG (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, you best be joking. My library doesn't carry back issues. If yours does, go ahead and verify. And if they don't, you can spend the money to find a copy to buy and verify. Plus, we have been through this before: Not my place to supply verification. Original author knows I prod'd the article. If it is so important to them, they can verify. Plus, as a straight woman, I have no interest in looking at playboy. Plus, I will say again. Even if verified, it ain't wiki worthy. Now go out and find the issue yourself DGG!!! Postcard Cathy 00:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, give me a citation. The author must at least supply a page number for the Playboy source. As a straight man, I don't usually read the articles. So, unless it was on a tattoo, . . . . --Evb-wiki 03:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Box.net and YouSendIt; no consensus for FileFront. The former articles were edited to (at least partly) address the concerns raised in the nomination, and this is reflected in the discussion. The same is not true of FileFront (see history). That, the relative scarcity of comments specifically addressing that article, and the fact that the articles became less comparable over time, suggest that the general consensus to keep does not extend to that article. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Box.net[edit]

We have a number of articles on practically identical file sharing services, that are part advertising, part trivia, and part identical descriptions of what they do and the forums and widgets they use. I don't think any of this belongs in an encyclopedia; Wikipedia is not an index of websites. >Radiant< 10:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megaupload.

Keep all, they meet notability guidelines. I can't quite see the reason you're nominating them. --Darksun 10:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because they're part advertising, part trivia, and part identical to every single other file hosting service? >Radiant< 11:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So fix it - those arn't reasons for deletion --Darksun 12:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's false. Trivia falls foul of WP:NOT, and advertising is actually a reason for speedy deletion. >Radiant< 12:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. They are definitely notabile. The articles need some cleanup, not deletion. Turlo Lomon 12:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Got any sources for that? >Radiant< 12:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, let's see. Wall Stree Journal, Seattle Times, Gaming Today, BetaNews. Need more? Turlo Lomon 13:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Passing mention in a short newspaper article does not qualify. "Oh look, these guys from our town invented something that was invented before!" Fifteen minutes of fame isn't. Is there any actual scientific or socio-historical research into not just the phenomenon of file storing, but on actual distinction between the various sites? I thought not. >Radiant< 13:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep YouSendIt, as it has third-party reliable sources.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there is nothing wrong with the existence of such an article, just that [when I added the first spam tag] the article might as well have been a press release.
I have removed the list/section of "Partners and Integrations Using Box.net's API" and simply replace it with a one sentence section "API": Box.net has an API for developers, which is implemented via Vanilla XML.
I have also removed the "Features" section; this is not notable information; it is an advertisment of Box.net's features.
I have also re-worded the note about the free plan to this: Whilst it is primarily a paid-for web service, a limited free plan is available, however this is feature- and storage- limited and has adverts.
--J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 19:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be largely an advertisement. If this company is notable (by which I mean that there is an unusual/interesting and verifiable fact about it), then I would support amending instead. Jakew 19:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but YouSendIt, which seems to have thin recognition. The other two as currently written are essentially advertisements and shows no evidence of encyclopedic merit under CSD A7. Very thin on sources too. -- nae'blis 00:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All these articles should be merged/redirected to One-click hosting (save maybe rapidshare, which was the first one). humblefool® 00:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect sounds like a reasonable solution, actually. >Radiant< 09:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FileFront isn't a one click hosting service though. It's more like FilePlanet. Darksun 10:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article no longer sounds like an advertisement -- but I can understand concerns about notability (but inclusion in WSJ is interesting). --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 11:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone take a look at Files-Upload.com as well? Ollie990 14:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Yousendit and Box.net. Delete or find another proper merge target for FileFront which is a slightly different beast. In any case remove lots of spammy trivia. In general I don't think that anything is worth merging so a delete and redirect would be a fine solution in my view but I am not an expert in the field. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Files-Upload.com another AfD on a similar site (converted from speedy). Eluchil404 20:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only does it meet notability guidlines, its the most visited generic file sharing/storage site on the net

Alexa Rankings compared to competitors Also, I've added a press section, anytime a newspaper mentioned online storage (Xdrive and others) Box is mentioned, if that doesn't show notability then nothing does. If there are advertisement concerns, edit it so its not written as one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magic5227 (talk • contribs)

Keep I believe it meets notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy cow (talk • contribs)
Holy moly, strong keep to the max - how many third party references does this site have? It passes WP:WEB with flying colors. Radiant's argument that "Wikipedia is not an index of websites" seems to run completely contradictory to the spirit of WP:WEB - whether something is part of a so called "index" of sites is irrelevant. If it passes our notability guidelines, it's fit for keeping. The Evil Spartan 00:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The exhaustive press section recently added (to me at least) confirms notability. As long as this article is kept clean of advertisement-bias, it's certainly notable. It was mentioned as a pioneering file storage app in a Personal Computer World "Web 2.0" feature. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 10:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep YouSendIt. I've added re-written the article with some refs. Not sure about others. utcursch | talk 14:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these services, especially FileFront, are unquestionably notable. See the huge list of references in each article. WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:CRUFT isn't a reason for deletion. Mel sa ran 15:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - I really don't see any compelling reason to delete. It's only normal for an article about a service provider website to describe that website's features; "advertising" is a bit of a stretch. Ideally some of these articles might have Criticism/Limitations/Issues sections, but that's a reason to add to the article, not delete it. Deleting these pages is just an enormous waste of time to the editors who have to recreate them with very similar content. If you want to remove a small, unobtrusive trivia section that belongs on the article's talk page. The similar structure between some of the file hosting articles is intentional as it helps with comparisons. The articles themselves are anything but identical. — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - How are the listing these sites considered advertising? Would listing other popular websites like woot.com, ign.com, et al be considered good for deletion as well? No. These are legitimate websites that actually have the traffic for them to be worth putting up on Wikipedia. I say no. - XX55XX 18:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 11:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babu Sovereign[edit]

The Person described is not relevant (or the reason for being relevant is not given in the text) Regenspaziergang 09:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Does not establish notability or establish the significance of the person. I will nominate for speedy deletion under A7 as this appears to be uncontroversial and there has been no previous AFD. Camaron1 | Chris 11:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with consideration to be given to a merge. There was no support for these articles to be deleted. I shall set up a merge discussion so that it can be considered as a post-AfD editorial matter. TerriersFan 17:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin (song)[edit]

Trivial songs. Discussions are currently in place on WP:MUS as to the criteria for a song's notability - neither this, nor any of the other Marvin songs meets even the most generous of the proposed criteria [9]. ~~Delete~~. SilkTork 08:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

SilkTork 09:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all. Kappa 09:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to the band who performed it. If (as is often the case) there's not enough information on a song to write a viable non-stub article, put the information in a more central place instead, kind of like WP:FICT suggests we do for minor characters. >Radiant< 11:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge them all into one place, though I'm not sure where. The songs are notable enough for a brief mention somewhere. I'll raise the matter with WP:HHGTTG. --RFBailey 13:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also favour a Merge and a redirect if that is possible. Perhaps a section within the Marvin the Paranoid Android article. SilkTork 15:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the articles. They are well verified, and the only argument for deletion is notability. Well, I run a website with these songs on it and have lost count of the number of e-mails received thanking me for making them available. They are a niche interest, but within that niche there is no argument about notability. They are notable++. I guess the person proposing the deletion of the category and all its members is not an Inclusionist. Wikipedia does not have the same space limitations as a paper encyclopedia, so there is no need to restrict content in the same way that a Britannica must. It therefore can and should cater to niche interests. Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia that can do this; it is one of Wikipedia's great strengths. I created most of the articles. HairyWombat 17:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity is not the same as notability. Otto4711 16:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if something is popular then users will want to look it up. This suggests that all things popular are also notable. (However, not all things notable are popular, so your statement is correct.) HairyWombat 05:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All things popular are not notable, because there are guidelines as to what constitutes notability and popularity is explicitly noted as not conferring notability. A merge and redirect of these articles will allow anyone searching for them to still find them, as the information will still be in the Marvin article. Otto4711 02:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (statement of interest: I created the article) - but even so it satisfies WP:MUS for songs on point 2 ("has been ranked on a national or significant music chart), as stated in the article, it enteredthe British charts, and probably point 3 ("has been recognized...as being significant to a noteworthy group's repertoire."), if we stretch the case so that the noteworthy people are Douglas Adams, who wrote it, and Stephen Moore, who sang it - for each it was their biggest success in music. As the new criteria for inclusion are only proposed (and where is this discussion anyway?), I think the nomination is premature - let's see what the outcome of the debate is, and re-nominate then if necessary. Totnesmartin 18:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Marvin the Paranoid Android - the only one that comes close to being notable on the basis of the proposed guidelines for songs (which I realize have not been canonized just yet, but still) is Marvin (song) with an alleged "British charts" placement of 59. I admit I know little of how the British chart their music but if I'm reading this site correctly it's a Top 40 chart so 59th place doesn't really cut it IMHO. A section for the songs in the article for the character is sufficient in the absence of reliable sources attesting to the notability of the individual songs. Otto4711 18:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The British chart is a Top 75. True Radio One's Top 40 (the same published chart, but just the top 40 songs in it) is an institution, but Guinness Hit Singles book (also an institution)uses the entire top 75 to compile its information. The top 75 is also posted up in various record shops. Totnesmartin 20:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK so this one song made it 14 spots up the chart. The remaining songs, which didn't chart at all, have no claim to notability. I still feel like the material is better served by being in a single article rather than fragmented. Otto4711 21:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the notability issue here isn't purely their success and popularity as songs, but their origin as a spin-off from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. --RFBailey 11:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm not seeing then why a merge of the material to the character's article, which preserves the information in a concise format, is objectionable. Otto4711 12:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Mole: I consider these songs as part of the BBC's masterpiece, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy on DVD and audio CD. Be foolish to delete them, "...but I can tell you weren't really interested!". If anything, I agree to move them here: Marvin the Paranoid Android.

Marvin, I love you! :)

Merge all per Otto4711. Thin Arthur 09:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - The information on this page is far more important to me (and many other scifi fans) than, say, Winston Chruchills birthday or other such utter-trivia. Fictional or otherwise, Marvin The Paranoid Android (ne Stephen Moore) is an institution and his real-world achievements deserve publicly documented recognition. Whether here or at Marvin the Paranoid Android CS BlueChip 21:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Marvin, the Paranoid Android, these songs were not hits nor otherwise well-known, they are only notable because they are about Marvin. 6SJ7 02:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Versilian dialect[edit]

Subdialect of Tuscan dialect. Not referenced, thus suspecting original research. The same page has been proposed for deletion on it.wiki for the same reason Rutja76 08:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero sources. The article was created and maintained by a single user, the same who wrote the Italian article, currently also up for deletion for lack of sources. Versilian is more than likely a non-notable sub-dialect. It is mentioned on a handful of websites (300 Ghits) but since it doesn't appear ever to have been the subject of any scientific study, this article amounts to a lot of OR.--Targeman 13:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOR. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 16:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Heck, you had me at the it.wiki proposal. --mordicai. 17:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
+1 (Delete) On it.wikipedia they have "Pagine da cancellare", no translation necessary, and they vote +1 to delete, -1 to keep. The vote over there is at +3 (based on 4 delete, 1 keep). I agree with "Formica rufa" over there, who says that this is "Ricerca originale". Arrivederci. Mandsford 22:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional places on The Simpsons[edit]

I have reason to believe that such an article does not belong on Wikipedia. First of all, it is indiscriminatory, and treats a fictional topic as though it were something that exists in the real world. This article would be salvageable, but no one publishes articles on this topic. MessedRocker (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFDs (separately nominated to prevent trainwreck):

Keep. First of all, it is not indiscriminatory, but selective (it shouldn't list one-time gags, only major places). Second, it clearly indicates it is a fictional topic, not a real world one. Third, it is salvageable, and fourth, there are several books about precisely this topic. I don't think it's wise to start wiping all content Wikipedia has on fiction. Having rebutted all "reasons" given for deletion, I think this does belong, although of course it could stand some pruning and cleanup. >Radiant< 10:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when is nominating seven articles for deletion a pogrom on fiction? I could've done a lot more. MessedRocker (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not that I don't appreciate what you're saying; when I first came here, I was aghast at how many articles had some mention of "The Simpsons", although I have seen that the system takes care of itself... thus, if an article about Lee Harvey Oswald somehow has added to it a mention of his name by Lisa Simpson, that silliness is removed. As it is, The Simpsons is one of those cultural icons that has been around for 20 years (counting TU) and has a special status on Wikipedia, even by Wikipedia's TV-Land standards. Mandsford 12:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There *are* books and guides to the Simpsons, so I would say there isn't much reason to delete here. I suggest addressing your problems in another way than deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 15:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not an indiscriminate list. Perhaps it could be cleaned up a bit, but definitely keep. Useight 16:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (n.b.: I created this page.) The nominator's concerns seem to boil down to "there's too much Simpsons stuff on Wikipedia" -- in other words, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As Radiant! and others have pointed out so well:

These articles are not inherently indiscriminate. As editors, we can decide what's in and what's out.
They make a clear distinction between fact and fiction. Note that the phrase "[in/on] The Simpsons" is in the title for all of them. Is it likely that someone who's never heard of The Simpsons before would think this stuff was real?
They are not difficult to source/verify. Even if there were no books or articles on the subject, much of the content can be verified by simply watching the episodes in question.

szyslak 16:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Lists are discriminate and easily verifiable, and clearly identified as fiction. And I don't like the Simpsons either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is this indiscriminate? It only has 13 entries, all cities and larger geographical locations, with details on all of them. If it were just a list of every place mentioned in the Simpsons that does not exist in the real world (including stores, streets, etc.) I could understand "indiscriminate" as a reason, but not for this. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate as in "There's an article on places in The Simpsons! Where will it end?" For those who say this article can be cleaned up and there are published materials on this highly specific topic, I challenge you all to improve this article. MessedRocker (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding my creation of this page: Originally, minor places like Bronson, Missouri and Humbleton, Pennsylvania had their own articles. In January 2006, I merged them together into this single article, to substitute one slightly crufty article for several very crufty pages. szyslak 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable list for such a successful series. This list is an alternative to having individual articles on all these fictional places. --musicpvm 06:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Wikisimpsons_Central, where articles such as these WP:OR-breaking fancruft actually belong. Regardless, the outcome of this very similar case should make a good reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spells_in_Harry_Potter_%282nd_nomination%29 Tendancer 01:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please, do not delete this article has it seem this is a part of deleting campaign of the simpsons. With out this article and others, many people will not understand about information and background about these subjects. JoeyLovesSports 01:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pascal.Tesson 13:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of products in The Simpsons[edit]

I have reason to believe that such an article does not belong on Wikipedia. First of all, it is indiscriminatory, and treats a fictional topic as though it were something that exists in the real world. This article would be salvageable, but no one publishes articles on this topic. MessedRocker (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFDs (separately nominated to prevent trainwreck):

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in The Simpsons (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religion in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveling in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional places on The Simpsons
Keep. First of all, it is not indiscriminatory, but selective (it shouldn't list one-time gags, only major places). Second, it clearly indicates it is a fictional topic, not a real world one. Third, it is salvageable, and fourth, there are several books about precisely this topic. I don't think it's wise to start wiping all content Wikipedia has on fiction. Having rebutted all "reasons" given for deletion, I think this does belong, although of course it could stand some pruning and cleanup. >Radiant< 10:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when is nominating seven articles for deletion a pogrom on fiction? I could've done a lot more. MessedRocker (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as described above, The Simpsons has an iconic status in Wikipedia, and, for that matter, in American culture. Comment being copied and pasted as applicable. Mandsford 12:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It has an iconic status in Wikipedia? I didn't know that was an inclusion standard. I thought things had to be notable, you know, in the real world. MessedRocker (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems quite discriminatory to me, since it refers to products on well, the Simpsons. What's indiscriminatory about that? And in this article, there *are* things here that exist in the real world....and there are articles on them. FrozenPurpleCube 15:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's concerns seem to boil down to "there's too much Simpsons stuff on Wikipedia" -- in other words, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As Radiant! and others have pointed out so well:

These articles are not inherently indiscriminate. As editors, we can decide what's in and what's out.
They make a clear distinction between fact and fiction. Note that the phrase "[in/on] The Simpsons" is in the title for all of them. Is it likely that someone who's never heard of The Simpsons before would think this stuff was real?
They are not difficult to source/verify. Even if there were no books or articles on the subject, much of the content can be verified by simply watching the episodes in question.

szyslak 16:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I thought I made myself clear that this is a WP:FICTION violation. Not to mention it is absolutely unreferenced. I like it very much, but that doesn't mean it belongs. MessedRocker (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I, Radiant! and others don't think this page contravenes WP:FICTION and/or WP:WAF. And I invoked IDONTLIKEIT in regards to these articles, not whether or not you happen to be a fan of The Simpsons. szyslak 02:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not an indiscriminate list. Perhaps it could be cleaned up a bit, but definitely keep. Copy and pasted comment from above as applicable. Useight 16:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep but backup references to real products with sources and commentary. Merge and ~~Delete~~Redirect. Just reread the article and most of the 7/11 related items can be merged into Kwik-E-Mart. If any sources to backup the real world info claims in the Buzz Cola section can be found then they can survive somewhere too. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can't Merge and Delete, that would violate the attribution parts of the GFDL. Besides, the Duff Beer and Flaming's Moes have energy drinks that weren't produced for the the Kwik-E-mart thing. Or Radioactive Man which is a comic in the Simpsons and a real world comic based on the Simpson's comic. As such, I think this page serves as an effective top-level sorter for those pages. FrozenPurpleCube 20:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once all the non-notable items without real world sources are removed, and the items that are duplications of information covered in other articles, there wont be much of an article left and so the remaining information can be merged into appropriate articles. Duff Beer already has an article so doesn't need to be covered here again. There's instructions on WP:MERGE on how to satisfy the GFDL so that's not an issue. ●BillPP^{(talk|contribs)} 21:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Changed my comment to redirect so the GFDL violation really wont be an issue.●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those who say this article can be cleaned up and there are published materials on this highly specific topic, I challenge you all to improve this article. MessedRocker (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again, not the simpsons wiki and no real notability established for items in simpsons. We do not want a list of items by every TV show out there. Corpx 02:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable list for such a successful series. This list is an alternative to having individual articles on all these fictional products. --musicpvm 06:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is OK to have individual articles if the individual items have enough real world notability Corpx 06:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, many of the items in the list are not just one time things, but have been in many different episodes, comics, books, etc. Rhino131 15:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please, do not delete this article has it seem this is a part of deleting campaign of the simpsons. With out this article and others, many people will not understand about information and background about these subjects. For nmore information, Click Here JoeyLovesSports 01:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Simpsons cruft shouldn't be so wild here on Wikipedia. The Simpsons has been around long, and are very popular: but that doesn't justify all these plot articles on certain subjects. There is a Simpsons wiki for a reason. Move relevant information there. I don't think Wikipedia's goal is to go this detailed into plots for fiction. RobJ1981 05:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without any real-world references to indicate notability, this amounts to a list of fictional things which appear to be modelled on real-world items. There needs to be sufficient secondary coverage of the impact of these items to justify an artile about them. Zun aid ©® 12:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources cited. Equally importantly, do we need a List of products in The Adams Family, List of products in Buffy the vampire slayer...etc? Tim Vickers 20:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliable sources can be found, and some of these products have actually appeared on shelves in real life, so its definitely notable. Tag it with ((unreferenced)) for now, then it should be good once references are provided. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pascal.Tesson 13:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traveling in The Simpsons[edit]

I have reason to believe that such an article does not belong on Wikipedia. First of all, it is indiscriminatory, and treats a fictional topic as though it were something that exists in the real world. This article would be salvageable, but no one publishes articles on this topic. MessedRocker (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFDs (separately nominated to prevent trainwreck):

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in The Simpsons (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religion in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of products in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional places on The Simpsons
Keep. First of all, it is not indiscriminatory, but selective (it shouldn't list one-time gags, only major places). Second, it clearly indicates it is a fictional topic, not a real world one. Third, it is salvageable, and fourth, there are several books about precisely this topic. I don't think it's wise to start wiping all content Wikipedia has on fiction. Having rebutted all "reasons" given for deletion, I think this does belong, although of course it could stand some pruning and cleanup. >Radiant< 10:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Since when is nominating seven articles for deletion a pogrom on fiction? I could've done a lot more. MessedRocker (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I believe you have succesfully created a trainwreck by making seven identical nominations, forcing everybody to repeat themselves several times. >Radiant< 10:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, there are people with different comments for different AFDs, so it's working out. Kind of. I didn't know how events would turn out. MessedRocker (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - On second thought this does appear to be the best approach. >Radiant< 08:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as described above, The Simpsons has an iconic status in Wikipedia, and, for that matter, in American culture. Comment being copied and pasted as applicable. (I tend to agree with Radiant on the trainwreck effect, although we would probably have gotten mad if you had bunched them all in a "Delete all" fashion too.) Mandsford 12:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It has an iconic status in Wikipedia? I didn't know that was an inclusion standard. I thought things had to be notable, you know, in the real world. MessedRocker (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so too, until I hung around here for awhile. Soon, you will be brainwashed like the rest of us. This is not the real world, this is Planet Wikipedia. You'll see.... Mandsford 22:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the travel article - There is no real-world notability for the topic of "places the Simpsons have travelled." Yes, the Simpsons are iconic and we love them so, but that doesn't that every. single. detail. of them requires an article. Otto4711 13:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete travel article unless completely rewritten.~~ Keep, but expand with sources immediately. From memory, notable destinations include England (Tony Blair played himself), Cuba (Was featured by the BBC on an in depth study about Cuba), Brazil (Received backlash over depictions of various things), India (The first international journey by Homer, discussed in the DVD commentary as pushing the limits for the show at the time). There's probably more, but these received significant out of universe coverage. I don't like the article in it's current form. I'd prefer it to be rewritten with the out of universe sources for at least the few I've mentioned, with perhaps a short list of the more notable places (eg Japan, Australia). ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Projectify pending improvements as suggested above. Of course, it'd help if the nominator had come up with a specific reasoning for this article, as I think this is the weakest one. Though it is still possible that the guidebooks and other material cover it. FrozenPurpleCube 15:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though I agree that this is the weakest of all the nominated articles, traveling is a major, recurrent theme of the series. The nominator's concerns seem to boil down to "there's too much Simpsons stuff on Wikipedia" -- in other words, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As Radiant! and others have pointed out so well:

These articles are not inherently indiscriminate. As editors, we can decide what's in and what's out.
They make a clear distinction between fact and fiction. Note that the phrase "[in/on] The Simpsons" is in the title for all of them. Is it likely that someone who's never heard of The Simpsons before would think this stuff was real?
They are not difficult to source/verify. Even if there were no books or articles on the subject, much of the content can be verified by simply watching the episodes in question.

szyslak 16:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I thought I made myself clear that this is a WP:FICTION violation. Not to mention it is absolutely unreferenced. I like it very much, but that doesn't mean it belongs. MessedRocker (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I, Radiant! and others don't think this page contravenes WP:FICTION and/or WP:WAF. And I invoked IDONTLIKEIT in regards to these articles, not whether or not you happen to be a fan of The Simpsons. szyslak 02:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not an indiscriminate list. Perhaps it could be cleaned up a bit, but definitely keep. Copy and pasted comment from above as applicable. Useight 16:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For those who say this article can be cleaned up and there are published materials on this highly specific topic, I challenge you all to improve this article. MessedRocker (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Starts with a WP:OR conjecture unverified claim "Travel is a common recurring theme in the television show The Simpsons" and goes downhill from there. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but find it difficult to deem this encyclopedic. Tendancer 03:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for such a successful series, this is a notable topic. Traveling is one of the major themes of the show. --musicpvm 06:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then there should be a wealth of reliable sources attesting to the notability of the theme. Could you point out a few? Otto4711 18:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some people use this website to learn about their favourite T.V shows so deleting everything doesn't help. I can't remember enough so I us the same pages multiple times.

They can easily go to Simpsons wiki at http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Wikisimpsons_Central, where WP:NOR-violating fancruft such as these Simpsons articles actually belong. WP:FICTION clearly states this sort of thing should be trans-wikied. Tendancer 01:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Please, do not delete this article has it seem this is a part of deleting campaign of the simpsons. With out this article and others, many people will not understand about information and background about these subjects. For nmore information, Click Here. JoeyLovesSports 01:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, no reliable sources on the topics covered. What sources are there are examples of original research, since they are used to assert facts unrelated to the topic that are then synthesised by the authors. Tim Vickers 17:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in The Simpsons[edit]

I have reason to believe that such an article does not belong on Wikipedia. First of all, it is indiscriminatory, and treats a fictional topic as though it were something that exists in the real world. This article would be salvageable, but no one publishes articles on this topic. MessedRocker (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFDs (separately nominated to prevent trainwreck):

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in The Simpsons (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveling in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of products in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional places on The Simpsons
Keep. First of all, it is not indiscriminatory, but selective (it shouldn't list one-time gags, only major places). Second, it clearly indicates it is a fictional topic, not a real world one. Third, it is salvageable, and fourth, there are several books about precisely this topic. I don't think it's wise to start wiping all content Wikipedia has on fiction. Having rebutted all "reasons" given for deletion, I think this does belong, although of course it could stand some pruning and cleanup. >Radiant< 10:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when is nominating seven articles for deletion a pogrom on fiction? I could've done a lot more. MessedRocker (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as described above, The Simpsons has an iconic status in Wikipedia, and, for that matter, in American culture. Comment being copied and pasted as applicable. Regarding religion, for many years, The Simpsons, ironically, was the only family that was depicted as attending church. Mandsford 12:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It has an iconic status in Wikipedia? I didn't know that was an inclusion standard. I thought things had to be notable, you know, in the real world. MessedRocker (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you just said that. I'm the only one allowed to cut and paste here. Mandsford 22:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I trained as a religious studies teacher, and the simpsons would be used to illustrate points to children in schools, that's how much religious content there is in it, particularly about comparative religion.Merkinsmum 13:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least the religious studies one. At the very least you can say it is used in schools [10] and universities [11] it's not just for christianity but because it has the characters of other religions in it and insight into their everyday practice of their religion, such as the hindu character [12] [13] I do think religion and the simpsons will have a lot more sources than media/travelling and the Simpsons, but then I haven't taught them.:) politics might have just as many references. These AfDs should be separated out as not all these articles will have as many sources, serious coverage etc. I mean, is religion/politics going to have only the amount of sources as 'travelling in the simpsons'?:)Merkinsmum 13:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh just spotted you have kept them separated out, that's good. But seriously, d'oh! as Radiant! says, there are at least 2 books written about it.Merkinsmum 13:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have read out of universe articles on how religion is used in The Simpsons. It shouldnt be too difficult to back up a lot of the article with sources. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps you noticed the link at the bottom to "The Gospel According To The Simpsons" ? Maybe you could read that book so you'd know of what you speak? Article could be improved, but try some cleanup. FrozenPurpleCube 15:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This, in particular, is a very major thematic element on The Simpsons. The nominator's concerns seem to boil down to "there's too much Simpsons stuff on Wikipedia" -- in other words, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As Radiant! and others have pointed out so well:

These articles are not inherently indiscriminate. As editors, we can decide what's in and what's out.
They make a clear distinction between fact and fiction. Note that the phrase "[in/on] The Simpsons" is in the title for all of them. Is it likely that someone who's never heard of The Simpsons before would think this stuff was real?
They are not difficult to source/verify. Even if there were no books or articles on the subject, much of the content can be verified by simply watching the episodes in question.

szyslak 16:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I thought I made myself clear that this is a WP:FICTION violation. Not to mention it is absolutely unreferenced. I like it very much, but that doesn't mean it belongs. Ah, but it apparently does. Improve the articles with these books. If AFDs are good for one thing, it's helping to give attention to articles by threatening the articles. MessedRocker (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not an indiscriminate list. Perhaps it could be cleaned up a bit, but definitely keep. Copy and pasted comment from above as applicable. P.S. - why is this article listed twice? Useight 16:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually, people do publish on religion & philosophy regarding the Simpsons. --mordicai. 17:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kickass. MessedRocker (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was uncalled for. JoeyLovesSports 01:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also SIMPSONS AND PHILOSOPHY : THE D'OH! OF HOMER by Irwin, for instance. --mordicai. 20:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for such a successful series, this is a notable topic. Religion is one of the major themes of the show. --musicpvm 06:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, religion is an important subject in the Simpsons. Also, it is a good place for The Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism to be, since it used to have its own article, but was moved here. Rhino131 16:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Please, do not delete this article has it seem this is a part of deleting campaign of the simpsons. With out this article and others, many people will not understand about information and background about these subjects. For more information, Click Here. JoeyLovesSports 01:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politics in The Simpsons[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I have reason to believe that such an article does not belong on Wikipedia. First of all, it is indiscriminatory, and treats a fictional topic as though it were something that exists in the real world. This article would be salvageable, but no one publishes articles on this topic. MessedRocker (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFDs (separately nominated to prevent trainwreck):

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religion in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveling in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of products in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional places on The Simpsons
Keep. First of all, it is not indiscriminatory, but selective (it shouldn't list one-time gags, only major places). Second, it clearly indicates it is a fictional topic, not a real world one. Third, it is salvageable, and fourth, there are several books about precisely this topic. I don't think it's wise to start wiping all content Wikipedia has on fiction. Having rebutted all "reasons" given for deletion, I think this does belong, although of course it could stand some pruning and cleanup. >Radiant< 10:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when is nominating seven articles for deletion a pogrom on fiction? I could've done a lot more. MessedRocker (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as described above, The Simpsons has an iconic status in Wikipedia, and, for that matter, in American culture. Comment being copied and pasted as applicable. References to politics require a viewer to have more knowledge of the subject than is required by most sitcoms. Mandsford 12:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It has an iconic status in Wikipedia? I didn't know that was an inclusion standard. I thought things had to be notable, you know, in the real world. MessedRocker (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And did you look for articles about this topic? I doubt you did. Otherwise you'd have found that Google news has plenty of usable ones. Like [14]. I'm sure there are plenty of others, but I think this reveals a severe problem in your methodology since you're using carbon copy deletion reasons. FrozenPurpleCube 15:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And you're using blogs. MessedRocker (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And you're not looking at who wrote it or where it's published. Don't confuse "Blog" with a personal publication, as they're often not that at all. Besides, there's always “Leaving Springfield: The Simpsons and the Possibility of Oppositional Culture” [15]. Or [16] if you want something on Jstor. FrozenPurpleCube 21:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to expand, Blogs are perfectly acceptable secondary sources if the author is a professional in the relevant area. The blogs to avoid are ones written by a non-professional about their non-notable opinion, making them unreliable. A professional for a well known publication is a reliable source. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's concerns seem to boil down to "there's too much Simpsons stuff on Wikipedia" -- in other words, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As Radiant! and others have pointed out so well:

These articles are not inherently indiscriminate. As editors, we can decide what's in and what's out.
They make a clear distinction between fact and fiction. Note that the phrase "[in/on] The Simpsons" is in the title for all of them. Is it likely that someone who's never heard of The Simpsons before would think this stuff was real?
They are not difficult to source/verify. Even if there were no books or articles on the subject, much of the content can be verified by simply watching the episodes in question.

szyslak 16:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I thought I made myself clear that this is a WP:FICTION violation. Not to mention it is absolutely unreferenced. I like it very much, but that doesn't mean it belongs. MessedRocker (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I, Radiant! and others don't think this page contravenes WP:FICTION and/or WP:WAF. And I invoked IDONTLIKEIT in regards to these articles, not whether or not you happen to be a fan of The Simpsons. szyslak 02:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not an indiscriminate list. Perhaps it could be cleaned up a bit, but definitely keep. Copy and pasted comment from above as applicable. Useight 17:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as many political aspects of the show have commentary and criticism from outside sources and the DVD commentary, therefore establishing notability. Some of the cruftyness could be removed though ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, third-party sources are the way to go. MessedRocker (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reread the comment. I said outside sources AND the DVD commentary. Including the DVD commentary as a secondary source is recommended as it includes production information and background. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For those who say this article can be cleaned up and there are published materials on this highly specific topic, I challenge you all to improve this article. MessedRocker (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability for "politics in simpsons". Also, all these articles are also in violation of WP:SYNTH when you're grouping a whole bunch of stuff under a big umbrella Corpx 00:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for such a successful series, this is a notable topic. Politics is one of the major themes of the show. --musicpvm 06:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Radiant's excellent arguments accurately capturing the notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Radiant, and also because Politics plays a key part in episodes such as Two Cars in Every Garage and Three Eyes on Every Fish, Mr. Lisa goes to Washington, Sideshow Bob Roberts, and even Trash of the Titans somewhat. Rhino131 16:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the key aspects in understanding the Simpsons.
Keep, Please, do not delete this article has it seem this is a part of deleting campaign of the simpsons. With out this article and others, many people will not understand about information and background about these subjects. For more information, Click Here.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in The Simpsons[edit]

I have reason to believe that such an article does not belong on Wikipedia. First of all, it is indiscriminatory, and treats a fictional topic as though it were something that exists in the real world. This article would be salvageable, but no one publishes articles on this topic. MessedRocker (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFDs (separately nominated to prevent trainwreck):

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in The Simpsons (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveling in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of products in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional places on The Simpsons
Keep. First of all, it is not indiscriminatory, but selective (it shouldn't list one-time gags, only major places). Second, it clearly indicates it is a fictional topic, not a real world one. Third, it is salvageable, and fourth, there are several books about precisely this topic. I don't think it's wise to start wiping all content Wikipedia has on fiction. Having rebutted all "reasons" given for deletion, I think this does belong, although of course it could stand some pruning and cleanup. >Radiant< 10:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when is nominating seven articles for deletion a pogrom on fiction? I could've done a lot more. MessedRocker (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as described above, The Simpsons has an iconic status in Wikipedia, and, for that matter, in American culture. Comment being copied and pasted as applicable. Regarding religion, for many years, The Simpsons, ironically, was the only family that was depicted as attending church. Mandsford 12:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It has an iconic status in Wikipedia? I didn't know that was an inclusion standard. I thought things had to be notable, you know, in the real world. MessedRocker (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you just said that. I'm the only one allowed to cut and paste here. Mandsford 22:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I trained as a religious studies teacher, and the simpsons would be used to illustrate points to children in schools, that's how much religious content there is in it, particularly about comparative religion.Merkinsmum 13:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least the religious studies one. At the very least you can say it is used in schools [17] and universities [18] it's not just for christianity but because it has the characters of other religions in it and insight into their everyday practice of their religion, such as the hindu character [19] [20] I do think religion and the simpsons will have a lot more sources than media/travelling and the Simpsons, but then I haven't taught them.:) politics might have just as many references. These AfDs should be separated out as not all these articles will have as many sources, serious coverage etc. I mean, is religion/politics going to have only the amount of sources as 'travelling in the simpsons'?:)Merkinsmum 13:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh just spotted you have kept them separated out, that's good. But seriously, d'oh! as Radiant! says, there are at least 2 books written about it.Merkinsmum 13:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have read out of universe articles on how religion is used in The Simpsons. It shouldnt be too difficult to back up a lot of the article with sources. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps you noticed the link at the bottom to "The Gospel According To The Simpsons" ? Maybe you could read that book so you'd know of what you speak? Article could be improved, but try some cleanup. FrozenPurpleCube 15:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This, in particular, is a very major thematic element on The Simpsons. The nominator's concerns seem to boil down to "there's too much Simpsons stuff on Wikipedia" -- in other words, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As Radiant! and others have pointed out so well:

These articles are not inherently indiscriminate. As editors, we can decide what's in and what's out.
They make a clear distinction between fact and fiction. Note that the phrase "[in/on] The Simpsons" is in the title for all of them. Is it likely that someone who's never heard of The Simpsons before would think this stuff was real?
They are not difficult to source/verify. Even if there were no books or articles on the subject, much of the content can be verified by simply watching the episodes in question.

szyslak 16:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I thought I made myself clear that this is a WP:FICTION violation. Not to mention it is absolutely unreferenced. I like it very much, but that doesn't mean it belongs. Ah, but it apparently does. Improve the articles with these books. If AFDs are good for one thing, it's helping to give attention to articles by threatening the articles. MessedRocker (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not an indiscriminate list. Perhaps it could be cleaned up a bit, but definitely keep. Copy and pasted comment from above as applicable. P.S. - why is this article listed twice? Useight 16:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually, people do publish on religion & philosophy regarding the Simpsons. --mordicai. 17:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kickass. MessedRocker (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was uncalled for. JoeyLovesSports 01:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also SIMPSONS AND PHILOSOPHY : THE D'OH! OF HOMER by Irwin, for instance. --mordicai. 20:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for such a successful series, this is a notable topic. Religion is one of the major themes of the show. --musicpvm 06:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, religion is an important subject in the Simpsons. Also, it is a good place for The Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism to be, since it used to have its own article, but was moved here. Rhino131 16:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Please, do not delete this article has it seem this is a part of deleting campaign of the simpsons. With out this article and others, many people will not understand about information and background about these subjects. For more information, Click Here. JoeyLovesSports 01:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pascal.Tesson 13:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Education in The Simpsons[edit]

I have reason to believe that such an article does not belong on Wikipedia. First of all, it is indiscriminatory, and treats a fictional topic as though it were something that exists in the real world. This article would be salvageable, but no one publishes articles on this topic. MessedRocker (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFDs (separately nominated to prevent trainwreck):

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in The Simpsons (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religion in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveling in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of products in The Simpsons
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional places on The Simpsons
Keep. First of all, it is not indiscriminatory, but selective (it shouldn't list one-time gags, only major places). Second, it clearly indicates it is a fictional topic, not a real world one. Third, it is salvageable, and fourth, there are several books about precisely this topic. I don't think it's wise to start wiping all content Wikipedia has on fiction. Having rebutted all "reasons" given for deletion, I think this does belong, although of course it could stand some pruning and cleanup. >Radiant< 10:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when is nominating seven articles for deletion a pogrom on fiction? I could've done a lot more. MessedRocker (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as described above, The Simpsons has an iconic status in Wikipedia, and, for that matter, in American culture. Comment being copied and pasted as applicable. Agsin, irreverant comments about the educational system have that ring of truth that makes them especially topical, saying what most teachers, students and administrators would like to say but can't. Mandsford 12:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It has an iconic status in Wikipedia? I didn't know that was an inclusion standard. I thought things had to be notable, you know, in the real world. MessedRocker (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least some of the schools, etc. are discussed in an out of universe manner on the DVD commentary. It is possible to update this article with production information that way. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia prefers third-party sources in articles. It's part of the notability standard: it must be the subject of multiple non-trivial publications. MessedRocker (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a deeper consideration of what to do with this article. Part of it is a listing of schools which might belong elsewhere, part of it is commentary on the themes of episodes, which would merit its own article. Not sure the topic is unified enough to stand together. But I do think the nominator's reasons are unsound. FrozenPurpleCube 15:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's concerns seem to boil down to "there's too much Simpsons stuff on Wikipedia" -- in other words, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As Radiant! and others have pointed out so well:

These articles are not inherently indiscriminate. As editors, we can decide what's in and what's out.
They make a clear distinction between fact and fiction. Note that the phrase "[in/on] The Simpsons" is in the title for all of them. Is it likely that someone who's never heard of The Simpsons before would think this stuff was real?
They are not difficult to source/verify. Even if there were no books or articles on the subject, much of the content can be verified by simply watching the episodes in question.

szyslak 16:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I thought I made myself clear that this is a WP:FICTION violation. Not to mention it is absolutely unreferenced. I like it very much, but that doesn't mean it belongs. MessedRocker (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I, Radiant! and others don't think this page contravenes WP:FICTION and/or WP:WAF. And I invoked IDONTLIKEIT in regards to these articles, not whether or not you happen to be a fan of The Simpsons. szyslak 02:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not an indiscriminate list. Perhaps it could be cleaned up a bit, but definitely keep. Copy and pasted comment from above as applicable. Useight 17:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's really just Simpson cruft, yes the simpsons is a notable show but how many place beyond springfield Elementry are really notable educational institutions in the fictional universe, from what I can see most schools listed in this article are just one time references and that does not merit an articlce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathawk (talk • contribs)
For those who say this article can be cleaned up and there are published materials on this highly specific topic, I challenge you all to improve this article. MessedRocker (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not simpsons-pedia. No notability established as to why "educations in the simpsons" is notable Corpx 00:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for such a successful series, this is a notable topic. Education is one of the major themes of the show. --musicpvm 06:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Radiant, this is a very important subject in the Simpsons-series, can be verified, and isn't really indiscriminate. Mel sa ran 14:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trans-wiki per WP:FICTION. Absolutely no WP:RS-conforming sources exist in article. There's a Simpsons wiki http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Wikisimpsons_Central especially for this sort of WP:OR- and WP:RS-breaking fancruft. Tendancer 01:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please, do not delete this article has it seem this is a part of deleting campaign of the simpsons. With out this article and others, many people will not understand about information and background about these subjects. JoeyLovesSports 01:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - worthless, unencyclopedic, fails RS, OR, FICTION. --ST47Talk·Desk 13:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this is an article that is needed for such a huge TV series like the Simpsons because many episodes of The Simpsons feature education and should be noted. Heights 01:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Simpsons cruft shouldn't be so wild here on Wikipedia. There is a Simpsons wiki for a reason. Move relevant information there. I don't think Wikipedia's goal is to go this detailed into plots for fiction. RobJ1981 05:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Melsaran (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the currently nominated articles. The nominator makes a valid argument. None of these topics have been the subject of real-world documentation. Using the term "...in the Simpsons" does not absolve us of having to prove its significance and impact on the real world, not merely its in-universe impact. These articles fail the most basic notability guideline: "sufficient coverage in external 3rd party sources". Verifying the information from primary sources "by watching the episodes", without independent secondary source analysis does not make for a good encyclopedia article. Zun aid ©® 12:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - as said above, this is what the Simpsons wiki is for. Take it there if you must. - 52 Pickup 17:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources. Tim Vickers 20:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pascal.Tesson 13:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media in The Simpsons[edit]

I have reason to believe that such an article does not belong on Wikipedia. First of all, it is indiscriminatory, and treats a fictional topic as though it were something that exists in the real world. This article would be salvageable, but no one publishes articles on this topic. MessedRocker (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFDs (separately nominated to prevent trainwreck):

Delete all per nom. One 08:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, it is not indiscriminatory, but selective (it shouldn't list one-time gags, only major places). Second, it clearly indicates it is a fictional topic, not a real world one. Third, it is salvageable, and fourth, there are several books about precisely this topic. I don't think it's wise to start wiping all content Wikipedia has on fiction. Having rebutted all "reasons" given for deletion, I think this does belong, although of course it could stand some pruning and cleanup. >Radiant< 10:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when is nominating seven articles for deletion a pogrom on fiction? I could've done a lot more. MessedRocker (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as described above, The Simpsons has an iconic status in Wikipedia, and, for that matter, in American culture. Comment being copied and pasted as applicable. In this case, "Kent Brockman" (or whatever the fictitious anchorman is called) is the negative model that local newscasts now seek to avoid. This is an instance where, I believe, The Simpsons may have had its greatest impact. "Ted Baxter" was dopey, but ever the professional and a beloved figure still imitated to this day; whereas Kent Brockman is emblematic of badly done local news Mandsford 12:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It has an iconic status in Wikipedia? I didn't know that was an inclusion standard. I thought things had to be notable, you know, in the real world. MessedRocker (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending an individual consideration of what to do with this article. A talk page solution at the Simpsons wikiproject would be my suggestion. FrozenPurpleCube 16:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or they could save time and discuss it on this AFD, which is precisely for whether or not we want this article. MessedRocker (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Is there some hurry? Given your mass nomination and the flaws thereof, I think a more reasoned considered response would be in order, and the best way to do that would be a lengthier discussion than an AFD. FrozenPurpleCube 19:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator's concerns seem to boil down to "there's too much Simpsons stuff on Wikipedia" -- in other words, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As Radiant! and others have pointed out so well:

These articles are not inherently indiscriminate. As editors, we can decide what's in and what's out.
They make a clear distinction between fact and fiction. Note that the phrase "[in/on] The Simpsons" is in the title for all of them. Is it likely that someone who's never heard of The Simpsons before would think this stuff was real?
They are not difficult to source/verify. Even if there were no books or articles on the subject, much of the content can be verified by simply watching the episodes in question.

szyslak 16:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I thought I made myself clear that this is a WP:FICTION violation. Not to mention it is absolutely unreferenced. I like it very much, but that doesn't mean it belongs. MessedRocker (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I, Radiant! and others don't think this page contravenes WP:FICTION and/or WP:WAF. And I invoked IDONTLIKEIT in regards to these articles, not whether or not you happen to be a fan of The Simpsons. szyslak 02:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not an indiscriminate list. Perhaps it could be cleaned up a bit, but definitely keep. Copy and pasted comment from above as applicable. Useight 17:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For those who say this article can be cleaned up and there are published materials on this highly specific topic, I challenge you all to improve this article. MessedRocker (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all per Radiant, Szyslak and others. Are you thus willing to withdraw your noms to allow pruning? Wl219 22:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this kind of stuff belongs in a simpsons wiki, unless somebody can tell me why "media in simpsons" is notable. Corpx 00:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Portrayal or parody of the media in The Simpsons is sufficiently notable to pass WP:Fiction, Fox News took the parody seriously enough to threaten a lawsuit, and then tried to capitalize on the media attention brought by the Simpsons' movie release. Google search returns multiple real-world information hits from reliable sources on the subject. Dreadstar † 03:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for such a successful series, this is a notable topic. --musicpvm 06:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep, great place for KBBL and other media stuff to be, because they are notable enough to have a section but not have an article themselves. Also, Fox, and Fox news play a big part in the Simpsons. Rhino131 16:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VERY Strong Keep, Please, do not delete this article has it seem this is a part of deleting campaign of the simpsons. With out this article and others, many people will not understand about information and background about these subjects. For more information, Click Here. JoeyLovesSports 01:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge section on FOX news into article on the TV channel. Do we need articles on Media in Stargate, Media in Yes, Prime Minister, Media in The West Wing? This leads to ever-accumulating piles of unverifiable fancruft. Tim Vickers 20:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn, speedy keep. I'll propose a split instead. --Core desat 10:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Poles[edit]

Massive list of people with articles. While it isn't quite so bad as some other lists that have been AFDed and deleted, this list admits that it is incomplete, and it may never be complete. A list this massive is far better served by a category (several, in this case); Wikipedia is not a directory. Core desat 07:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or split as was done for list of Americans. Kappa 09:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep on withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 02:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Henry[edit]

Article prodded for for notability. Since it appears to assert notability I removed the prod and am submitting it here for a consensus. Ron Ritzman 07:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be notable individual in Cook Islands politics albeit article is thin as to content. Difficulty is that for the Cook Islands as a nation, the impact of such an individual within the region, let alone the world (and therefore the popular media) is always going to be limited. That said, just because Western news wires do not pick up on the stories, that is not to say they do not have an impact on the local populace. I suspect he is indeed notable or notorious(?) in the Cook Islands and would recommend keeping the article in the hope regional editors will pick up the baton.Dick G 08:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Albert Royle Henry (also known localy as Arapati (Albert) Henry) is important in modern Cook Islands history, and can be considered as the father of this young nation. He probably represents for Cook Islanders, what Kamisese Mara was for Fidjians.Nevers
Keep - He used to be a influential political figure and a criminal at it, there must be some references out there that can expand this. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know it's odd for the nominator to vote "keep" but the first few arguments are persuasive. --Ron Ritzman 13:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you might want to strike your nomination since nobody else has said to delete the article, and this can now be withdrawn. `FrozenPurpleCube 16:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 salt. PeaceNT 02:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Bros. Technicals[edit]

Page was moved to the Encyclopedia gamia, a gaiming wiki here and was archived in wikipedia using the redirect method. But unregister IP addresses keep undoing the redirect. Reason for deletion is wikipedia is not a game guide. Cs california 07:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Protect - to avoid recreation, the subject of the article is quite non notable by itself. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & then protect it, per nom. --mordicai. 17:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect. Article is a game guide. -- Whpq 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom and per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is really that the page is still linked from a dozen other pages, so recreation should be expected. Circeus 19:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Deckill er 02:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete by User:Reedy Boy. Non-admin closure. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 18:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zalefar[edit]

This article is about a video game supposedly due for release no earlier than 2011. There's nothing to be said for it that's not complete speculation. Given the nature of the industry, I'd say that less than 20% of projects announced so far in advance actually come to fruition. Deranged bulbasaur 07:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the article for the company producing this game, BR Studio, has been marked for speedy deletion. Deranged bulbasaur 07:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaaaaand it's gone. Deranged bulbasaur 07:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The author changed the date of arrival in the article to 2010. Deranged bulbasaur 07:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 albeit weak. Computerjoe 's talk 12:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick.Cms[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Unremarkable content management software. Possible WP:SPAM. Marwood 07:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand know anything. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quick.Cms (please read this discussion) user JulesH said: "Non-English sources are fine, if that's all there is. Changing my opinion to weak keep on the basis of this source." Then we buught book, read article, translate and put here again but base on this article. We give book to "Source" for a reliable source. Then what is again wrong?

If this article is not good then please tell why CMSimple, Joomla, Drupal, EZ_publish and other commercial/not commercial CMS are still here? JulesH said that Cubecart "might also warrant deletion; a quick scan doesn't turn up any independent reliable sources, although the one million users claim suggests there should be some sources out there -- something doesn't become that popular without being discussed". Then Cubecart is still there and there is no any reliable Source. Our article was deleted many times and i think it is unfair to delete this article but other more articles are still here and dont have any source. Marwood said that it is possible SPAM. Cubecart is not a spam? I see many other pages without sources and possible SPAM but they exists here for years/months. Were is justice? And other question: why it is spam? This is normal article without any informations that this program is SUPER, EASY, HYPER, EXTRA etc. Only basic informations, I read CMSimple and there is "It aims to be simple, small and fast" ... this is for me SPAM.

Eh... i am tired this :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Opensolution (talk • contribs) 08:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument, and I don't think a single chapter in a single text book is sufficient to warrant an article on this software. There are hundreds of PHP-based content management systems available, there is nothing special about this one. Also, there are WP:COI concerns about you writing this article yourself. Other editors are free to disagree with me, however, which is the point of this five-day discussion process. Marwood 08:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then why You dont delete/change other articles if this is not argument? Why other pages are shown from few months/few years without any source? Where is this justice? Special in this product is that it is written in XHTML 1.1 and based on FLAT FILES not XHTML 1.0 transitional ... most of CMS systems are based on MySQL and dont use XHTML 1.x strict. You will find few CMS using XHTML 1.x strict and Flat Files database. I want be honest when i create this article. What is for me problem create anonymous account and create article as independent person? Other please read this article. Is there any SUPER informations that this products is GREAT etc as other spam pages You have on this wikipedia? Opensolution 10:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 08:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I can't read the source suggested for this myself, but its existence seems to suggest some degree of notability. I'd appreciate if somebody who understands Polish could comment on the value of the source. Note that this is not eligible for speedy deletion as recreation, since the source was added since the last AFD, and the major concern in the last AFD was a total lack of sources. JulesH 08:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete (but I'd easily be swayed to keep) since the article does not assert any notability. Note that I don't know what the source says, so if it provides more than trivial mention (i.e., it has a review or recommendation or something like that, not just a listing of many products) I could support a keep. DMacks 16:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the article does not assert any notability but it does appear to be have non-trivial coverage in the cited source. DMacks 16:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uyghur Wikipedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions

Articles for deletion/Uyghur Wikipedia (2nd nomination)

The article was previously part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions, where the articles were kept, mainly because of the confusion caused by lumping clearly notable articles with ones of questionable notability. Meta lists this as the 207th largest Wikipedia, with only around 66 articles. More importantly though, there's is no indication that there are reliable, third-party sources. 17Drew 07:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yulgunwiki may one day warrant its own article but there is no discernible reason to document another fledgling wiki.Dick G 09:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Nothing wrong with the site. The problem with it standing a chance is that is has only 110 users and no sysops as of this edit. VoltronForce 09:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The site itself doesn't matter much. What matters is how much coverage it has received from reliable secondary sources. And from the looks of it, there is none. 17Drew 09:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete If it gets more than the paltry 100 users, and they write lots of useful articles in the language, then it may get written about in the press or in scholarly sources, and then it will have evidence of notability. Then an article wiill have sources to allow writing an article. We should not give notability as a courtesy to all projects related in some way to Wikipedia. So far, it fails in general WP:N , as well as WP:WEB and WP:ORG. Edison 16:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia. 132.205.44.5 21:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its a non-notable website. I believe somewhere out there a rule or something exists saying more or less that something can't be notable by association. This is a perfect case. Sasha Callahan 03:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salt - non admin closure. Camaron1 | Chris 19:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baby TV[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Baby TV (2nd nomination)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB, WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. Article was first created under BabyTV and was deleted twice, once underWP:CSD#A7 and a second time Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BabyTV. More recently, again re-created Baby TV and was speedied three times, twice under WP:CSD#G11.

Speedy delete and salt Hu12 06:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt. Dbromage [Talk] 07:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the author might want to save the page. I need a lot of work if it is to have an article. VoltronForce 09:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spam? advertisement? you make your choice but one thing it isn't is notable. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Tagged as a repost. Salting might not be a bad idea if this is the third or fourth time this article has been recreated. Rackabello 17:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Made a request at WP:RPP that both articles be salted Rackabello 18:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ducktails and bobbysox[edit]

I normally try to be descriptive in my Afds, but I truly have no idea what this is. Is it fiction? Is it a non-notable real group? Who knows? Deranged bulbasaur 06:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Curtis Jackson" is the name of rapper "50 cent", so based on that and the storyline i would say the page is meant to be a hoax/joke... unless this is the leaked storyline for a new 50 cent movie, which would be far worse than a hoax ;). Kare Kare 06:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is a 50's play, that for some reason has a page from wikipedia on answers.com that appears not to exist anymore. See here [[21]]. Kare Kare 06:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this was a play written in the 80s but set in the 50s. my school recently did this play and i was curtis jackson. i dont mean to brag but i got a lot of laughs.

Delete NN high school play that gets 9 ghits, 4 from Wiki or Wikimirrors.--Sethacus 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as highly non-notable, per nom and others. EyeSerene^TALK 18:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources Corpx 00:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no idea what this is, but it is unsourced, probably non-notable (I cannot find any third-party reference on Google or anywhere), and this is "solely a detailed summary of the work's plot". Mel sa ran 11:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 02:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Bolshevik Party of Israel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The name is misleading - it was never registered as a political party. As a group it is non-notable. The information is not verifiable, except the group's own website. I've never heard it mentioned anywhere else and i could find very little significant proof for its existence on the web. When i searched for its Russian name i found it mentioned in an article in one external publication - Russian Newsweek, and in a couple of forum posts. When i searched for its English name, i found only Wikipedia clones. When i searched for the Hebrew name, i barely found a couple of forum posts. (I don't count search results on its own website and on the website on the Russian National-Bolshevik Party.) An article with the same name was already deleted once, although Akradecki says that this version is different from the deleted one. Amir E. Aharoni 05:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note of clarification: my comment about this article was confined to declining a speedy on the grounds that it was a recreation of deleted material. The two versions were different enough that it wasn't a recreation of the material that was previously deleted. And, because an assertion of notability was made with a ref (and I can't read Hebrew, so I have to AGF and assume that it is a relevent ref), so it wasn't elegible for CSD as a non-notable group. However, if the ref doesn't support the assertions of notability in the article, then I support deletion. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The ref is the official list of political parties, according to the party registrar. That party is not in the list. --Amir E. Aharoni 18:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- Number 5 7 09:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely non-notable; have never participated in an election. Number 5 7 09:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable according to WP:ORG. Google turned up no non-trivial coverage in secondary sources to establish notability. Maybe worth salting if this is being recreated? EyeSerene^TALK 18:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sources exactly? I only found Wikipedia clones and forums. --Amir E. Aharoni 19:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly ;) EyeSerene^TALK 10:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, oh, that's no non-trivial. Missed the no. :) --Amir E. Aharoni 11:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because it's next to the non... easily done :P EyeSerene^TALK 14:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn Mukadderat 02:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 05:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hsiu lung tao[edit]

Advertisement, does not assert notability and very few ghits.Peter Rehse 05:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 05:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete NN hybrid art. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patently failing WP:N. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Naked Brothers Band (TV series). Everyone here agrees that this shouldn't be a separate article, but leaving a redirect as a somewhat plausible misspelling seems prudent. — TKD::Talk 05:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosolina (song)[edit]

Absolutely non-notable outside of the movie, not to mention completely unsourced and thus unverifiable. Crystallina 05:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The song has only appeared in a fictional movie. If there's a large amount of development information, or considerable real world impact, there's a possibility of passing WP:FICT. However, the 37 results on Google appear to show otherwise. By the way, say hello to LUE from TheEmualatorGuy --Teggles 05:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops. It would appear the song is actually titled "Rosalina". This opens up a lot more possibility for real-world impact, but I still could not find any. --Teggles 05:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the tv series. When all the songs were up for deletion here, including Rosalina (song), the outcome to was merge and redirect to the tv series. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 21:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to severe acute respiratory syndrome. — TKD::Talk 05:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SARS and accusations of racial discrimination[edit]

Short article, specked with OR and unsourced claims. A minuscule issue, if that. Jmlk 1 7 04:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into SARS. The issue is obviously existent, as noted by the reference and these Google results. From the amount of reliable reports, it is presumed to be notable. However, there is very little to say on the issue. It can be summarized by stating the basic issues in SARS - concern, business problems (especially the Chinatown sales decreasing by 70%), and accusations of spreading the disease. The idea of merging is supported by a quote in this very article: "there is no evidence of any major racial backlash". --Teggles 05:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to SARS anything that have sources. The issue did exist, but we don't need a separate article for it. KTC 06:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per KTC. Dbromage [Talk] 07:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this contains a lot of OR, anything that can be sourced can easily be included in the article on SARS. If this is kept, it should be renamed to "SARS and accusations of racial discrimination in Canada", by the way. Mel sa ran 12:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm the creator of the article. It didn't turn into something I wanted or expected. Some information probably have some value, so merge it. -- Taku 22:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above.--JForget 02:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrannosaurus in popular culture[edit]

This article was deleted at a mass AfD. DRV overturned, since the mass AfD may have prevented the full consideration the article's individual merits, and the possibility of a merge. Deletion is on the table here, as is any merge that would make use of the content in a different way. Xoloz 04:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Keep per Pixelface, in regard to what was achieved with Stegosaurus in popular culture. --Teggles 06:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Tyrannosaurus#Appearances in popular culture already covers the most notable examples of general, film and television appearances. In cases like toys and video games, it fails to mention anything, instead simply stating that they exist. This is an easily fixed problem. There is the possibility of discussing their designs relative to the original T. rex (or why they are chosen), but I am doubtful that adequate sources exist. --Teggles 05:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps rewrite like Stegosaurus in popular culture, although the article looks OK to me as it is. T. rex is the most widely recognized dinosaur in popular culture. There appears to be enough information to warrant it's own article. And the information is verifiable. I don't think the article counts as a directory of loosely associated topics as claimed in the mass AFD. Wikipedia has many list articles grouped by theme. WP:N applies to article topics -- every single sentence within an article is not required to meet the notability guidelines. --Pixelface 05:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It has a dinosaur in it" is not a "theme." Otto4711 12:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - T. rex has books written about it with whole chapters on pop culture depictions, which formed the fist part of the article. It is thus (a) referenced, and (b) obviously notable. I have been in touch with people today who've pointed me in the direction of more published material - thus there is sufficient published critique/analysis so that there should be no OR in the article. The reason it has not been merged in the main Tyrannosaurus article is that it is already a very large article - and, like other parts, segments have been split into subarticles to keep the origianl to a manageable size. Given there are more books there is a potential for the cohesive/referenced part of this TiPC article to grow considerably. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Once proposal mooted is to rename the article Cultural depictions of Tyrannosaurus, if folk prefer.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: For the record - there are more books here and here that we haven't tapped yet, so, um, yes, there's plenty of written material to tunr listy bits into a theme without OR.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I've stayed out of the great "in popular culture" deletion orgy of 2007 but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Some things have a significant and important role in popular culture. It's anti-encyclopedic to delete these articles without consideration of their merits. This has good sources with more to come, and is being improved by some of the wiki's best editors. Other issues belong at the talk page. --JayHenry 06:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I stated in the group AfD, articles should be deleted if they aren't notable and shouldn't be deleted just because it's poorly written (As per WP:RUBBISH). I don't think anyone can debates that T rex and its depiction in Popular culture aren't notable, so I see no reason as to why it should be deleted. In fact I don't know why it was in the first case, seeing as there was a large consensus not to delete this particular article in the group AfD. With a bit of hard work (And possibly a name change as noted on the WP:DINO talk page and previously in the afd which started all this, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lions in popular culture) this article could be greatly improved. Spawn Man 07:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the article is on a worthwhile topic, but in it's current form is total rubbish, just a long list of pointless trivia. If it's kept, it needs to be re-written, in prose, with sources (similar to Dinosaurs in popular culture or Stegosaurus in popular culture). If nobody is willing or able to do this fairly soon, then there's no reason to keep it. If and when somebody wants to create something useful here, they can always just start the article fresh. As it stands, there's no content in this article I think would be worth keeping, so losing history etc. is irrelevent. Dinoguy2 07:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup - Tyrannosaurus is arguably the most published dinosaur ever, it has been featured in features since movies are movies, there is sufficient material to work with its just a matter of time and patience. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again - for all the same reasons it was deleted the first time. It's a directory of loosely associated topics, a list of "ooh look, a big dinosaur on my TV!" references. The article tells us nothing about the dinosaurs, nothing about the fiction from which the trivia is drawn, nothing about any relationship between them (because there isn't any) and nothing about the world. And as an aside, the notion that editors were unable to consider this article fairly the first time because it was nominated with a handful of similar articles is ludicrous on its face and insulting to editors' intelligence. Otto4711 12:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether anything merits a separate popular culture article is always going to be a judgment call, but Tyrannosaurus very easily meets that bar. It makes such a satisfactory monster that it has been used dozens of time, with various plot devices allowing it to interact with human victims. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Topic is very notable, but article in its current shape has little, if any encyclopedic value, and will have to be entirely rewritten anyway. Circeus 14:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Article was turned into proper, sourced prose. Circeus 17:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A change to the form of the article does not mean that the content is any less trivial. Otto4711 18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a list of loosely associated topics, where anything would qualify for inclusion if a T-REX makes a cameo appearances. Merge the notable ones into the main article (if that) Corpx 00:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I chopped off over half of the article and turned it into paragraphs. Does that help? J. Spencer 03:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I move for Keeping the article, but maybe deleting some of the more obscure references. K00bine 03:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the article looks a lot better now thanks to J Spencer. However, all the fair use pictures need fair use rationale. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn topic, anything and everything has been referenced in popular culture, it doesn't make it encyclopedic. And I could care less if a list was turned into a paragraph, it's still a bunch of cruft trivia. Biggspowd 05:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic and article is in fairly good shape, and is improving. AndyJones 07:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I started this article fairly lazily, for which I apologise, and it's only recently been shaped into something respectable. Give it time, it'll mature into a decent article I'm sure, and at least it prevents the excellent Tyrannosaurus article getting flooded with pop culture junk. Calr 16:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Calr et al., but changes to form or name may be needed. Obviously notable concept. Bearian 01:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is much better. Though more sources are needed for some of the claims, I am sure sources can be found. I was looking at the original AfD, and people were asking for the trivia to be removed, but not realising that they were condemning a perfectly good title that could be home to a perfectly encyclopedic article. A brief search found the following articles on dinosaurs and popular culture (I realise this AfD is about Tyrannosaurus, but the principle is the same):
- “Dinosaur Doctors and Jurassic Geniuses: The Changing Image of the Scientist in the Lost World Adventure.” Studies in Popular Culture 22.1 (October 1999): 1-14.
- "Ravaging Reptiles and Paranoid Speciesism in Dinosaur Films." Pacific North West Popular Culture Conference. Vancouver, British Columbia; April 1992.
- "Cavemen and Dinosaurs: The 'Eat or Be Eaten' Myth." Popular Culture Association Conference. Louisville, Kentucky; March 1992.
- "Medieval Dragons and Dinosaur Films." Popular Culture Review 9.1 (February 1998): 17-30.
- "Dinophobia." Rocky Mountain MLA Conference. Scottsdale, Arizona; October 2002.
Hopefully people will look for references for cultural studies on notable topics, and replace trivia with such references, instead of deleting trivia out of hand. Source, establish notability, integrate, and provide a sourced overview, for notable topics, don't delete. Carcharoth 12:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, there will be some amount of what the pop culture warriors call "trivia" anyway. It's impossible tomake such an article without giving a number of examples. Circeus 15:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a major re-write has occurred, including seven in-line citations added. Non-trivial information outside of pop culture appearances, including the JP-Scipionyx connection and Phil Currie's inspiration, is included in the article. The crucial observation that T. rex is still widely viewed as the most fearsome predator despite larger theropods being discovered, is covered, albeit briefly. I'd like to see more of an examination of why this is so, but the article itself certainly does not merit deletion in its current condition: verified facts, non-trivial information, and appropriate quotations from notable sources from 1905 to the present. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I "voted" merge last time, but the article has been greatly improved. Excellent work --Bláthnaid 11:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion of this content. AfD is not a forum for proposing or discussing name changes. Please use the article talk page for this. Sandstein 19:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong and live organ harvesting[edit]

Either China engages in organ harvesting of dissidents, or it doesn't. China has admitted to taking organs from executed criminals with approval. I don't believe that the Chinese authorities would perform this act on FG activists alone. Certainly, FG appears to be making the most noise about organ harvesting.

For arguments' sake, without suggesting or inferring what China is or isn't doing, but hypothetically for the sake of the discussion here, if China were targeting FG activists exclusively, then the contents should be moved to Persecution of Falun Gong because leaving title as it is is extremely POV, and would eventually be a POV fork. However, I believe this exclusivity does not exist, and the article should be renamed Organ harvesting in China - which is at present being redirected back to Persecution of Falun Gong - an act which is equally POV.

Has anyone also noticed how this namespace is ambiguous? Is FG engaged in organ harvesting? The content suggests that FG is only making allegations about organ harvesting, so the article's title completely violates WP:NPOV and should be deleted immediately. Ohconfucius 04:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: my issue here is with the namespace, and not the content. Ohconfucius 04:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions, and in the list of Religion-related deletions. —Ohconfucius 05:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~'Strongly Agree with namespace change proposed by Ohconfucius. His suggestion Organ harvesting in China I feel, is a good one.~~

~~Dilip rajeev 06:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Kindly see my clarification below I was teh under the impression that a change of title( "namspace"!) was being suggested! I was thinking the title could be better phrased perhaps as "Organ Harvestion from live Falun Gong Practitioners"

Dilip rajeev 02:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That title would be infinitely worse than no change at all, IMHO. Ohconfucius 02:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree However, the replacement should named Allegations of organ harvesting in China, per WP:NPOV, and precedents such as Allegations of state terrorism by the United States--PCPP 06:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Organ harvesting in China and expand. Dbromage [Talk] 07:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with FG. If FG is making most of the noise on this topic it should be merged. If any other more neutral sources say it is true then redirect to Organ harvesting in China. But this article seems to be bias since most of the sources are FG or FG related. --Cs california 07:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and Merge with FG per Cs california if content remind exclusive to FG. ~~Else redirect to Organ harvesting in China~~. KTC 08:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Else replace at Allegations of organ harvesting in China. KTC 09:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification : That's a support of proposal by Ohconfucius below. KTC 09:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FURTHER CLARIFICATION - Please note that I am taking it for granted that the contents will be merged with one or other article. To avoid any doubt, I wish to see the deletion of the namespace, without any redirects. Please endorse your remarks accordingly. Ohconfucius 09:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC):[reply]

Note to closing admin. It may be desirable to preserve the edit history of this article by first deleting Organ harvesting in China, moving the existing into that namespace, and then deleting the redirect. Then, we can work on adapting the article to conform to the title, as well as to wiki policies and guidelines. Ohconfucius 06:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, add relevant information to either of the articles mentioned above. >Radiant< 13:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, cleanup, and synchronise with the content on persecution of Falun Gong page. Rename to Organ Harvesting in China, with a section about prisoners and the others, and a section about flg. The difference between flg and the others is that they are saying that it is systematic and using live practitioners. The CCP has admitted to using the organs of executed prisoners, but the accusation here is that they are using living falun gong practitioners who have been imprisoned for their beliefs, or are at forced labour camps. they blood test them and use them for organs. the accusation is that flg is the only group they are doing this to in this way. read the report http://www.organharvestinvestigation.net/ for more details --Asdfg12345 05:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[22].[reply]

oh yeah and the "allegations" title can disappear since if it is about organ harvesting in China, there is no question there is organ harvesting. there are public statements from the health minister or someone admitting to using executed prisoners. The part about falun gong could somehow incorporate the concept that the party hasn't admitted to the fact etc.--Asdfg12345 05:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, Thie title is a neutral title. It does not say "Live organ harvesting on Falun Gong practitioner". It is just "Falun Gong and live organ harvesting". What a neutral title!! The claimed "Live organ harvesting" is a very cruel thing that happen in the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners. Note that "LIVE" is not the ordinary organ harvesting for other organ harvesting victims in China. "Falun Gong" could not be removed from the title. This article could be cited from other articles. But it should not deleted from namespace. I don't see any reason that is necessary. The article is also full of third-party citations from legal sources. It just simply reports something without any point of views from editors. I don't see any reason that this article should be deleted. I welcome all suggestions that improves it, though. Fnhddzs 17:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article describes a very specific question: "live organ harvesting of Falun Gong members". Therefore, no reason for deletion or renaming. In addition, a separate article, such as Organ harvesting in China can be created, which has a much wider scope. This should not be "allegations" of organ harvesting in China, because using organs of executed prisoners is officially admitted by Chinese government.Biophys 02:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article must be kept. There is much information directly related to Extraction of organs from Live Falun Gong Practitioners. Incuding the Kilgour-Matas report based on independent inestigation conducted by the Ex-Canadion MPs. The article must be kept and the issue is directly related to the Persecution of Falun Gong. There is so much information in the article that cannot go under a generic "namespace". I see absilutely no reason why the article should be deleted.

Dilip rajeev 06:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The present article needs a lot of work to conform to wikipedia standards. If that work is properly done, I see every reason the contents will sit comfortable within the 'organ harvesting in China' article. Ohconfucius 02:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A FEW MORE ISSUES: The main argument put forward to suggest change of namespace is: "exclusivity does not exist, and the article should be renamed Organ harvesting in China" . I beleve there is little or no logic to this argument. Absence of exclusivity doesnot imply the issue is not one of serious concern, recieving increasing amounts of international attention.

See for instance the Kilgour-Matas report the report is exclusively on the Extraction of Organs from live Falun practitioners. There are exclusive reports from the Amnesty Inernational, HRW, etc related to the issue. Futher, the issue deservers greater attention and stands out from the rest because Falun Practitioners undergoing these brutalities are innocent people, who are being persecuted merely because of their belief in Truthfulness-Compassion and Endurance.

Which subject or topic has "exclusivity"? Just to demonstrate the lack of reason in the so called ""exclusivity" does not exist" argument, we can apply the same logic to the Persecution of early Christians by the Romans article and say Christians were not the only group persecuted by the Romans so the namespace is a "POV fork" and therefore the article should be merged with some "Persecution in Rome"..Which, to me, sounds rather irrational. I wish to point out that the exact same arguments are being pushed here.

Dilip rajeev 08:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment of course you are entitled to change your mind, but why the sudden about turn, Dilip? What I would like to know is if can anyone prove that the PRC is not carrying out live organ harvesting on other non-FG people? Ohconfucius 09:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was no change in mind. What I had in mind when saying "change the title" was a better wording of the title say for instance "Organ Harvestion from live Falun Gong Practitioners". Not a removal of the "namespace"!!! . But this title, I believe is good enough. I am strongly against removal of the "namespace".

Perhaps the CCP is but that is, not by any means, a reason for removal of the namespace. "Exclusivity" is not a requirement for an article to exist. Please see my explanation above. This is an issue that has been recieving a lot of international attention and has come to light recently with independent investigation carried our by KIlgour-Matas , WOIPFG etc. The issue is recieving greater international attention precisely because these are inncoent prisoners of conscience undergoing this persecution. Further, emerging evidence suggests Falun Gong practitioner are being targeted because their organs are in "better health"!! The extent of brutality is almost unbelievable. Please see the Kilgour-Matas report and other material presented on the page.

Dilip rajeev 09:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And what have these have to do with Wikipedia policies? WOIPFG is a Falun gong organization, and Kilgor and Matas's report has not been verified by any independent third-party.--PCPP 14:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You know this is the cool thing about wikipedia, you can include that :). I said that there is evidence and their is disprove, but whats more there is certainly a hype around it, so it deserves an article :) --HappyInGeneral 10:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You might notice that there is a big hype around the Falun Gong and Live Organ Harvesting in China, this is human knowledge, if you alter the title it would be the same as denying that there are proofs, and that there are denials, basically this being an ongoing debate which might drag on a lot more since the Communist Party of China does not allow independent investigation and it's only trying hard to deny. On the other hand there are witnesses, there is at least one serious independent investigation which strongly requires that an investigation should be initiated in mainland China. So giving that this issue is a known one, it merits an article in the collection of important human knowledge, the only problem being that there are some (the accused) who are feeling very much discomfort with the existence of this article, especially when people come and look for articles about mainland china and they see that there is such an issue, while the CCP is trying to hold the Olympic Games which in Theory are partly for safeguarding human dignity [23]. Then you tell me, what is the correct thing to do. --HappyInGeneral 09:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWikipedia is not about disseminating the truth: "the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. Ohconfucius 02:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read WP:V. And keep in mind this is about renaming the current article, which currently is in total POV mess, and not a place to push what one thinks about Falun Gong or the CCP. Irrelevant of the CCP's actions of censorship, the article should be based on verifiable facts, not suspicions based on China's past records. And also worth noting is that Dilip rajeev (contribs), Fnhddzs (contribs), and HappyInGeneral (contribs) have similar editing patterns and all have edited Falun Gong exclusively.--PCPP 13:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While you are doing that you could also check out PCPP's (contribs) bias, which is very much cleaning up aka. hiding and diluting all negative statements regarding the Chinese Communist Party --HappyInGeneral 15:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the person who tried to pass off material from Clearwisdom as fact [24]? I made all my edits based on WP:WTA and WP:NPOV, so that the articles in question does not become a mirror of a Falun Gong website. Neutrality means giving evidence to both Falun Gong and the CCP, not accepting the former as absolute truth while dismissing the latter as propaganda.--PCPP 03:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding WP:V "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.", please check the document and you'll see that the material is attributed. If you don't want to go through the document then see this report: http://OrganHaverstInvestigation.net [25] (this is just for a quick reference it is not the only source provided in the article). --HappyInGeneral 16:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kilgore and Mata's report has not been verified by any third party to be fact, and has been disputed by Chinese Laogai researcher Harry Wu. Their research may be used to present FLG's side of the case, but to base the article entirely on on their "evidence" is a violation of WP:NPOV.--PCPP 03:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why should this be deleted? This is undeniable evidence that this is actually happening TODAY, as we speak. The Chinese Communist Party are terrified of this topic because it fully exposes their wickedness and what they are capable of doing. Omido 07:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have you even read the nomination? It's about moving the title from Falun Gong and live organ harvesting to Organ harvesting in China. And are you accusing me of being an agent of the Chinese Communist Party? Like your fellow meatpuppets, you have edited nothing but Falun Gong related articles Omido (contribs)--PCPP 03:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reply to PCPP, I believe that editors who have up to now edited only FG related articles should not be criticised for that fact alone, for it is not forbidden to do so. What is more, everyone has different priorities. However, I would agree that they should indeed go edit other wikipedia articles to gain a sense of application of wikipedia's policies and guidelines outside of the rarified environment of the FG articles. Ohconfucius 02:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank You for your invitation and actually I did that :) However it's not quite the same, because this is an article that is made to be highly controversial. (IMHO, suppressed & tweak strongly because of the current persecution against Falun Gong, in China by the Communist Party, wait and see how the article will look after the persecution is stopped :) ) --HappyInGeneral 10:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Organ harvesting in China, since China was supposed to harvest organs from executed prisoners as well. I failed to find such move pro-China/anti-Falun Gong.--AstrixZero 10:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wow! this has turned into yet another slanging match between the forces of "good" and "evil", but was never intended to be. It's about having an article title which accurately reflects the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, and not about the morality and proof of the acts of organ harvesting (dead or alive). Although I am not so naïve to believe that a WP:NPOV article will be created if we renamed it to organ harvesting in China, I contend that it will pave the way for a broader-based and more encyclopaedic article in which the facts, assertions of "both" sides can be presented in a wikipedia-like fashion. As I have already stated, it's not about censorship or deletion of content, but of unwinding two horrible and non-netural POV titles and redirects. Ohconfucius 02:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sounds reasonable, the question is how are you going to achieve this by renaming the page since the topic at hand is Organ Harvesting from Live Falun Gong practitioners? --HappyInGeneral 12:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment answer pt1: I'm not going to do it, we are. answer pt2, as it is "organ harvesting" and appears to be taking place in China, it's well covered by the title suggested. Ohconfucius 12:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharday[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article is a version speedy-deleted as G4 on the basis of the prior AfD. DRV determined that a relisting was in order, as recent clarifications of WP:PORNBIO may apply to this actress. Still, deletion for lack of notability is on the table, pending other opinions. Xoloz 04:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reviewing the article I don't think that she honestly meets the WP:PORNBIO standard. While she works in a particular genre niche, there are no sources that she is particularly innovative or productive compared to other big-bust models. The awards also appear to be minor ones given out by magazines to their own models without any broader coverage or significance. Eluchil404 04:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe Score magazine's coverage is broad enough to include the majority of notable big-bust models. Models she beat for the awards include Ines Cudna, Linsey Dawn McKenzie, Nadine Jansen, Kerry Marie, Lorna Morgan and Diane Poppos. [26] [27] [28] Epbr123 08:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eluchi. The above info is not enough to pass WP:PORNBIO, it's just not notable enough an "achievement". VanTucky ^(talk) 20:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep per the awards listed. I dont think this person would qualify for the mainstream XXX awards, so this should be judged slightly differently Corpx 00:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epbr123 and model of the year awards. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epbr123. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 00:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Community is split between those who consider this to be a list that lacks coherence and consists of trivia and those who point to strong cultural influences. The article is kept by default. There is a significant lack of sourcing but this should be dealt with by editorial action; for example by adding ((fact)) tags to the unsourced items that can be removed if they remain unsourced after a reasonable period of time. TerriersFan 23:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange[edit]

The article was deleted at its previous AfD. DRV overturned this result because of problems with the closing, including failure adequately to consider the possibility of a merge. Still, deletion is on the table, given WP:NOT and WP:V concerns (as with many "in popular culture" articles), pending other opinions. Xoloz 04:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for relisting this. I'm planning on doing some cleanup/revision, so I hope others will please hold off for a few days before voicing concerns that may be remedied, or just check back once or twice before the AfD closes. — xDanielx^Talk 04:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - Well, I finished the first wave of cleanup. The article still could use sources for specific references, but I don't really want to dig those up while the AfD is in progress seeing as there's a good chance the work will be wasted. — xDanielx^Talk 00:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is a good example of the laundry-list of loosely related topics that have given "In popular culture" articles a bad name. An indiscriminate collection of any and every trivial reference, including some that are ridiculous (It is possible to buy a keychain charm depicting Stewie Griffin dressed as a Droog.), and a lot of original research with the usual OR phrases like Is similar to, Is reminiscent of, etc. There appeared to have been a clear consensus for deletion in the previous AFD, I don't see a single "keep" argument based on anything other than "it was kept before" or "the film is notable", neither of which are arguments for keeping this list. Unfortunately, Eyrian's closing of that AFD has meant this crap-magnet list has to be debated again. Masaruemoto 04:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still a directory of loosely associated topics. This collection of...stuff...that makes some trivial reference to the novel or film, or that in the unreferenced opinion of some random editor might possibly bear some similarity to something from the novel or film, tells us nothing about the novel or film, nothing about the fiction from which the trivial references are drawn, nothing about any relationship between them (for there is none) and nothing about the world. Anything that's been around for a while is going to accumulate a selection of references to it in other media. That doesn't mean that a laundry list trivia dump of "ooh, Clockwork Orange thingy!" references makes for an encyclopedia article. Otto4711 12:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Still has the same problems. The article has been constructed completely from primary sources, using a variety of (trivial) references to attempt to demonstrate cultural impact. This constitutes synthesis, which is completely unacceptable. --Eyrian 13:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep for now per xDanielx. Let's give him a chance to work on the article before discussing its merits a third time. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I split this off from the book and film articles in order to improve those (a problem was that lots of references to the film ended up in the book and vice versa, as people didn't quite know what was referenced). I don't care what happens to this as long as it is not merged back in. Kusma (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not actual, useful knowledge. Most references are only mentions, they have no real significance. An essay that defines the appearance of stylistic devices in film or literature which borrow from or simply ape portions of A Clockwork would indeed be interesting and encyclopedic, but it couldn't be a mere list or an arrangement of original research. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in the sourced info and then redirect. Simple really. Lugnuts 18:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - XDanielk, I don't mean to be a pessimist, but I see no hope for this article ever evolving into anything other than a synthesis of trivia that has no value. It is time to let it go. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The cultural influence of A Clockwork Orange is simply enormous, as evidenced by the cultural references. This article illustrates the scope of the cultural impact in a way that can't easily be done with only a brief summary embedded in the main article. I'm rather disappointed to see it being generalized as "listcruft" and what not. I pruned what I took to be the bottom ~60% or so of listed items in terms of notability and relevance, and there are still plenty remaining. By continuing with more extensive revision I'm sure we can isolate a medium-sized collection of references that are considerably notable and pertinent. We cam also develop a stronger lead and add better references about the general influence of A Clockwork Orange. Adding sources for specific references is just a technicality which can be easily completed when we get around to it. Let's fix this article, instead of deleting harmless information. — xDanielx^Talk 00:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again - This is a bunch of loosely associated topics knit up into a list Corpx 00:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the 2nd afd was more than convincing to me, and the fact that all the other Kubrick-related "in popular culture" articles were deleted proves that there is no place in WP for this or any other trivia/"in popular culture" pages. Biggspowd 05:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A small handful of trivia/culture articles were deleted, therefore all popular culture studies should be banned from Wikipedia? That sounds very much like WP:WAX. — xDanielx^Talk 06:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Straw man. Nobody is trying to delete popular culture studies articles. People are deleting lists of trivial references that are bundled together to make a synthetic whole. Tragically, that's what almost every popular culture article is like. --Eyrian 16:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    - What about "there is no place in WP for this or any other trivia/'in popular culture' pages"? — xDanielx ^T/_C 17:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're taking that out of context. These are "trivia/popular culture pages". That is, they are trivia masquerading as a popular culture article. --Eyrian 17:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
        There's not much ambiguity in "there is no place in WP for this or any other trivia/'in popular culture' pages". I don't see what contextual condition might allow you to interpret that as anything other than a very generic complaint with no consideration of this article in particular. — xDanielx ^T/_C 17:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        These articles are anything but particular. There are many (though much fewer, now) articles like this: rambling lists of trivial or one-off references. There is certainly a broad class of trivia/IPC articles that just need to go. That doesn't mean that all popular culture studies articles need to. --Eyrian 18:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

could you list the (few) ones that you think are good, so w can have some idea or your standards?DGG (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup Well referenced and inciteful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of "well referenced" intrigues me. I see one reference in the entire article. Otto4711 15:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The requirement is verifiable. There are 226 refs to "popular culture" "clockwork Orange" in Google Scholar [29] . Most accessibly, it's discussed in several chapters of the Cambridge Film Handbook on "Stanley Kubrick's Clockwork Orange" ed. by Stuart MacDougal. I added it as a general ref. Most individual items quoted will probably be referenced in the reviews. The reasons why popular culture is encyclopedic has been given many times before. the ones who don't like the topic, should leave it alone. I leave alone the stuff on the Simpsons, and the listing of numbered highways, and all sorts of things. DGG (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a work happens to contain both the phrase "Clockwork Orange" and "popular culture" doesn't mean that the reference has anything to do with the subject of A Clockwork Orange in popular culture. For example, the article Dangerous games: Racism as practised symbolically in Italian popular culture does not appear to have anything to do with the novel or film. Relying on Google hits is a slender reed indeed, unless you're prepared to argue the cultural relationship between Hitler and Pop-tarts. Otto4711 13:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have not read the article you mention. The ref. is on p.215. (The material there has not yet been added to this article--I think that GS list would probably yield about 100 additional good referenced items, in addition to sourcing the ones already included). Superficial judging by titles when one doesn't know the material is the curse of trying to get respectable sourcing into WP. DGG (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Clockwork Orange is mentioned on one page of a document that is at least 215 pages long. Sorry, but that doesn't appear to qualify as a substantial discussion of the topic of CW in PC. Otto4711 02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The influence of the film has been such that a list of notable references of this type will be easily verifiable. Ideally it would become a part of the article on the film itself, but that would make the article too lengthy. Crypticfirefly 04:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just wanted to remind people that 1) 3 other similar pages on Kubrick films have been deleted in AFD, 2) This page was already deleted, 3) Just because something is popular or well-known does not mean every subject should have various spinoff pages. Biggspowd 07:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument though. Lugnuts 11:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't using that argument, I was just saying that 3 similar pages about Kubrick films have been deleted, and this should be as well, turning a list into an OR essay does not mean an article is any better or should be kept, period. Biggspowd 12:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added 4 RS to the article. The opening paragraph is completely sourced and asserts that both the book and the movie have had a huge influence on popular culture, and pop culture references them frequently. This makes the article pass WP:V, because the topic as a whole is notable and verifiable. Now to the WP:NOT#TRIVA and #DIR issues. I've added some context to the "films" section to explain why the film was influential. Naming films that reference A Clockwork Orange within this context allows the article to pass WP:NOT because the reason these articles are listed has been explained at the start of the section. I could only spare half an hour to find sources, but I hope I have shown that RS are indeed available that make the connection between a part of pop culture and A Clockwork Orange. A couple of points already have two sources, eg Reservoir Dogs. A very few primary references are OK for the article, eg the band Moloko is of course a cultural reference to A Clockwork Orange. Unreferenced parts should indeed go, but that is not a reason to delete the entire article. A foundation is needed to build the type of article that User:Anetode would like Wikipedia to have. --Bláthnaid 19:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Up to 11 sources now. --Bláthnaid 11:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just because something happens does not mean it is notable for a page or entry here. Biggspowd 12:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one made that claim. Though per WP:DGFA and other guidelines, substantial changes should be considered as possible reasons to ignore or give less weight to certain votes. Either way I think there is no consensus, unless a large wave of voters causes a substantial change. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Article looks pretty good now, topic is important, "I don't like cultural references lists" is not good reason for deletion. Squidfryerchef 03:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that "I don't like cultural references lists" is not a good reason for deletion. Fortunately, no one appears to be offering it as a reason. What we are offering as a reason is the lack of any meaningful association between the trivial items on this list, and your comment fails to address those points. "Article looks pretty good now" is absolutely not a reason for keeping and the existence of these scattered references does not establish that the topic is important. Otto4711 14:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable, topic is coherent. Everyking 11:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge and Comment. It is my understanding, especially with the recent reference additions, that the topic of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange is indeed notable, but that the list accompanying this topic is not. For each entry, there should be at least one reliable source stating that it is in fact a reference, but at the moment this list consists mostly of what is believed to be a reference (i.e. Original Research). Therefore, merge the (sourced) intro and the few sourced entries to either the book or film article, leave an invisible comment there that only material with a non-primary reliable source is allowed, and then delete this list as WP:OR. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per above. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 18:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you simply cannot state that it is in anyway remotely Encyclopaedic, referecnes in culture no... maybe if it was a well sourced detailed examination of its impact on culture then yes.

"Metalcore band Every Time I Die's song "Pornogratherapy" is a song written with many references to the A Clockwork Orange movie." says who?

"The debut album of the American thrash metal band Death Angel is entitled "The Ultra-Violence"." So what?

"There was a surf rock band in the 1960s called The Clockwork Oranges." And?

"The film inspired the name for the Italian football team Juventus FC's ultra group who are called The Drughi (The Droogs in Italian language)." Who's word are we taking for that?

"At 2:00 in the viral video Blake The Prep (http://youtube.com/watch?v=OjXCYyrtnBM) from Drop Culture Productions, Blake mentions an "intellectual" coming up to him and asking if he has seen A Clockwork Orange, and that it is a very important film. To which Blake replys "Have you ever seen Donnie Darko, yeah, I bet you haven't." " massively important piece of info there...

This is my point.. its an article that generates lists of total crap if you dont mind me saying, it encourages people to add information which becomes less and less to the point but it has no value. It is a worthless article. But then thats my opinion and my vote. --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salzer Consulting[edit]

Delete nn firm, fails WP:CORP, smells a little too much like an ad especially given the username of the original creator. If its parent company had an article and was notable, merge would be an option as well. Was originally tagged speedy, but not deleted, so I bring it here to you good folks. Carlossuarez46 03:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is non-notable and fails WP:CORP as Carlos says. --omtay 38 04:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, fails WP:CORP. Oysterguitarist 04:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:BLP and WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 02:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hicks[edit]

Suspect in a police investigation into a murder of an NFL player, Darrent Williams. Nothing famous, no sources, and just a stub of something of very limited notability. Jmlk 1 7 03:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. If any alleged homicide suspect or associate to such an incident is deemed notable then Wikipedia can go to hell in a handcart.Dick G 07:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He is not guilty until proven otherwise, wich means an article on him will be irrelevant if he is declared inocent. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:BLP. We may not have an article making allegations of criminal conduct when it has zero references. Any such allegations must be fully documented by reliable sources. I have blanked the article in accordance with with WP:BLP policy. Any editor is welcome to find and add references to substantiate the statements in the article.Edison 17:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - Not enough historic notability, in my opinion Corpx 00:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Springwood, Ohio[edit]

A fictional town that isn't notable enough for an article. No significant coverage in reliable sources. This AFD was suggested by another editor in the related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Springwood High School (fictional), I would have nominated them together if I'd known this existed. Masaruemoto 03:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No info worth merging to A Nightmare on Elm Street (series) or Freddy Kruger--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to the series article. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability for this fictional town Corpx 00:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to SOS (Jonas Brothers song). We already have a (much better) article on this song. android 79 02:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOS by the Jonas Brothers[edit]

Contested PROD, non notable song by a barely notable pop band. Article provides almost no context. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A prima facie fan edit, unable to find any worthwhile sources Dick G 07:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though this article will probably be recreated once the single goes big and sources come up talking about the song. In the meantime, if there's nothing there, there's nothing there. No sources=no article. TheLetterM 14:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that this song may have potential later on, but for now lets keep the link on this one red. (LoL I find myself funny)!! --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 19:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a single off an album that just debuted at #5 on the Billboard 200. The band is quite notable. Needs cleanup. Everyking 19:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The song has now also debuted at number 65 on the Billboard Hot 100. Everyking 12:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — TKD::Talk 04:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Comprehensive Cancer Network[edit]

Blatent advertisement. Article fails WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the majority of edits to the page are by 63.86.251.252, which is registered to National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the services a 3rd party "Network" offers. Nor is Wikipedia a place for Self-promotion or Advertising. Hu12 03:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
→ See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.nccn.org
→ See also: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_15#National_Comprehensive_Cancer_Network

Delete - Reads very much like an advertisement for this organisation. No references for content to establish notability either - so fails WP:N and WP:V. Camaron1 | Chris 11:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found quite a few sources before now in a search (I do look actually); I suggested delete as an advert leaving potential for a possible re-wright in future. If the article is been actively cleaned-up now, I will say keep it. Camaron1 | Chris 11:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertising leaflet published on Wikipedia... not worth it here. is this notable enough?? no, don't think so! --84.45.219.185 11:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam-like article that fails WP:N change to Keep per the work of DGG. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are found Corpx 00:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable--look at the participants--this was reduced from a very spammy set of article, and is little more than a straight forward encyclopedic description. Anyway, I found easily enough a formal review in a peer-reviewed journal that describes it and I added it to the article. Take a look--I think that satisfies the request for sourcing for notability. did anyone else even look? DGG (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, I spotted the journal when I made my !vote. But one RS is not a sufficient assertion of notability as defined by the necessary "significant coverage." VanTucky ^(talk) 23:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

first of all one RS is sufficient, if it is strong enough--and a 2-page review in the leading peer-reviewed journal in the subject is certainly strong enough. anyway, I added two more. I could keep going. (I also cleaned up the content a little, removing the misguided attempts of their PR person to make it look impressive.DGG (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems it's notable then. Would you like to volunteer to completely re-write the article according to those sources and remove any promotional content? Because it certainly needs it. Otherwise, it's just an advert with useless sources. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing just that. DGG (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. It appears their practice guidelines are widely used (or at least commented upon). -- SiobhanHansa 13:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. --Tikiwont 13:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up, I agree. The clinical practice guidelines are well known in oncology practice for being unbiased and the state-of-the-art in cancer because of the association of hospitals that belongs to the group. The guidelines are very widely cited in peer-reviewed journals in oncology (do a pubmed search on this). The wording at the top seems to come directly from their own web page, though, so it does need significant cleaning up. No reason to delete this when other similar organizations in cancer (ASCO, Lance Armstrong Foundation, American Cancer Society) all have pages. This organization is well known among all cancer docs even if it is not as public as ACS. --Queen_of_the_Jet_Set 16:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment okay, I took a shot at cleaning it up. What does everyone think? --Queen_of_the_Jet_Set 16:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also think there is an oncology journal that they publish, but someone else would have to look this up because I don't know about it. --Queen_of_the_Jet_Set 16:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations which held February 15, 2003 anti-war protests[edit]

WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR; a list of hundreds of locations with no encyclopedic use in this format. The superior February 15, 2003 anti-war protest already details the notable protests by location and includes context, there's no need for this seperate list. Masaruemoto 03:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main protest article provides much more encyclopedic information than this list does in this format. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per items mentioned above along with being a violation of WP:NOT#LINK. Useight 03:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I concur with the nominator's opinion that no encyclopedic use got from this list, with nearly 800 locations barely listed and no further research. The only valuable thing of the list may be the statistics of crowd, but regretfully rare sources cited to support these figures. @pple 03:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to February 15, 2003 anti-war protest. Dbromage [Talk] 07:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is lengthy enough as to really say nothing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Dbromage. This is almost trivial by itself. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, page created because list was cluttering up main Feb15 protest page. I think it might be interesting as reference but I don't mind if it is deleted.--JK the unwise 16:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 04:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atit Kumar[edit]

This article is autobiographical and, though there is an assertion of importance, it's all about stuff the guy did in college. The references are merely lists of students involved in the project and do nothing to demonstrate notability. B 03:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. fails WP:BIO by a mile. Individually, he appears not to have done anything of note, all references are trivial. Ohconfucius 04:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable clearly fails WP:BIO Harlowraman 07:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given the expansion and sourcing undertaken during this AfD, the recommendations to delete aren't referring to the present state of the article. — TKD::Talk 04:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emblements[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Tagged for deletion via WP:PROD by User:TexasAndroid despite having passsed AFD as 'keep' in March 2006. Considering this has gone >1 year without improvement, I am inclined to suggest the article should be deleted now that it has been transwiki'd. Merger to an appropriate article would also be a viable option. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, over 1 year without any further exploitation, transwiki is the only solution. @pple 03:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no-brainer. nothing more than a dicdef, already transwikified. Ohconfucius 04:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef, already transwikied. Oysterguitarist 05:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is just a stub that begins at the beginning. This does have some potential for expansion. The word is significant in legal history mostly because in earlier days, when land and agricultural litigation occupied more of the legal system's time, there was some controversy as to whether, say, unharvested crops on land foreclosed upon belonged to the mortgage holder or to the tenant. If I find something useful, I may try to expand this. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have slightly expanded the article, and added a couple of references. (They were more recent than what I expected to find!) - Smerdis of Tlön 14:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think this has enough notability to stay as a stub Corpx 00:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after expansion. It's no longer a dicdef, and there's probably more to this doctrine than what Ihcoyc has already been so diligent to add. After a year basically untouched, AFD was exactly the kick in the pants this article needed.--Chaser - T 04:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This improvement could have been done by the nominator or the prodder instead. It doesn't need to go to AfD unless people insist on sending for deletion instead of trying to improve articles. DGG (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unseen character[edit]

The OR tendency is manifested from the very beginning of the lead section. The whole article wretchedly fails to cite any sources. OR conspicuously continues in the next sections, eg: "The earliest example of an unseen and unheard television character was Gladys Potter on the 1950s TV series December Bride... or "The second most common phenomenon in this category is.... This article "introduces original ideas", which must be excluded from Wikipedia. @pple 02:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Current article contents do indeed need referencing, however, some looking is able to turn up examples. [30] and [31] for example. Or [32]. There's probably more in books that focus on the field, but I think these three at least demonstrate that there is some validity to the concept overall. Enough that the solution here is ((unreferenced)) rather than deletion. If you really feel strongly about it, you can use ((rewrite)) and ((originalresearch)). FrozenPurpleCube 04:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. ISD 12:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and tag accordingly. There seem to be plenty of sources referring to specific unseen characters and far less that write about the concept, so I am not sure how much info this article should eventually contain. However, it adresses an important concept and is a useful anchor article for the category Category:Unseen characters.--Tikiwont 12:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The unseen character is often one of the most interesting characters in a script, more so in a television series because he or she appears in every episode without actually appearing. O.R. to a large extent, yes, but no less O.R. than most television articles, and Wikipedia tends to look the other way when it comes to TV. In this case, the article is more useful than the vast majority of TV articles, and I've reached it before, knowing that Wikipedia would have it when nobody else would, by going through blue links in other articles (Vera from Cheers, or Maris from Frasier, etc.). Mandsford 16:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above comments, esp FrozenPurpleCube; the subject seems notable enough and clearly can be sourced. Lack of sourcing due to editor apathy is different to lack of sourcing due to lack of sources (which would merit deletion) EyeSerene^TALK 18:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article badly needs references and a more comprehensive scope. As written, the topic appears confined to television. However, this technique has been used in radio (Fibber McGee and Molly, for certain) and theatre well before the 1950s. Serpent's Choice 18:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Uh...weren't ALL radio characters unseen, except by the studio audience, in photos, or in the "mind's eye?" Edison 19:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a sense. But there are still characters who were "off-stage" so to speak. FrozenPurpleCube 03:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable theater convention. OR argument valid for pruning/re-write not deletion. Wl219 21:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's interested and better-written than a lot of stuff here. Czolgolz 22:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Promising article on a clearly definable topic which can easily be referenced. Lack of references is not a reason to bring to AfD. This is not an 'original idea', in fact the whole article shows that it's not an original idea. Nick mallory 04:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There was once a huge list in the article that showed that the unseen character as a device is used quite often in many mediums. While the list deserved to be deleted, the article doesn't. I think we should keep the article and tag it for referencing, as long as the list stays out of the article. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unsourced original research. Jay32183 02:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs sources but not OR. Google returns many non-wiki hits for "unseen character" in literary criticism. Squidfryerchef 03:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PROD is invalid for articles that have been through AfD previously; the tag could have been summarily removed on those grounds, especially given that the first AfD was only a couple weeks ago. — TKD::Talk 02:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De Mens[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The previous AFD was closed on 1 August. On 9 August, the article was introduced into the WP:PROD workstream by User:IPSOS with the edit comment "guess nobody intends to establish notability, prod". I would suggest this be speedy-closed, but am bringing this here as a procedural nomination - IPSOS effectively re-AFD'd the article by PRODing it. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, speedy if you like. The article hasn't changed since the last AfD, my arguments have changed neither. --B. Wolterding 11:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:MUSIC. Band has put out 4 albums on Play It Again, Sam Records, whose roster includes Sigur Ros and Front 242, among others. Also signed with Universal--Sethacus 16:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as from the article the band certainly meets the albums/label notability criteria on WP:MUSIC. The article needs sources though ;) EyeSerene^TALK 18:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There was a clear consensus for deletion. The keepers failed to overcome the argument of the deleters that this article lacked clear criteria for inclusion. As as been pointed out the alternative is to organically grow Oxford#Literature in Oxford and that can be considered for a break out if it becomes too unwieldy. TerriersFan 17:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Books associated with Oxford[edit]

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics; in some cases the only connection to Oxford is the mention of the city's name in the story. Topic already covered in Oxford#Literature in Oxford, no need for a stand-alone list to duplicate the notable examples. Masaruemoto 02:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- Bduke 03:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is indeed covered in the article on Oxford and it is also covered in the article on the University of Oxford. This article contains more information than those articles do, yet the literature sections there are probably too long. I suggest that this article be developed further and the lists in the other articles be cut back with a link here. --Bduke 03:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already covered in other articles, no need to have it. Oysterguitarist 04:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete as indiscriminate, and open to an enormous permutation involving all sorts of media and all sorts of institutions. Oxford would make a cameo appearance in a book, and it's listed? No kidding? Ohconfucius 04:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I fail to see which of the five WP:NOT#IINFO bullet points applies here. — Jonathan Bowen 15:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per list of loosely associated topics. Port anything that is set in Oxford to the main article Corpx 04:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above; this is an extremely tenuously associated list of items. EyeSerene^TALK 18:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list per WP:NOT. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Oxford has notably strong literary associations as a historic university city, even in an international context. The article could be developed further. — Jonathan Bowen 20:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I think this is a case of WP:SOFIXIT rather than deletion. If Oxford is notable enough, I am happy to have a go at this. By the way, there are other book lists for New York and Oakland (for example), so this is not such an isolated case. — Jonathan Bowen 10:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. How can one know if the list is ever complete? It can not be managed and is too loosely related. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — of course it will never be complete, but many (most?) lists on Wikipedia are not complete. There is a good argument to split the books into different categories however under WP:BB. — Jonathan Bowen 10:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Jonathan Bowen and WP:HEY. Develop as per Bduke above. If OUP isn't the single most important English language university press in the world, especially in the scholarly field, it's damn close to it. It's aura practically confers notability on anything associated with it, including this article. And it isn't just OUP, it's the literary associations of the town. Also, it's not about the completeness of the list, that's not a reason to delete. After all, Wikipedia isn't complete. I just don't see this as tenuous or indiscriminate, they are tied together because of their association with Oxford. The article does need more work, but compare it now from when it was started. — Becksguy 09:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename: List of books associated with Oxford. Useful research source. I am not a fan of the list aspects to Wiki, but I have been convinced that they do serve a useful purpose, and there is a general consensus for their use. Stand alone lists also keep articles free of laundry lists. This particular list is no better or worse than average. SilkTork 19:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a cruft collection. Tolkien is listed; why not Lewis (he was at Oxford for a while too)? "Associated" is way too open-ended, of nothing else: if we listed books associated with London, we could pick up virtually everything in Britain not published by a university press! Mangoe 20:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — a case of Wikipedia:Cruftcruft?! C. S. Lewis has been added as you suggest, thank you. — Jonathan Bowen 23:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a list of loosely associated topics. "Associated with Oxford" is too broad of a criterion -- books authored by people who have been associated with academic institutes in Oxford, books published by presses in Oxford (such as OUP), books written by people from the city of Oxford, books on Oxford... that leaves us with a list of loosely-related topics. utcursch | talk 13:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Utcursch Harlowraman 23:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Parkway Middle School[edit]

The result was article has been speedy deleted. @pple 03:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likely an attack page, but nominating for AfD as a courtesy due to the fact it is about a school, no prejudice to speedy deletion if a consensus can be established. Can anyone find any information about this school and if notable rewrite the article? Rackabello 02:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete A clear example of an attack page. —Travis ^talk 02:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Makes no attempt to establish notability, and is racist. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nothing worth saving. Alansohn 03:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus seemed to have moved toward retaining this as a separate article after it was expanded and sourced. — TKD::Talk 05:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth South High School[edit]

Non notable high school Rackabello 02:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merge into larger article- What makes this high school any less notable than Duxbury High School or Monson High School? If you're going to delete this, you'll have to go through a lot of small high school articles and delete them all. Raime 02:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC) - See below[reply]
- Comment there's no assertion or valid claim of notability, to my knowledge this school hasn't won any national awards and nothing has happened there that has received major press coverage, not all schools are notable. Schools can't be speedied per WP:CSD, but if this were about any other organization, it would be an A7 speedy deletion candidate. Rackabello 02:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article's creation was needed in order to remove all redlinks from Plymouth, Massachusetts article, Would it be appropriate to create at Plymouth, Massachusetts school district article in place of individual school articles? Raime 02:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - However, doesn't the existence of a large technical school warrant notability? This is very unusual for most Massachusetts towns.
Delete per Don't throw more filth into the already filthy pond. Having one article on a non-notable subject doesn't mean you can have hundreds more! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but it means if you delete one, you must delete them all. Anyways, I thimk I will merge all Plymouth schools into one article about the school district. This is already performed in several Massachusetts towns. Raime 03:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC
  - Well, it doesn't - "The status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on a particular article.". Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 04:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - I've decided to merge this article with Plymouth North High School (which is even less notable) into one article that covers the entire school district, similar to Hingham School District. The articles are clearly not notable enough to satnd alone. Would anyone not give consent to close this discussion in order for this issue to be resolved? Raime 03:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Never mind, I think this article now meets notability standards, and there is no reason to merge. Raime 01:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 09:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Plymouth Public Schools per Raime. The school(s) are probably not notable enough on their own, so would be better as a school district article. Camaron1 | Chris 10:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my mind to Keep. The article now better meets guidelines, making a short term merge no longer appropriate, and after a search the school appears notable. Camaron1 | Chris 20:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Plymouth Public Schools. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Plymouth Public Schools as suggested. Burntsauce 20:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a continual flow of non notable school articles and we need to deal with them in a consistent manner.--Stormbay 02:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge was going to say "keep" but merging seems reasonable... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Plymouth schools article until better sources turn up. RFerreira 07:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment personally, I'm tired of debating these articles, and would be perfectly willing to accept that high schools will in general be notable if sufficient work is done on them, if it can also be accepted that this is not true for primary and intermediate schools. This is similar to the policies on highways, and villages, and much else. I think the discusssion should be reopened so we can concentrate on more important problems. DGG (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your general idea, if not all of your points about what should be considered notable. This nonsense of having to start the debate over again for each and every educational AFD is a waste of time. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold - I have begun working with another editor to improve this article. I've begun to add references, and also wrote a preliminary History section. This should take a few days, but opefully when completed this will meet high school notability standards. Raime 03:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This article has now had a major revamp, and includes alumni, history, and expanded technical school sections. It also cites 4 references. I think it now meets notability requirements, so there is no longer a need to merge with the school district article. Raime 22:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have just added a new section, also. TerriersFan 23:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Jimbos comments on this --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 03:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly notable high school. The question is not whether notability is presently in the article but whether there are enough sources to make a notable article. In common with other high schools, there are. Keep and tag for expansion is the way to go not delete. TerriersFan 00:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, solid article, no substantive issues. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As expanded, the article provides the reliable and verifiable sources needed to satisfy the [{Wikipedia:Notability]] standard. Alansohn 05:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. @pple 04:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brethren Press[edit]

Blatently promotional article about a Christian publishing company. At absolute minimum needs a complete rewrite. Fails WP:V, tagged ((sources)) since 2006. Rackabello 02:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant copyvio of [33], almost word for word Rackabello 02:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, copyvio issue. @pple 03:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio Oysterguitarist 04:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Church of the Brethren, in the section called "Structure". As the denomination's publishing house, the topic would logically be part of the denomination's article. It lacks the notability necessary for its own article, though.--orlady 04:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, other concerns raise like copyvio or self-promotion, rather than notability issue. If you rewrite it, merging is a good suggestion. @pple 04:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mindscene[edit]

Orphaned article with very little context and questionable notability Rackabello 02:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this article. It is also impossible to verify this article from third-party sources as well. There is also concerns over notability as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; notability not established by the article, or likely to be. EyeSerene^TALK 18:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I located the webpage of the company that makes this software and agree that it lacks verifiability, much less notability at this stage. And the article itself is little more than a dicdef for a trademarked term as far as I can tell. Crypticfirefly 04:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney people[edit]

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated people. Includes people who have appeared in a Disney film, provided a voice for a Disney film, or worked on a Disney film, which is a loose association to group people by. So we have a list where Kirk Douglas, Sting, and Sean Connery are all classed as "Disney people". Create a category for the executives, if necessary, but the rest of the names have no real connection. Masaruemoto 01:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Do not categorize: This is just way to broad a scope, Disney has several companies under it's wing, so theoretically everyone who works at Miramax pictures could be considered a "Disney person" Deathawk 02:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not categorize, there would be to many people to list if we listed all the people associated with disney. Oysterguitarist 04:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list of loosely associated topics Corpx 04:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT#DIR. ~ Wikihermit 15:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author means well, but this list is too all-inclusive. If we were to eliminate those actors who are not primarily for being in Disney films, we would be limited to Tommy Kirk and Dean Jones; regarding executives, animators, etc., they can be listed other ways.
Delete per WP:NOT. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator notes, this would be better done as a category. Crypticfirefly 04:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nihiltres^(t.l) 03:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development[edit]

Not sure what exactly this is, but smells of Copyvio and a whole lot of odd self promotion. humblefool ® 01:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Several sections of the article are blatant copyvios, lifted directly off their website, the remainder are heavyly paraphrased, and the article as a whole is very promotional, probably qualifies as "government spam" Rackabello 02:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, blatant copyvio and WP:SOAP. @pple 03:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 following re-write by Pepsidrinka (closed by Panoptical). → AA ^(talk) — 11:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BaAlawi[edit]

I honestly have no idea what this is talking about. It isn't patent nonsense, but close to it. It might be about some sort of family lineage, but this too would fall short of notability. If you can read and understand it, explain here, but until then, I say delete. Panoptical 01:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nonsense. Kinston eagle 01:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have absolutely no idea what the author is trying to say here and there are no references with which to attempt to discern its purpose. —Travis ^talk 01:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary !vote for cleanup and keep : WP:BITE and WP:CHILL. New editor says he's not finished with the article yet. What's the harm of waiting a few days? According to Tariqah#Traditional_orders, BaAlawi is an order of Sufism, and, while WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep the article, the fact that twenty articles about related orders exist suggest that there is a real subject here that isn't written. THF 01:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, perhaps the author, who states that he doesn't have the time to work on the article now, should userify it so that he can edit at his leisure without a chance of deletion. Then he can move it back to mainspace when it's ready. —Travis ^talk 01:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been polite to notify the author of this AfD, so that they would have a chance to make improvements. Kevin 02:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added ((Adw)) to the author's talk page to correct that oversight. —Travis ^talk 02:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if there is no improvement at the end of this AFD. Remember, AfD's typically run 5 days, so that's a lot of time to work on the article. If it's not up to snuff by then, it can safely be deleted and the original author can work on it in their User space until a working article is ready. -- Kesh 01:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Patent nonsense Rackabello 02:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Incoherent non notability; possibly nonsense. The article is not encyclopedic, makes no sense, aswell as having no refs. James Luftan ^contribs 02:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Change to Temporary keep, ~~have no idea what this article is about, no source is shown.~~ since the editor said that he hasn't finished writing, and I myself briefly looked up on Google, I think there's chance for improving the article. @pple 02:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I rewrote the article so that it makes sense for those unfamilar with the topic. However, I can't seem to find any sources online that would give me any more information. I'm going to assume good faith that the author has some references that he can provide. It does in fact exist, as I found quite a number of sources mentioning their existence. I ask those of you who !voted prior to now, atleast look at the page again and see if you think it merits deletion. Pepsidrinka 03:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. —Pepsidrinka 04:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now much cleaner and demonstrates notability, thanks to Pepsidrinka's excellent work. Kevin 04:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep & Cleanup: Although the article still needs a cleanup & referencing, it shouldn't be deleted. -- Đõc §aмέέЯ 05:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following changes made by Pepsidrinka. Although, it needs more detail to give the reader a better understanding of the topic, it is sufficient for a stub. → AA ^(talk) — 08:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawl...now that I can actually read and understand it. Thank you for cleaning it up. Panoptical 11:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 01:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerichojag[edit]

Possible autobiography, possible COI, only possible source is from a MySpace page. Besides, this fails WP:BIO because it doesn't say how this person is unique from any other music promoter or web designer. Panoptical 01:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability. No sources. Kinston eagle 01:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promoting stub for a web designer with no discernible notability. —Travis ^talk 01:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self promotional and perhaps vanity. -WarthogDemon 01:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick google search shows up no reliable sources for this article. There is also concerns over notability as well. This article could also be vanity in context as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per concerns above. @pple 03:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, no sources, and probably vanity article.

Oysterguitarist 03:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable. Unsourced. No. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not your resume provider. Miranda 16:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, MySpace alone is not sufficient as source material. Yamaguchi先生 04:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as original research. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The world's greatest drummer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The world's greatest drummer

Original research; prod removed without comment FisherQueen (Talk) 01:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject at hand is extremely POV. Wikipedia is definitely not to share your personal essays. Especially it says "to be continued" at the bottom! Hehe.--Alasdair 01:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#OR, WP:NOT#DIR, and clearly WP:POV opinion of the author. —Travis ^talk 01:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV. Kinston eagle 01:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ok, My personal essays? No. Clearly opinion of the author? No. I think john Bonham is the greatest drummer, so does everyone I know. Its the majority opinion and is widely used. It says "to be continued" because I have to do it after school and homework. Unlike some people, I have a life. Besides, I got linked to The World's Greatest Drummer by Buddy Rich's article. I didn't create the page, it was already here, at least I tried to make it a page. Also, if you think the whole article is based on my opinion, you are sadly foolish. The list, is the most influential drummers. I, am a drummer. I know about 1k+ drummers. Plus my polls. That' about, 50k+ drummers. The list, is who influenced the 50k+ drummers. If you would like to argue with fifty-thousand people, on who influenced them, be my guest. Wikipedia, is by far, the most error filled website on the internet. So many articles, just skimmed over, so many random people editing pages. Like, John Bonham got his first drum set at the age of 16. Here, one page says 15, the other 14. He also joined Led Zeppelin in August, not September. Don't tell me to edit those pages, to make them right, because I will never use this incorrect website again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiRACALYPSE (talk • contribs) 02:30, 14 August 2007

If you don't like Wikipedia, don't visit! We're a work in progress, and always will be. If you are never going to come here again, fair enough, but don't use it as a threat, as we're one of the top ten most visited websites in the world. Now stop being silly. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't upset him, or he'll tell his 1k+ drummer friends to come and play their drums outside your house. While you're sleeping. Masaruemoto 03:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Worthless. Wasted Time R 03:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Personal opinion and POV, this is not an encyclopedia article Rackabello 03:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV-based article. No sources to rely on. The creator's ludicrous rationale has shown s/he has no idea of how Wikipedia works. @pple 03:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV article. Oysterguitarist 03:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability and verifiability are questionable. the Keep argument is not exactly the best defense.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep, with no prejudice to another nomination by someone who wants the article deleted. This procedural nomination has achieved it's objective.Chaser - T 01:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuakeSim[edit]

Contested speedy (advertising and conflict of interest issues). Bringing here for more consideration under that and notability concerns and whatever else people want to bring up. Please do not re-speedy this; a wheel-war is unnecessary. No opinion yet. Chaser - T 00:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Seems pretty clearly notable to me. --Masamage ♫ 01:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep this nomination included no grounds for deletion whatsoever. Rklawton 01:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's procedural; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ryulong. --Masamage ♫ 01:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think there's anything wrong with having articles on notable scientific software, and we have it on other examples of the general class... Georgewilliamherbert 01:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it needs some cleanup and wikifying, but the subject appears to be notable. As for the COI complaint, it does look like a NASA employee is the author, but COI isn't grounds for deletion. NASA isn't selling anything - there's a link to download the code for free - so I don't see how it can considered advertising. —Travis ^talk 01:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article just needs work. It is highly inappropriate to delete on account of a possible COI. Please AGF and judge by content, not contributor. Acting based upon COI is not necessary (if the person is making bad edits, it doesn't matter that they have a COI), and can actually drive away or piss off editors with a knowledge/expertise in the subject. The Behnam 01:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. J Readings 01:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though God forbid we should encourage people from NASA to write about science projects on Wikipedia just in case it crowds out all the fourteen year olds scribbling about their favourite wrestler. Nick mallory 01:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G7 by User:MZMcBride. Non-admin close —Travis ^talk 02:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On The Make[edit]

Page creator requests deletion, not G7ish due to other edits. In spite of that, there are no sources, and I'm not convinced of the band being notable. Ma x im 23:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I did not use the proper category, though I would contend that no one other than myself has made "significant" edits to the page, all other edits have been fixes of spelling mistakes and things of that nature, all of which I thought were insignificant. I wrote this article over a year ago, it is now outdated, unsourced, and most importantly, the band does not meet notability guidelines. I created this article prematurely and without carefully reviewing Wikipedia's guidelines for such articles. I apologize for that, and I felt the best thing to do to try and set that right was to put it up for speedy deletion. Again, apologies if I did not use the proper category for speedy deletion, though I feel that G7 applies and that, in addition to G7, it meets other clear criteria for speedy deletion. Pycine 00:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, you did use the correct speedy criteria. As you say, you are the only editor who has added substantial content to the article, so this is a G7. The speedy tag shouldn't have been removed. Masaruemoto 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strip away all the fancy language and this is a high school band that hasn't done anything. Clear delete. humblefool ® 00:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND with flying colours. Not only haven't they released an album on a major label; they haven't even released an album commercially. Bigdaddy1981 00:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm quite embarrased that I posted the articles about this band (the one about the band and their one album to date) in the first place, and then forgot about this article for so long. The band is just that - a high school band that has done nothing notable - in fact, a band that hasnt done ANYTHING at all in over two years. Honestly I'm not sure what I was thinking at the time - my face was pretty red when I realized this article was still around. Pycine 00:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; This is a G7 if the author is requesting deletion, since Pycine is the only editor who has added "substantial content" to the article. All the other edits have been minor corrections. Go ahead and tag it if you want. Masaruemoto 00:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, should I re-apply the speedy deletion tag to the article? (Sorry if I'm asking dumb questions, I'm just trying to do this correctly) Pycine 01:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has tagged it now so no need to. It would be OK to re-add a speedy tag if it's been removed in a good-faith error, especially for an article like this which probably won't be a contested AFD anyway. Masaruemoto 01:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BAND and WP:NOTE. NSR77 ^T_C 01:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, placed speedy tag on the article. Panoptical 01:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not notable, author requested deletion. James Luftan ^contribs 02:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 23:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Webster (footballer)[edit]

Delete Never played in professional leagues. Jonesy702 19:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At 26 and not having broken into professional leagues I can't see that he is (or is ever going to be) notable enough to warrant an article. Perhaps most telling/worrying is the statement "Aaron played most of his football inside at sport centre called willows in derby city centre" [sic] which may well have been added by a vandal (have not audited the edit history) but seems to suggest the subject's obscurity Dick G 05:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah I would definatly have to agree, he is 26 and has never played in the professional leagues, and the fact that Sheffield United have been linked with him, to me doesnt warrant an article, also there is no references to back up the interest from Sheffield United so that information could be false. Stew jones 18:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - he has been called up to the England National Game XI before ([34]), which has been used as an argument for notability once or twice before. ugen64 21:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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