< August 15 August 17 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Achoti[edit]

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

Upon search on Google, I could not find any sources to back the article up. The article itself does not list any sources other than the organizational web site. Only other possible source will not open, possibly because the page doesn't exist anymore. Suggest deletion. Panoptical 22:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 23:52, 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The result was Keep : concerns about sourcing have been eliminated, nomination withdrawn. --Haemo 01:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSA Trust[edit]

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

This trust does not meet notability standards. Third party references are lacking. Relevant Google hits are few. Verification is spotty at best. Seems to be an obscure organization in a specialized branch of chemistry. Realkyhick 23:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uupate: Reliable sources have now been provided, and notability does appear to be established within the subject's field — a narrow field, admittedly, but still notable. Nomination is withdrawn, closure requested. Realkyhick 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS says "Reliable sources are authors or publications ...". Author of this article is Prof. David Wild - a professor of chemical informatics writing about a chemical informatics organization. I would say that his fulfills WP's "reliable sources" definition. --Steinbeck 15:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chemistry International may not be widely read, but as the news magazine of IUPAC, its contents have real notability. I am surprised you do not think its activities are not already large enough. --Bduke 22:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Links for ACS and other Socities would certainly help if they establish notability. --Bduke 22:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No, only two people looking for an article about a subject does not justify the article's existence. If that were the case, we would have articles about pretty much every living person, every organization, every structure, and so on. Our standard response for "so-and-so's article exists, why shouldn't mine?" is expressed on this page: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Having said all of that, the trust may well meet our notability standards, but we have to have some citations from reliable souces so that we can verify this. It's much like what you would have to have in an established journal. These standards are designed to give Wikipedia as a whole a measure of credibility, which is a tough-enough task given its open nature. Realkyhick 21:52, 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 No consensus after rewrite corrects some substantial problems. Xoloz 14:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Society for Bipolar Disorders[edit]

International Society for Bipolar Disorders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No matter how nice the organization's mission is, we still need independent references to assert it's notability on Wikipedia. Currently, this article does not satisfy WP:NOTE Chupper 23:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, can somebody else take a crack at fixing this mess so it meets the Heymann standard? Bearian 22:34, 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 (preceding non-admin comment added by Lourdes 17:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC))...where's the snow? Singularity 07:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theistic evolution and the Roman Catholic Church[edit]

Theistic evolution and the Roman Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Yet another POV fork from the author that brought you Creation and the Roman Catholic Church. Like that article the material in this is already covered in Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. ornis (t) 23:24, 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. Singularity 07:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Madaris[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable singer. His hit song "Hopelessly Lost and Found" can only be found on myspace and the other songs cited have no ghits. Searching for "Bob Madaris" finds only myspace and a family genealogy site. The only source of information about him seems to be family reminiscences. andy 23:18, 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. Singularity 07:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorite Artifacts[edit]

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

Gamecruft. Article concerns a plot device in a Tomb Raider game. It holds no relevance to science, society, culture, or gaming aside from the hyperlimited context of a gameguide. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Above comment was reformatted to remove it from the table of contents for the day's AFD listings. Otto4711 21:18, 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 — article may be confused about what the scope of this topic is, but that's an editorial question which can be solved through editing. --Haemo 01:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public safety[edit]

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

No evidence that this term exists as a meaningful, encyclopedia-worthy subject. The article is pretty stubby and listy, but the topic is so vague that it is doubtful that improvements would make it any more helpful. Some government agencies use the word combination "Public Safety," but in those cases, an article on said agency would be more appropriate and that usage doesn't suggest that it means anything more than "safety of the public," i.e., the dictionary definitions of the words. Whatever useful info that could go into this article could fit better into numerous other existing articles. bobanny 22:55, 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 no consensus. While it doesn't seem like outright deletion is called for, consensus seems to support trimming this down to something like Public safety, or even merging/redirecting there. If someone wants to go for it, this discussion should show there's not strong support for keeping the page as is. W.marsh 17:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public Security[edit]

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

No evidence that this term exists as a meaningful, encyclopedia-worthy subject. The article is pretty stubby and listy, but the topic is so vague that it is doubtful that improvements would make it any more helpful. Some government agencies use the word combination "Public Security," but in those cases, an article on said agency would be more appropriate and that usage doesn't suggest that it means anything more than "security of the public," i.e., the dictionary definitions of the words. The weblink (the only outside source) provided doesn't even use the term. Whatever useful info that could go into this article could fit better into numerous other existing articles. bobanny 22:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The security article tries to distinguish that term from safety; if this gets redirected that might be the way to go. It also seems to serve as a sort of dab page as well with its 'see also' list. Some countries do use "Public Security" instead of Public Safety (China, Poland, Berundi, Quebec, etc.) There might be ambiguity in translations in some cases. bobanny 03:20, 23 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; improved. I agree I was a bit in a hurry with nomination `'Míkka 16:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Stanley[edit]

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

A music mixer engineer. Dubious notability. What next: wikipedia articles about groupies? `'Míkka 22:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well that's one opinion, surely you have reliable sources to back it up? dissolvetalk 01:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I base my opinion on the article. It is not my blooming business to do anything else during AfD. It is your job to fix the article using WP:RS if you want to keep it. It is a ridiculous demand to supply WP:RS that a person is a nobody. `'Míkka 01:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's true the article should do a better job of asserting notability. But a reasonable and responsible nominator won't just decide that every sloppy article deserves a trip to the chopping block. If that were the case, there would be no purpose for ((importance)) or ((unreferenced)) (for two examples). --Dhartung | Talk 02:58, 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. Singularity 07:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magistrati[edit]

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

Charles the Great, aka Charlemagne, as a king had many dealings with magistrates, but there is no web-available public record of him founding a special Magistrati group or of a secret judicial "Ordo Magistratorum". Ordo Magistratorum has no notable search hits except for the address of the article's single link, leading to a protected Yahoo group (empty of messages, as I was sufficiently curious to sign up). Frankly the article reads as a broken English translation of a private RPG or conspiracy theory. Regardless of its truth, the article fails the core verifiability test of a reliable source. Michael Devore 22:43, 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 11:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air South Charter[edit]

Air South Charter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP. All results I can find are trivial/directory listings. The destinations list could be hundreds of pages long as a charter they can fly anywhere, almost bordering on general aviation charter, most often being non-notable entities Russavia 22:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Singularity 07:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Www.kucinich.us[edit]

Www.kucinich.us (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was speedy deleted, has been recreated. An earlier version at Kucinich.us (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was also deleted, and has spent time as a redirect to Dennis Kucinich. Given that the US elections will soon be upon us, I am bringing this here to discuss the question: are official campaign sites inherently notable per WP:WEB. My reading is not really, but I could be wrong. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: to the general question, "Are candidate websites inherently notable?" I submit the answer is no unless the site itself has been subject to external validation and news reports as containing notability itself. Failure of a site to do so means the site itself is an extension of the candidate's campaign - while the campaign might be notable, its component parts are not. JasonCNJ 23:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a widespread misconception that prior WP:CSD deletions qualify an entry for G4 recreation deletion. G4 is only for articles deleted via a consensus discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 03:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected and have caused the inapplicable grounds to be stricken. JasonCNJ 03:56, 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 delete. — TKD::Talk 11:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Chesler[edit]

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

The assertion of notability in this article is that she was a voice actor in 6 out of 52 episodes of W.I.T.C.H. (TV series). She doesn't have any other notable roles to her name. I would have speedied this article to be honest, but in fact it came up on DRV and the decision was to overturn deletion. So I will reluctantly vote strong delete instead.-- ugen64 09:38, 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 keep—fairly obvious reasons, including many independent reliable news sources. — Deckiller 22:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kobe Bryant sexual assault case[edit]

Kobe Bryant sexual assault case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about the Kobe Bryant's sexual assault case in 2003. David Pro 22:27, 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 not deleted. Singularity 07:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny And Mary[edit]

Johnny And Mary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song. Man It's So Loud In Here 22:36, 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 11:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave's Farm[edit]

Dave's Farm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Strongest claim of notability is a YouTube link to a news channel's human interest story. YouTube stats are not in the ballpark of other YouTube celebrities'. Ichormosquito 22:25, 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. Singularity 07:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All My Children title sequences[edit]

All My Children title sequences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another World opening sequence, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing credits of Another World, Guiding Light opening sequence, and others. The notability of All My Children does not mean that every aspect of it is notable. Otto4711 22:23, 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. Moreschi Talk 09:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of magical items in Jackie Chan Adventures[edit]

List of magical items in Jackie Chan Adventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-encyclopedic topic, unnecessary list. Not notable, not sourced. Man It's So Loud In Here 22:08, 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 Merge into Jenna Bush. --Haemo 02:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hager[edit]

Henry Hager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — TKD::Talk 11:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Kauzlarich[edit]

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

This article contains an extreme amount of bias in its entirety. It appears this article has been written by a subordinate or an associate thereof who shows an extreme distaste for Kauzlarich. Although the links are properly noted, there is a minimal factual base to the remainder of this article. Due to the hostile and defamatory nature of the content, any editing to cause this article to meet the Neutral POV guideline for Wikipedia will essentially start this page from scratch. This article should be deleted. Ngajoe 21:57, 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 11:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vikki Blows[edit]

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

I searched on Google and I haven't been able to find anything that would suggest that this model is remotely notable. She has been tagged as having questionable notability since April 2007. Nothing seems to have changed. Max Talk (+) 21:36, 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 06:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawndale High[edit]

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

This article is about the fictitious high school of a cartoon character. It's not notable; it's fan-cruft. It's unreferenced. It's trivia. Mikeblas 21:36, 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 No consensus, default to Keep. WaltonOne 15:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Egged bus lines[edit]

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

This is a directory of bus services in Israel. It is not encyclopedic, The flatly contradicts WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#TRAVEL. Samfreed 21:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No time is listed, but we do really want a list of ALL the buses that a company operates? All the buses that greyhound operates? All the buses run by state owned companies in countries like India? WP is not a directory of buses. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation operates almost 5000 buses, per the article and that's just the state provider in one state in India. Corpx 04:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Is the material non-encyclopedic or is it not broken up as finely as you'd prefer? New York City bus routes are listed in the exact same format by borough (See List of bus routes in Manhattan). In New Jersey and Long Island, they're grouped by ranges of route numbers. I would suggest that routes for Kerala could be grouped into a number of articles, by area within the state, route numbers, distance or other characteristics, and the groupings listed within this article could be broken into subarticles if that were more palatable. I don't buy the WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, nor does the slippery slope of "what would we do for India" convince me otherwise. This is a well-structured, well-grouped and defined article that has nothing whatsoever to do with WP:NOT. Alansohn 04:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn, Your argument runs basically like this: Because WP:NOT Has been violated so often, then the Wikipedia is now Anything and Everything, and therefore why not. Well, I have it in mind to go around and nominate each and every "list of bus routes" in the WikiPeida for deletion, or, alternatively, they can change the policy from "not a travel guide" to "yes a travel guide", and then I will shut up. Also, List of bus routes in Manhattan just lists who are the bus companies, and tells a bit about them, not a blow-by-blow directory. Bottom line, this page is a violation of policy.
And to those who say they don't see how this violates policy - please refer me to a list of bus routes in any encyclopedia in the world, that isn't "The encyclopedia of Rome" or some suchlike. Samfreed 05:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Show me the Wigglytuff article in any encyclopedia in the world; I'll wait. A very long time. I do NOT advocate that "WP:NOT Has been violated so often, then the Wikipedia is now Anything and Everything, and therefore why not." I advocate that you have misinterpreted WP:NOT and that WP:NOT has NOT been violated. You have NOT pointed to any policy that this article violates, other than a hazy claim that this is a directory or travel guide. Each part of this policy provides specific details of what is covered and this article satisfies none of them. Precedent is clear that articles of this type violate no Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 06:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with you there. This falls under "WP is not a directory" - "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.", as well as WP:NOT#TRAVEL. I strongly do not think that an encyclopedia should be providing routes for any means of mass transportation. I'm really not looking forward to seeing bus routes of every metro bus/train/taxi service in the United States, or any other country. Corpx 06:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOT#DIR lays out specific definitions of what "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." means: 1) Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). 2) Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. 3) Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. and 4) Sales catalogs. The problem is that it doesn't meet any of these four extremely specific definitions provided. WP:NOT#TRAVEL states that "Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées." and again this is not even close to what is presented here: I see no prices or addresses. I understand the WP:IDONTLIKEIT approach, but there is no Wikipedia policy violation here. Alansohn 06:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn, If you don't see how this violates policy then we probably aren't speaking the same language. Strange. Samfreed 06:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressing Wikipedia policy, not claiming a language barrier, would be a far more productive means of showing how this article violates Wikipedia policy. See above and pick which part of WP:NOT#DIR or WP:NOT#TRAVEL applies here. Alansohn 06:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I understand. You believe that the examples are the definition of the policy, while I believe that the terms of the policy itself are categories. To me, a "List (of Egged) bus (lines)" is a directory or travel services, and hence doubly wrong. Is seems that under your interpretation if we defined "Citizenship" and gave examples from 5 different countries as to how this concept works, then when we meet a citizen of the 6th country he is not a citizen at all, because he does not fall under the examples in the definition. Maybe the source of the difference is that we come from different disciplines - Are you a lawyer? In law it sometimes works that way. This is Policy, not Law. Samfreed 06:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policy provides definitions of the terms, using rather specific examples, none of which meet your interpretation. There's nothing here in this article that lists any information useful for travel purposes. The word "directory" that you refer to is defined as "a repository or database of information". There's no Wikipedia policy violation here, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Precedent is clear that similar articles for train, plane and even bus routes are appropriate subjects for articles, even if they don't appear in most paper encyclopedias. Any luck yet with finding Wigglytuff? Alansohn 06:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're certainly entitled to your interpretation, but I disagree with it. If not for travel purposes, is it not "a resource for conducting business" ? An article does not have to provide detailed contact information to be considered a violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hotels in Hong Kong. Where exactly is this precedent set at, which allows for bus/train/plane schedules to be posted? From what I can remember, these are deleted, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight Schedule Cibao Intl Corpx 07:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hotels in Hong Kong AfD cites 90% red links as a major factor in deletion and cites another article as an example of a perfectly valid article, Hotels in London, which consists primarily of a list of hotels, their location and the number of rooms. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight Schedule Cibao Intl hit the travel issue, as it was a "flight schedule" as suggested by the title. Precedent is clear that there is a place for articles such as this one, even if they contain information that might be distantly travel-related. As long as we're in agreement that this is solely a matter of interpretation, and not a violation of policy, I'll agree to disagree. Alansohn 07:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing "Major" about every last suburban bus line. Samfreed 05:14, 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 speedy deleted. the wub "?!" 22:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magician's tale[edit]

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

Delete nn books likely a hoax, tagged speedy A7, but technically and despite much debate A7 only applies to web content - books, fake books, etc. have to be afd'ed. About 1k ghits nearly all for a book by David Hunt itself ranked at #504,586 in sales at Amazon.com. Carlossuarez46 20:57, 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 - nomination withdrawn. the wub "?!" 11:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish space school[edit]

Scottish space school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails notability. This might be speedy delete. Davnel03 20:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The article lacks context to ascertain any possible notability. --Stormbay 21:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please withdraw nomination, when I nominated it the article was in a much worser state. Good job to the people that have since cleaned it up. Davnel03 08:01, 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. Appearance in the ODNB is a significant argument for inclusion, unrebutted. Xoloz 14:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Pearce[edit]

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

Pearce doesn't appear to be a notable figure, even within the Victorian anti-vaccination movement, compared to well-documented contemporaries such as William Tebb (whose inclusion I strongly supported) He has only about four lines in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography in the article for his better-known son, the medical astrologer Alfred James Pearce. Also this article has been tagged for sourcing since February, and is well up for review, plus there are signs of WP:SOAP in the use of the selective quotation. Gordonofcartoon 21:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) He's notable or not, and the motive for the AFD doesn't affect that.
2) What Google results? "Suggests he still remains a figurehead" is not the same as third-party sourcing that he was at the time, as stated in the article.
3) I think there's no doubt that those who get a full article in the ODNB are notable. But the question is where to draw the line with those who get bit parts in other articles. All ODNB articles contain basic details of the subject's parents - but WP:NOTINHERITED works "upstream" too.
I've added what there is (plus a bit more I found in The Times) but it's not much. The Times makes no mention of him except the 1849 court case, and certainly nothing about his involvement in the vaccination controversy. Gordonofcartoon 11:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That needs third-party citations. Gordonofcartoon 09:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Member of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. 1868, you find an anti-vaccine book by a UK MD, any MD, before that, and an editor of a medical journal to boot. And if he wasn't notable you wouldn't be trying to delete him. john
WP:V: What medical journal? "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". And assume good faith: I started the AFD because, going by level of coverage, he's considerably less notable than others in the same field. Only an aside in the ODNB, and (unlike Tebb, Hadwen, Collins, Creighton) his work in this area isn't covered in the Times of the period. Gordonofcartoon 15:22, 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. Singularity 07:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Í Mynd[edit]

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

Delete nn album by nn band on a nn label. No assertion that this meets WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 20:29, 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. Singularity 07:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breyttir Tímar[edit]

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

Delete nn album by nn group on a nn label. No assertion that it meets WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 20:26, 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. Singularity 07:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egó (album)[edit]

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

Delete nn album by nn group on a nn label. No assertion that it meets WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 20:27, 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. WaltonOne 15:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalry Records[edit]

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

No independent sources establishing notability. — Swpbtalk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 20:25, 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 all. If someone wants to be bold and redirect them all as well, that's fine. Wizardman 04:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide episodes[edit]

Guide to: Health & Jealousy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Guide to: Field Trips, Permission Slips, Signs, & Weasels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Tests & When You Like Someone Who Is Going Out With Someone Else (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Spring Fever & School Newspaper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Money and Parties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Getting Organized & Extra Credit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Cellphones & Woodshop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Boys & Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Hallways & Friends Moving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: The Library & Volunteering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Revenge & School Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: The Bus & Bad Hair Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Art Class & Lost and Found (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Reading & Principals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Double Dating & The Last Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Failing & Tutors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Music Class and Class Clown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Yearbook and Career Week (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Spirit Week and Clothes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Secrets and School Car Wash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Shyness and Nicknames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Valentine's Day and School Websites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Dares and Bad Habits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Gross Biology Dissection and Upperclassmen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Your Body and Procrastination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Vice Principals and Mondays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Notebooks and Math (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: School Clubs and Video Projects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Pep Rallies and Lunch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: The New Semester and Electives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Computer Lab and Backpacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guide to: Rumors and Photo Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prods, without explanations. All these pages are articles from episodes of the Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide series, these articles are merely plots of these episodes and don't explain why these episodes are outstanding episodes, and notable. They therefore don't meet WP:EPISODE. Many of the other episodes of this series are already deleted. -- lucasbfr talk 19:54, 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. Singularity 07:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Miller (guitarist)[edit]

Justin Miller (guitarist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No case for note after some 8 months and some 3 months tagged. Made good faith attempt to remedy, but found no readily available sources on Google News, no press sources. No secondary sources in article at all: two point to official site and the other to a forum post by the subject. Presumably non-notable musician. MrZaiustalk 20:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are many, many independent and small-scale musicians and bands covered here. The simplest threshold is multiple Wikipedia:Reliable sources covering the subject. Meet WP:MUSIC with strong sources, and the nomination will gladly be withdrawn. I unfortunately was unable to do so, myself. MrZaiustalk 02:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:Music with strong sources sections as per your suggestion; however it's still not clear to me exactly where we draw the line as to who is "big time" enough to have his or her own article in Wikipedia. There's a lot of subjective decision making here. Miller is no Elvis, but he is a legitimate entertainer who has performed for thousands of people. --Hokeman 04:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing subjective about it - Multiple independent, verifiable sources are required to make a strong case for notability. All that we have to point are a forum post by the bio's subject and a couple links to his personal site. Again, given that, I'd gladly withdraw the nom. MrZaiustalk 05:40, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetable Rights Militant Movement[edit]

Vegetable Rights Militant Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm new here, but I think the fact that it is a joke is not reason enough to delete it. So let's delete it because it has no content. Man It's So Loud In Here 20:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does deleting because it has little content make sense? Isn't this site supposed to be about collaborative information? Let someone start the article and others contribute. Phred00— Phred00 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. }
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to It Won't Be Soon Before Long. Singularity 07:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Won't Go Home Without You[edit]

Won't Go Home Without You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As the article itself asserts, this is pure speculation. A sticker placed on the plastic shrinkwrap of a CD is not a reliable source. Suggest delete or merge to the album article until an official announcement is made. - eo 19:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's possible the article creator is right, but we don't know yet. WP:CBALL. - Richfife 20:29, 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 no consensus As Kappa points out, it is at best unclear, from policy and the discussion below, whether "manner of death" is a defining characteristic meriting a category. The list is limited to notable people by virtue of its being in an encyclopedia -- a name change to reflect this is a choice left to talk page discussion. Given these two considerations, at least some of the deletion arguments below are weakened; and so, no consensus exists. Xoloz 14:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who died in road accidents[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Another list that is better served as a category, hundreds of thousands of people are killed in road accidents every year. See WP:LISTCRUFT, Delete Jaranda wat's sup 19:44, 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. Xoloz 15:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of Triangles[edit]

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

Still a nn group, even after research. This article was first kept as no consensus, but further research has turned up no third-party sources either online or in the Masonic Library in Triangles' home state of New York. There are only 13 chapters in the entire state, and they are concentrated in small areas, and there isn't even any local coverage. Thus, there is still no assertion of notability. MSJapan 19:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I might be willing to support a brief mention of these organizations in a more over-arching article on masonic youth orgs in general... Perhaps a section in the main Eastern star article on "offshoots and youth groups" or something? It's just that they are not notable enough for an article on their own. Blueboar 15:59, 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. WaltonOne 19:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Harrisburg[edit]

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

Unmaintainable and unverifiable list. Man It's So Loud In Here 19:32, 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. Singularity 07:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetable Rights[edit]

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

This article has existed for three years and it still has no content. It was tagged with a cleanup, but it obviously never was. Man It's So Loud In Here 19:09, 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. Singularity 07:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DbXpert for Oracle[edit]

DbXpert for Oracle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable technology; spam. The Evil Spartan 18:46, 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. Singularity 07:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SquareMania[edit]

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

Non-notable computer game; author has a conflict of interest The Evil Spartan 18:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I knew there had to be others... Jauerback 19:45, 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. Whatever merging one might choose to do would be minimal mentions, and would not really require attribution to this article (One should use a reliable source for the mention, of course.) Xoloz 15:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Procreation Movement[edit]

Anti-Procreation Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

self-promoting article about a non-notable organization, the so-called Anti-Procreation Movement. The media references aren't about this specific organization, but about other organizations with a similar agenda. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)*[reply]

Maybe you can merge this back into Arthur Schopenhauer. Mandsford 00:06, 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. WaltonOne 19:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garachop[edit]

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

Probable hoax - place doesn't appear on Google maps, for instance, and no relevant Google hits. Oli Filth 18:31, 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. Singularity 07:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synchronous destructors[edit]

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

Seems to be a how-to guide, possible nonsense and/or original research. "Synchronous destructors" gets about 5 google hits. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:26, 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. No prejudice against re-creation with notability firmly established by reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 06:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson Flag Co.[edit]

Emerson Flag Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was spamish at first. Spam was cleaned up however the article still lacks sources and is possibly not notable. -WarthogDemon 17:53, 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. W.marsh 21:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etuvluk River[edit]

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

non-notable, possibly non-existent river, not in GNIS (http://geonames.usgs.gov/redirect.html) or on any map I could find, Google only brings up Wikipedia mirrors Kmusser 17:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Flyguy649's ref confirms the subject's existence, but I can't personally see how we can use it as a source. It is apparently part of a table. To quote, it states: "...that portion east of the Etuvluk River (Schwatka Mountains) positive 2 - 4 Units...". Jakew 22:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:N states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ... "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." Jakew 10:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OUTCOMES, geographical features such as rivers are considered inherently notable. --Oakshade 21:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that it states: "This page is not policy. This page is for quick, easy-to-follow tips. Detailed rules, guidelines, and suggestions should go on the various notability policy pages instead." I interpret that to mean that if the minimum standard of WP:N is met, then there are no further requirements for a river. Do you think that's reasonable? Jakew 21:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is not policy either. WP:CONSENSUS (which is policy) has recognized "inherent" notability of certain topics like towns and geographical features even if they have zero significant coverage by reliable sources. Even WP:N states at the top that "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." --Oakshade 22:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus supposedly always means "within the framework of established policy and practice" (that's a quote). If a subject hasn't received any coverage in reliable sources, then it cannot exist without violating WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR. In this case, it has only received very trivial coverage in a single source, which means that we basically have nothing to say about it. Notability, in general, is a WP:V issue: if a subject has been noted, it is notable (though we may have additional requirements). If there's a consensus that rivers are an exception to WP:N, or indeed WP:V, then surely we need to change policy/guidelines to reflect that? Jakew 10:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And within the framework of established policy and practice, practice especially, certain topics like geographical features are considered inherently notable with no coverage from secondary sources. --Oakshade 16:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Practice only, apparently. Which is a particular problem in this case, because there is only a single source, which is a web reprint at a company's website, and may well contain a misprint for Etivluk (see above comment by Kmusser and my reply). So it is entirely possible that Wikipedia will declare that a non-existent river not only exists but is notable enough to warrant its own page. Which I find worrying. Jakew 16:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was the admin who commented just above you. I suggest he reverse himself. I'd undelete it myself if I hadn't been participating in the discussion. DGG (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to note that with over 250,000 rivers in the US alone[10], and obviously a lot more in the wider world, I think that we need to develop some guidelines for notability of rivers. In the absence of such guidelines, however, I would like to state that most of my concerns about Etuvluk River do not apply to the new article (Etivluk River). Jakew 19:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My original criteria for deletion does not apply to the new article. Kmusser 19:17, 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. WaltonOne 19:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of forests[edit]

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

Should be replaced with something similiar to Category:State forests in the United States, instead of being a directory of all the forests/woodlands in the world Corpx 17:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also that Elkman is right that if it is kept (or if its divided into other lists) there needs to be criteria for notability and such. Yamaka122 ...:) 13:42, 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 Merge and redirect to Petra Němcová. WaltonOne 19:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Atlee[edit]

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

Non-notable. Only known because of his death in the 2004 Asian Tsunami. Davnel03 17:45, 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 and take this redirect to WP:RFD. Non-admin close by Flyguy649 talk contribs 17:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damu Ridas Vol.2: How Deep Is Your Hood[edit]

Damu Ridas Vol.2: How Deep Is Your Hood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The name of this articles is not correct, the right one is "How Deep Is Your Hood" and no article is linking to it. Tasco 0 17:39, 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. Singularity 07:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack_Mantos[edit]

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

Not a notable person for an encyclopediaWisdum 17:32, 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. — Scientizzle 20:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back on Track[edit]

Back on Track (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Really, no notability established for this DVD and looks to be published by the local newspaper Corpx 17:35, 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 wrong venue; take to WP:RFD. Non-admin close Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damu Ridas Vol.1: Dangerous[edit]

Damu Ridas Vol.1: Dangerous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The name of this articles is not correct, the right one is "Damu Ridas (album)" and no article is linking to it. Tasco 0 17:30, 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 deletion as an attack page on a living person JoJan 18:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Rudat[edit]

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

Appears to be just an unreferenced attack page. No citations, no notability established and a number of insults. Recommend deletion. Dugwiki 17:17, 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 — Caknuck 20:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of the Dead (1976 film)[edit]

Diary of the Dead (1976 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This film is non-notable. It only has six votes on the IMDB. It can't be very worthy of an encyclopedia with this status. MalwareSmarts 17:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - If IMDB is "not really that reliable of a source as it relies heavily on user input," then what is Wikipedia since it relies entirely on "user input"? -75.130.90.56 22:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)-[reply]
  • Wikipedia is absolutely not a reliable source. Not sure what that has to do with anything. Otto4711 00:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point out where it says that an IMDB listing establishes notability? It certainly doesn't for actors and it's unclear where a different standard for films is coming from. Otto4711 19:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more of a style question, but the article has existed since November 2006 as nothing more than a plot summary. If there isn't anything else to be said (due to lack of reliable sources) do you feel it can grow beyond a stub? Leebo T/C 20:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not inherited. The notability of the participants does not make the film notable. Otto4711 22:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically enough, if a book has been made into a movie, it is automatically notable. The movie, however, is not. i said 03:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the film is better known? That doesn't make any sense. --Scottandrewhutchins 04:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who says the film is better known? And no, I'm just saying that the notability criteria for books say that if it has been made into a movie, its notable. Not the other way around. i said 05:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your discovery seems to present a case for merging the Diary of the Dead information to the One Across, Two Down article as an adaptation, since there isn't much other content in the adaptation's article. Leebo T/C 12:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, notability is not inherited. The fact the James Earl Jones starred in Blood Tide during the 1980s does not make that a notable film. MalwareSmarts 20:36, 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. Singularity 07:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Parker and the Dark Machine[edit]

Steve Parker and the Dark Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Clearly a non-notable book; appears to be the creation of the author of this article. The Evil Spartan 16:39, 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, clear consensus established. —C.Fred (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery[edit]

Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fish hatchery. No reliable sources provided in article. Article strongly fails Wikipedia:Notability. If it were a private hatchery instead of federal, I'd speedy delete as a non-notable company, but I'll grant that claiming to be a national hatchery is just enough of a claim to spare it speedy deletion and send it to AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources do exist, as per my google news link earlier, but I do not feel strongly enough about this topic to pay to read & cite those articles Corpx 20:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, as much as Wikipedia bills itself as the "free encyclopedia," I don't think an editor should have to pay to keep an article around. I'll concede that sources exist, and therefore it is notable, even without quoting the little preview shreds in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 13:19, 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 No consensus. Bduke 21:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Architects Sketch[edit]

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

Delete - prod removed by anon stating "Monty Python sketches are notable!" Well no, they're not inherently notable. In addition to notability issues this article is a clear violation of WP:PLOT, being nothing but a description of the sketch. Otto4711 16:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A simple reference or citation doesn't constitute a reliable source attesting to the notability of the specific sketch. Otto4711 14:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How well-known the sketch may be is not relevant. How well-known it is in comparison to other articles is not relevant. Otto4711 14:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is relevant is notability. With over a thousand web references, from the usual fan sites (numerous), to cultural references ([12]) , to the serious (e.g., [13], [14]) the sketch has achieved a certain degree of notability. Kablammo 15:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first "source" appears to be a biographical article, or "sketch," about an actual architect. It does not appear to have anything to do with the Python routine and it is also at a subscription site and so is not suited for use as a source here anyway. Your second "source" is about software architecture and merely quotes a line. Your third "source" is about Britain's response to the death of Princess Diana and while I did not read every word of it a scan through it did not indicate to me any great level of connection between it and the Python routine. Simply being mentioned in passing or even quoted in a piece that is not substantially about the sketch does not establish the notability of the sketch. Otto4711 18:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One point here needs clarification, Otto: links to subscription sites are acceptable as sources for Wikipedia articles. WP:EL's restriction is about links not used as sources. I recently had to clarify this at Wikipedia talk:External links#Question about sites requiring registration, and the consensus was clear — the notion that links to subscription sites are never acceptable appears to be a widespread error. I don't know whether the Chronicle of Higher Education link is useful for the article or not, but the mere fact that it's subscription-only shouldn't prevent it from being used as a source. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The full-text version is cached at Google but adds nothing more. My point in referencing it is to show that the "Architects Sketch" (or "Architect Sketch") has become part of the vernacular; that it is a cultural reference like other well-known comedic sketches; and that even the use of its title on an unrelated essay is a cultural reference known to readers. I understand and respect the arguments and votes for deletion, and I hope that the fact deletion has been proposed will lead to improvement of the article and therefore its retention. The subject is notable but the page needs work. Kablammo 21:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A student's English paper that quotes a few lines from the sketch in an appendix on a half-page out of a 70+ page document? Are you kidding? Is this even published anywhere or did the writer just post it on her website? This is a paper about how well translators do in translating comedy sketches from one language to another and Architects Sketch was picked, not because it is a particularly notable sketch, but because it has a large number of words that might give a translator difficulty. The notion that this somehow establishes the notability of the sketch is ludicrous. It's in all likelihood not a reliable source and it's not "substantially about the subject" of the sketch, as required by WP:N. Otto4711 22:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't read Czech, but it looks to me as if the thesis was published by the university. That makes it a reliable source in my book. Incidentally, I'm not certain whether this article is referencing this sketch or another one, but if it's the same sketch that could also be a notability-establishing source. —07:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Even if the thesis has been published, it is still not substantially about the sketch and does not establish the notability of the sketch. El Mystico and Janet is a completely different sketch. Otto4711 12:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that the critical problem is that the sketch does not have the requisite notability to have its own Wikipedia article. Otto4711 17:14, 23 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. — Scientizzle 20:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who - Battles in Time Trading Cards[edit]

Doctor Who - Battles in Time Trading Cards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is just a list of trading cards- unencyclopedic, and possibly a copyvio. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminent collection of infomation. Prod failed. OZOO (What?) 16:08, 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Route 193 (STM)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Route 193 (STM) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An article for each local bus route is not needed. Rufus843 15:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tagged it for CSD Corpx 16:47, 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 no consensus. The Community was divided between those who consider this to be a collection of information that lacks coherence and those who think that it should be kept or merged somewhere. I am unconvinced by the argument to merge into Kraken in popular culture since Kraken are mythical creatures, albeit with the giant squid implicated, whereas the giant squid is a real animal. Any merge proposals should take place as post-AfD editorial actions as should pursuing the lack of sources. TerriersFan 03:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giant squid in culture[edit]

Delete - directory of loosely associated topics stitched together with original research. This collection of any appearance of a giant squid (or collosal squid, or squid-that-is-not-identified-in-the-fiction as "giant," or creature that is vague and undescribed but someone decided that it must be a squid) tells us nothing about squid, nothing about the fiction from which the references are drawn, nothing about the relationahip between them (as there is none) and nothing about the real world. Oppose merge of any of the information to any other article on squid, giant, collosal or otherwise, as it is just as trivial in another article as it is in its own. Otto4711 15:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. I'm not sure that giant squids are always called Kraken. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Giant squid are not the "subject" of the items included in this article. Giant squid are not the "theme" of these items and they are not the "plot motive." The things have no association with each other beyond "it's got a squid in it" and in many cases they don't even share that. Otto4711 15:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it has a squid in it, there's a reason it has a squid in it. Creative works don't use content at random, they use it for the meaningful associations. If there's a few that don't belong, that becomes a question for editing, not deletion. if we deleted every article that had an item of questionable content, there wouldn't be a WP. Trying to judge articles of a particular type that way is exactly what I mean by trying to remove the whole content area from the encyclopedia--on the reason, ultimately, of IDONTLIKEIT.
But let's look at the ones I know about enough to say: For books, 1, 2, and 3, are major plot elements, all memorable & meant to be. There will certainly be references for any theme in Moby Dick. The Watcher is meant to evoke a squid, & there will be refs in the immense literature on Tolkien. for Dr No it's also a significant element. for 5, & 6 its the basis of the plot. 7 & 8 significant element also. 9 is relatively trivial, if I remember right. 10 I dont know the books, 11 is also trivial. 7/11 at least. At least 3 or 4 of the film ones are certainly significant also, and so on. DGG (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's got a squid in it, there's a reason it has a squid in it. And if a movie has a cell phone or a book has a taxi cab or a TV show has a blue sweater in it there's a reason why that cell phone or taxi cab or blue sweater is in it. That doesn't mean that the existence of the phone or cab or sweater serves to tie the movie or book or TV show to every other book or TV show or video game that also includes a cell phone or a taxi cab or a blue sweater. The assumption you're making, that the presence of a squid or squid-like thing evokes a deliberate and close association between the things, is original research by synthesis, not to mention POV-pushing. Otto4711 02:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
certainly, for a particular cell phone. But not for cell phones in general--if cell phones in general are used in movies, there are reasons. And if for some reason a particular cell phone did occur in dozens of movies , there would surely be an interesting reason. I don't know if there's an article yet, but the fact that almost all advertisements with personal computers have contained Macintosh computers is actually interesting and encyclopedic and sourceable. DGG (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And again, your assumption that there must be an association between things because they share one feature or element in common has no basis in fact. Otto4711 13:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the element is the significant use in a novel or film, yes. What do you think the study of literature or cinema consists of but the study in historical perspective of the themes and characters and techniques DGG (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the study of it on Wikipedia consists of articles that discuss independent secondary sources that are about the topic of the article. There appear to be no such sources that are about the subject of "Giant squid in culture" or the supposed automatic association between otherwise unrelated items that happen to have a squid in them. Otto4711 13:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean discuss the topic in the light of secondary sources, not discuss the sources. Just to clarify.DGG (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please post some links that discuss the "giant squid sub-culture"? Because I can't say as I'm too familiar with it. Otto4711 21:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure thing. From my experience is it a strange mix of people who are fascinated by the biology on the one hand and on the other identify with the pop culture. These people also tend to be into They Might Be Giants if that helps. This page on Laughing Squid is a good example. It includes both links to experts in squid biology such as Steve O'Shea, as well as all kinds of pop culture references. I can't explain to you why these fit so well together in my mind, but they do. That's culture for you! Wicklonious 20 August 2007
  • So then, nothing other than a blog. No actual reliable sources attesting to this supposed sub-culture. Otto4711 23:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would you consider to be a "reliable source"? I looks like more than a blog to me, but what do I know. Here's another one showing the community/sub-culture around squid. It is the Octopus News Magazine Online and also covers the range from biology to how cephalopos impact popular culture. Here's the culture forum. Maybe the problem here is that the Wikipedia artical needs to edited to better explain the impact of squid on culture. That doesn't mean it should be killed. Wicklonious 21 August 2007
  • Independnt of the sub-culture the basic point is that squid are a symbol that have been used by artists in various ways. Wicklonious 21 August 2007
  • So to bolster the blog you post a fansite. Please read WP:RS. These links you're providing do not meet that guideline and your argument here amounts to people like squid. Otto4711 21:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleidoscopic Nuclear Images of the Fifties MJ Strada - The Journal of Popular Culture, 1986 - Blackwell Synergy... 188 Journal of Popular Culture ... In It Came From Beneath The Sea ( 1955), an irradiated giant squid-turned-carnivore terrorizes San Francisco, ripping apart the ... I think that shows that 1/ the general subject is considered notable and 2/at least some individual items are discussed in RSs. I assume you will now withdraw the AfD. I really dont know what more you could ask for. DGG (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course I'm not going to withdraw the AFD on the basis of the existence of a few articles that happen to have both "giant squid" and "popular culture" in them. I can pick any two phrases and plug them into Google and I'll get some hits. "Hitler" and "Pop-Tarts". "Bungee jumping" and "wonder woman". "hard boiled eggs" and "nuclear war". None of this and none of your so-called sources refute the basic premise of this nomination, which is that ther mere presence of a giant squid in something does not mean that the thing has any relation to anything else with a giant squid in it. You make this same mistake over and over and over again. "Existence" does not equal "relationship" and "stuff has squid in it" does not equal "squid in culture." Otto4711 22:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, considering that It Came from Beneath the Sea features an octopus and not a squid, I'd have to say that a "source" that can't get that basic fact right has some issues. Otto4711 23:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go read them. i did since yesterday. Even on a preliminary look, I note I did not include them merely on the supposition that the title was significant, but looked for quotes where the actual sentence liked them both in a substantial way. I'll be adding some other things from these articles, since they seem useful. Its a fairly frequently held journal. I do not know what you expect, even when the articles are presented you won't use them. And then you say the source has the facts wrong, and it might, so if there are other sources, just add them and improve the article further. We don't have to show that scholarly sources are right -- we just show that the subject is discussed in major journals. If the scholars discuss this and get it wrong, it's still notable. The standards you use are much too erudite to be useful at wikipedia. DGG (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a good argument for redoing the group. I agree they should be redone and possibly rewritten. I don;t see though why you want to merge to Kraken when you agree they aren't Kraken. Obviously a good question to be discussed on the talk pages. Personally, I think the best solution is a merged Squid and Kraken in popular culture. Maybe Octopii as well, per Otto's information. DGG (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My point was there is really no such thing as a "Giant Squid in popular culture", by definition. If a thing is attacking yer fleet o' pirate ships, or ye olde ocean-going exploration vessels of the middle ages, or any other ships on the seven seas, or Hollywood actors named Johnny Depp or Orlando Bloom under the thumping orders of one Davey Jones, and dragging them assunder or whatever, then it is, by definition, a Kraken, and the reader should be referred to Kraken in popular culture. Any useful information in this article that is not already resident elsewhere should be merged into one or more of the other related articles in the group. Again, this article should not, in theory, exist at all; but on the outside chance someone goes looking for it (or it is improperly mentioned and linked in other articles such as the Pirates of the Carribbean movies), then such intrepid voyagers should be gently sent (redirected) to the proper place(s). --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 03:15, 23 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, default to Keep. WaltonOne 15:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Movement (Ireland)[edit]

Republican Movement (Ireland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No content whatsoever a few links that is all this article contains BigDunc 15:46, 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. Singularity 07:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best Worst Movie[edit]

Best Worst Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently unfinished documentary film; no sources showing notability. NawlinWiki 15:27, 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. WP:SNOWBALL. Hemlock Martinis 06:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of books by title: 0-9[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of books by title: 0-9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An attempt to maintain a list of all books with Wikipedia articles (over even more?) must obviously fail. If the list has any useful purpose, say for navigation, this would better be served by a category. On the other hand, if I know the title of a book, why not type it into the search bar?

I also nominate the other parts of this 27-page list:

Note: The previous nomination was procedurally closed because of joint nomination with other topics.
See also precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese books by title, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Brazilian books by title

--B. Wolterding 14:34, 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. Categorization may be done if desired. Singularity 06:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of multiplayer video games[edit]

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

Listcruft, pure and simple. From the article: "In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article. It is very appropriate for the article on Zoology to include a list of important zoologists within it, and for the article on the fictional series character Rick Brant to include a list of the Rick Brant books." Note, however, that this is just a list of multiplayer video games, which cannot optimally include all multiplayer games (essentially every video game today has a multiplayer component. In addition, the list provides no expansion or critical commentary: every one of these game's articles could and should note the multiplayer aspect. Delete, and if desired, categorize into Category:Multiplayer games or something like that. David Fuchs (talk) 14:16, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Frank[edit]

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

Of the thousands of professors in the US, no reason given why this one is notable. SolidPlaid 14:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are dozens and dozens of these Guggenheim Fellowships awarded every year. Are the books for the lay market? SolidPlaid 17:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why on earth would this be relevant? if they were semi-techincal would it make him less notable, or more? DGG (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article expanded. Could be more detailed, but should be enough to establish notability. Delete Unless the article is going to be expanded to establish notability, I think it fails WP:N and WP:PROF. bfigura (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - None of this alleged notability appears on the page. If no citations appear in a few days, let's delete it. SolidPlaid 19:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Added the books and awards to the page, along with a citation to a review of his first book in Nature (journal). NawlinWiki 20:11, 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 both. Singularity 06:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp PALS[edit]

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

I believe this article fails to assert notability (according to criteria set by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)) of its subject, a non-profit 1-week summer camp held at Cabrini College in Radnor every year, by citing sufficient independent sources which cover the subject in depth, mainly relying on media blogs. It appears to serve mainly as a brochure for the camp, and is edited primarily by user accounts which bear names of people who are involved in running the camp. Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 13:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it merely serves as an adjunct to the above, and again fails to justify notability:

PALS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning[edit]

List of deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listcruft, fails WP:V and WP:RS. Unmaintainable list because of the number of (non-notable) people to die that way Tomj 13:00, 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. Singularity 06:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehuty[edit]

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

Delete - expired prod removed by anon with no explanation. This fictional weapon has no real-world notability and no reliable sources to attest to said notability. The article is also very plot-heavy, raising WP:PLOT concerns. Otto4711 12:59, 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. Singularity 06:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Primary School[edit]

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

I originally prodded this article with the reason: "No evidence of notability, no references, and frankly very little substantive information at all, other than that which would be better suited to a school mission statement." The article's creator removed the prod with no reason - I'm assuming that means they contest it. Although information has been added to the article, my reason for deletion remains the same: this is a primary school, and although their aims may be very laudable, there is no evidence or assertion of notability. Additionally, the article is written in a very non-neutral point of view, and I suspect the author may have a conflict of interest (I know these are not reasons for deletion in themselves). I think previous debates have decided that primary schools are not inherently notable. kateshortforbob 12:12, 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. Singularity 06:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petar M. Mitrasinovic[edit]

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

This article appears to be autobiographical and references are to the author's own papers. Proposed deletion was disputed by author, which is why this is in AfD. Dr. Mitrasinovic might be a competent scientist but that does not make him notable enough for Wikipedia. Bardencj 11:54, 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. Singularity 06:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galactica: Anno Dominari[edit]

Galactica: Anno Dominari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently not speediable under A7, but this doesn't assert notability, only Ghits are download sites, created by an "independent game developer" without an article. Melsaran 11:17, 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 Delete. — Scientizzle 20:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine (Madonna song)[edit]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwad (talk • contribs) 20:52, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Imagine (Madonna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Madonna single. Obviously the song "Imagine" is notable, but Madonna's interpretation (a live recording only released through Sony's online music store) fails WP:MUSIC. Any information here that's worth saving belongs in the original track's article, not here. fuzzy510 08:25, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tracked Triangular Wheel[edit]

Tracked Triangular Wheel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A new vehicle locomotion mechanism written up by one of its designers. Pure original research. No references because no-one has referred to it yet. See the author's website for more pictures. (I do note that the author completely re-wrote the article after a prod. Unfortunately the problem is the subject not the quality of the article.) -- RHaworth 08:08, 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. Singularity 06:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation and the Roman Catholic Church[edit]

Creation and the Roman Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Needless POV fork from Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. Material here is already covered in that article, this one seems to exist solely to emphasise the ambiguity in the churches current support for theistic evolution. ornis (t) 08:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now three articles. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Theistic_evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church. Kablammo 23:33, 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. Singularity 06:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kom Do Kwan[edit]

Kom Do Kwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a single school not very long established (maybe with a branch). Very few ghits. The references given seem to be about TKD in general than this school which I find a bit disingenious. I call WP:NN and advertisment.Peter Rehse 07:24, 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. Singularity 06:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sara macdonald[edit]

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

Contested prod (no reason given). Biography of a non-notable person. She's the girlfriend of Noel Gallagher of Oasis (band), but notability is not transferable. Flyguy649 talk contribs 06:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What about when she becomes the mother of Noel Gallagher's child? No? Never mind ;) Flyguy649 talk contribs 07:12, 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. Singularity 06:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eco-evolution[edit]

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

fails WP:NEO. RucasHost 05:49, 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. Singularity 04:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paludis[edit]

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

This software has no use in being in Wikipedia at this time. It is unfinished software and used by a very small section of the community (mostly developers). There are other portage replacements and add-ons that are not in Wikipedia. The article is an attempt to try and gain publicity. Cokehabit 09:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Paludis is a very relevant topic for the Linux, and more specifically, Gentoo community. And I can't see how the Paludis article fits into any of these categories. Also, the fact that there are other portage replacements and add-ons that are not in Wikipedia is not a valid justification to not have the Paludis article. dave 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If you're upset the others aren't in Wikipedia then add them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.34.129.204 (talk • contribs).

— 74.34.129.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Carlossuarez46 18:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Seems fine to me. As mentioned it is definitly has a major role in the gentoo community, especially since its inspired the PMS, which is going to define ebuilds so different package managers can use them. Also if its unfinished, at most a tag should be placed on it. Most software (especially in OSS) is never finished, for example WINE : but that doesnt mean it shouldnt have an article. Thothonegan 01:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Not noteworthy enough yet to qualify for a wikipedia article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.200.93.67 (talk • contribs).

— 68.200.93.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Carlossuarez46 18:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC) This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - This deletion request is more a stealthy personal attack than an objective opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.205.26.21 (talk • contribs).

— 72.205.26.21 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Carlossuarez46 18:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Paludis is an actively developed open source software project. There is no particular reason for it not to be included in WP, and none of the arguments presented are in the least convincing. Djiann 01:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Paludis is completely relevant. Moreover, the user who proposed it for deletion is doing so to make a statement outside of the Wikipedia community (in particular, the Gentoo community, or even more particularly, a point for the subset of the Gentoo community which outright hates ciaranm). As such, I recommend that all people participating in this debate keep that fact in mind, and keep Wikipedia's interests first over personal interests in an external project's politics. --nenolod (talk) (edits) 10:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is very revealing to me... with all of the redlinks here, it would not surprise me if we have an outside source sending people here to vote on this subject.Balloonman 06:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is very relevant to Gentoo and deserves to be in Wikipedia. I see no good reasons to get the article deleted. All indicates that this request is only about personal issues, not about the article itself. 1. No software is ever "finished". That is totally bogus argument. 2. Paludis already has a strong and growing userbase consisting both normal users and developers - users are mostly non-developers. This can be seen easily by reading Paludis support threads at http://forums.gentoo.org. They all are very active. 3. Cokehabit is free to add articles about other package managers if he so desires. 4. Any article on Wikipedia can be seen as "an attempt to gain publicity". There is nothing special in Paludis article in this regard. Someone mentioned quality: I agree, we can always try to improve the quality of this and other articles. This article is definitely a keeper. Paapaa125 10:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 18:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Independent reference - Here is one independent article on Paludis in LWN.net: http://lwn.net/Articles/240399/ I'll try to find more if needed. Paapaa125 20:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More are going to be needed, as LWN is a single website, and not quite on the top end of reliable sources. In addition, I can't find any real biography of Donnie Berkholz who wrote the page, but I do see he's a Gentoo developer. That might lead to a COI problem. I suggest you keep looking. FrozenPurpleCube 23:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well you couldn't base your package management research on it, and that's basically what I mean. --Aidanjt 14:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Update I agree that the quality of the article is very low and as such it is not worth much. The article should objectively try to tell about the major differences between Portage and Paludis - features, performance, usage and design. Also the PMS (Package Manager Specification) is very relevant to this issue as it is the thing that makes it possible for Gentoo to have multiple package managers.Paapaa125 07:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that Trollup only registered today (14 August) Cokehabit 20:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. The abundance of redlink usernames and IPs which have made few or no other edits outside this topic is extremely concerning Hu12 05:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If LWN.net alone doesn't qualify (as seems to be the case), then I agree, the notability at this point can't be demonstrated sufficiently. I couldn't find any other proper references, so in this case I agree with the (latest) majority. The funny thing is that the original nomination didn't have a single valid reason for getting the article deleted. Wikipedia needs a "Nomination for deletion" feature :-) Paapaa125 17:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • LWN would be adequate in the company of other notable third party sources. Calling Gentoo Weekly News a secondary source is stretching things, however. Give me LWN + Linux Journal or something of the sort, and I magically switch to Keep. MrZaiustalk 13:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That goes for me, also. The subject seems to be one "major" tech news source away from notability, IMO. SamBC(talk) 15:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally considered a bad argument. Other articles that are poorly supported should probably have sources added (where possible), or otherwise be considered for deletion. SamBC(talk) 20:17, 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 — sources added, as well. --Haemo 02:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Makers[edit]

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

Notability, Advertising. Also Conflict of Interest due to article was created and heavily edited by Heritagemakers and multiple single-purpose users who may be resellers. Clubjuggle 05:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that, while Clubjuggle has had an account since 2004, s/he has had less than 80 edits in that time. About 1/3 of them have been AfD related. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we be debating the nomination on its merits? I'm not personally invested in this at all. If the community consensus is that this article is encyclopedic, I'm fine with that. We need to determine that on the basis of the article, though. I don't believe ad hominem arguments are useful here. --Clubjuggle 07:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's common practice to point out accounts with low edits participating in AfD discussions. The closing admin is welcome to ignore the information, but pointing it out happens very frequently in these discussions. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:45, 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. The article can be created again when the company becomes notable. Singularity 01:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blazing Lizard[edit]

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

Contested speedy deletion (as spam), I don't think it qualifies there, but I also don't think it's a notable company at this point. CitiCat ♫ 05:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is an up and coming company that will soon have more notariety it has alredy recieved press interest from big gaming magazines and the article will simply be created again in the futre when the game is released.

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

The result was keep.. CitiCat ♫ 14:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ernies[edit]

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

Notability concerns are addressed on the talk page. As I feel it has shaky grounds for notability, I want to see if it'll survive AfD before I do any more work on it. For the record, my vote is Keep, citing WP:IAR and the laundry list of "almost" meets.. but I'll accept whatever the community decides. spazure (contribs) 05:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the notability of the article won't change by me finishing writing it -- all the sources I could locate are already in one of the versions or the other. My biggest concern is I keep avoiding doing more work on it because I'm afraid somebody's going to turn around and delete it.. as it'll end up with more work (in terms of hours) put into it than anything else I've contributed to, but if the sources aren't good enough -- then I'd just be working past my writer's block to ultimately, no gain for myself or the community. Sure, I'd love for it to be kept, but if it's going to be deleted -- I'd rather it go now than unexpectedly later after I put several more hours (and better paragraph organization, etc) into it. spazure (contribs) 07:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think you are doing yourself and the article a disservice to bring it here. It might not be a clear cut case, but there is definitely a strong argument that can be made for keeping this. Withdraw this nom and make the argument in the prose of the article. Can I promise you that it won't be nominated at some future point? No. Spend the time and energy that you would be spending here defending the article on writing it.Balloonman 08:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason to close it is because even if it passes this "AFD" there is no guarantee that it won't be nominated and deleted later. The key is to establish notability within the article and make it such that people go "Yes, they have notability."Balloonman 06:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*SUPER MEGA STRONG DELETE because nom is an idiot and should spend her time on something that matters, like trying to delete more computer programs because computers aren't notable in her eyes, lol. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.97.182.82 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 17 August 2007.Striking uncalled for personal attack, please read WP:NPA and WP:CIV▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 08:39, 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. Singularity 01:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of islands of the United States[edit]

List of islands of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is redundant. A category exists that serves the purpose of this article -- to list US islands -- and a majority of the links on this list are essentially dead. crtrue 05:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep What other venues? Not all islands have articles, and the category for islands will of course only list islands with articles. Per WP:OUTCOMES, islands and other geographical locations tend to be per se notable for inclusion. Wl219 08:14, 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. While the advertising could have been overcome, we still came back to an article that didn't demonstrate notability under WP:MUSIC. Speedy criterion A7 applied. —C.Fred (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Youth Orchestra[edit]

Liverpool Youth Orchestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is about a mostly unremarkable youth orchestra and is incredibly spammy. Claim to fame pretty much rests on a local competition title and some foreign concerts, which is standard fare for an advanced youth music group. The end of the article features - a first for me, at least - an open call for auditions. fuzzy510 05:00, 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 (no new citations presented). — Scientizzle 20:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune Technology Group[edit]

Neptune Technology Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails the corporate notability guideline, and probably the soapbox guideline as well. The only external link is to the company's website, and the page chiefly consists of information on the company's products. -- bfigura (talk) 04:43, 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 Close, article has been deleted, WP:DRV is more appropriate here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 04:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectPier[edit]

ProjectPier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page was initially deleted as a candidate for speedy deletion because of lack of content and lack of asserting the notability of the topic. It was then reposted with a much expanded content and with better discussion on notability. There was also a discussion on the talk page regarding the notability of the topic, and it was successfully resolved with the deletion and hold tag being removed. It was then marked for speedy deletion again, without any further discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcrossvs (talk • contribs)

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

The result was Delete. WaltonOne 15:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references to the Rosenbergs[edit]

Cultural references to the Rosenbergs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Most of these are non-notable mentions in TV shows and films, the few notable references could be detailed in a couple of sentences in the main article. Either way, this list can be deleted, it still exists in the edit history of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg if anyone does want to re-add anything. Crazysuit 02:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You forgot to sign your post, DGG, although it was obvious without looking that it was yours. Sorry if you think that Wikipedia's becoming less of a trivia dumping ground is a bad thing. Me, I see any move toward concentrating on serious content with encyclopedic value to be a positive move for the project as a whole. The less time editors spend on cramming "lookie there, somebody said 'Ethel Rosenberg' on TV" nonsense into articles under the deep misapprehension that such trivia illuminates the topic of the Rosenbergs, the more time they'll have to maybe work on something worthwhile. Otto4711 21:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Six of the 14 have the Rosenberg case as the principal plot element. Only two deal with TV at all, and yes the use in those two is trivial, as is in my opinion most TV. I don't therefore wish to eliminate coverage of TV, though I certainly wish to neither write nor read the articles. I read two of them to write this note and that is quite enough. I leave them to those interested, and I advise Otto to do likewise. DGG (talk) 01:57, 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 Merge and redirect to Northwest Airlines Flight 255. WaltonOne 15:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cecelia Cichan[edit]

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

Non-notable except for being sole survivor of a plane crash. The last paragraph indicates that her ten 15 minutes of fame are up - she isn't a public figure anymore. Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Resurgent insurgent 04:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, WP should not be in the business of "finding out" information about people. Steve Dufour 14:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for that is that the anniversary of the crash was mentioned on WP's main page and so drew the attention of lots of editors. Steve Dufour 02:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself, I believe I do know the concept of notability. Perhaps the nominator was very young, at the time of this accident, but I remember this girl gaining lots of significant coverage in 1987. I believe people would like to know what became of her beyond just being a footnote to the crash. Her notability should not expire just because it's been 20 years. From a historical perspective she is notable as the majority of victims from a huge airplane crash die. Fighting for Justice 02:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that only one person survived the crash is worth mentioning. Ms Cichan herself is not notable. The same thing if a meteorite fell and killed someone. That would be worth mentioning in the article on meteorites, but that person shouldn't have his own article. Steve Dufour 16:09, 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. Singularity 01:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tarkhans[edit]

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

Previously discussed on AFD in Oct/Nov 2006; nominated for deletion via WP:PROD in Aug 2007. Outcome of prior AFD was 'keep', but looking at the discussion suggests the actual outcome was 'no consensus'. Current re-nomination for deletion (by PRODing) was "like List of Rajputs"; the 'List of Rajputs' article is currently on AFD here, which sports the following reason for nominating for deletion "Appears to be yet another virtually unsourced and verifiable caste list. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. This is practically the same as List of Nairs, which was deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nairs." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:18, 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 but clean-up and add sources. The nomination was based on this being unsourcable, but the consensus seems to be that it is; so demonstrate that is by sourcing it, or it's going to get deleted. Articles can only survive so many AfD's under the "it's sourcable" assertion; sooner or later it becomes apparent that they can't be. --Haemo 02:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flip tricks (skateboarding)[edit]

Flip tricks (skateboarding) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article cannot be attributed to reliable sources. This article may be improved if sources are come across, but as it stands, there is no particular reason to keep it. -- VegitaU 02:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. We're discussing this one. i said 03:44, 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 Delete as spam. CitiCat ♫ 05:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Design matters[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable book. Amazon puts it at #53,915 and there are 66 unique Google hits for the name, all of them sites selling the book. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 01:50, 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. Singularity 01:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TuneCore[edit]

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

Appeared on AFD in July/August 2006; introduced into WP:PROD workstream August 2007 with the notation "Advertisement, Self-promotion." Previous AFD started with the notion the article was advertising and closed with 'no consensus'. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 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 G4. Recreation of deleted material. I'll also protect the page from recreation. Sancho 01:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Brothers Mixtape[edit]

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

The band would not meet WP:BAND; but no speedy criterion appear applicable to an "upcoming mixtape". — Coren (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I hadn't noticed this was already deleted per AfD. Will tag speedy just in case. — Coren (talk) 01:36, 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. Singularity 00:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Hinckley, Jr. in popular culture[edit]

John Hinckley, Jr. in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

One of the worst IPC lists left, mainly a list of non-notable songs that happen to mention Hinckley, plus a couple of trivial mentions in TV episodes. Non-notable trivia collection. Crazysuit 01:18, 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. Hu12 03:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uniquephones[edit]

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

Completely non-notable company; cites no sources to assert notability. TheIslander 01:28, 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. Hu12 03:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Reddick[edit]

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

Semi-professional athelete doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. No sources either. — Coren (talk) 01:15, 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, WP:SNOW, WP:NFT, WP:V. NawlinWiki 15:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Hearts (Upcoming TV Series)[edit]

Some Hearts (Upcoming TV Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I could be wrong, but I believe this to be a case in point of WP:NFT. This is about a TV series created... by the author of the article. The Evil Spartan 00:42, 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.
This page has been blanked as a courtesy.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 00:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musabaliyev[edit]

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

Probable failure of WP:N - Google brings up nothing. Oli Filth 00:34, 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 per clear precedent and WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki 15:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Macari[edit]

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

Notability is non-transferable. The only claim of notability is "...for being the son of Lou Macari." –Animum 00:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete at 30 years old without any major exposure in the professional leagues or even junior representative status at international level he is not notable enough for a dedicated article. If he has other records - eg. disciplinary - or has scored notable goals then interested editors should find them and list them. He may go on to greater things as a manager so there is always the possibility for resurrection down the line.Dick G 03:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point is that the article says he HAS played in professional leagues. Stoke City and Hudderfield play in the English Football League and by wikipedia policy and precedent, which the preceeding commentors seem unfamiliar with, this makes him notable regardless of who his father is. He doesn't need 'major' exposure or to have played at international level. One appearance in a fully professional league is enough. Nick mallory 04:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::Comment If there's an established policy on this, let's see the relevant WP guidelines on every English pro footballers having their own article. Precedent doesn't of itself green-light an article's inclusion. See WP:OTHERSTUFF Dick G 04:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here is the policy that states that any player who has played professional football is notable ChrisTheDude 07:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The player in question played on a second teer team (minor league for my fellow Americans). Here an American minor league baseball players article was deleted. So by the precedent established, this needs to go too. Sasha Callahan 04:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but you are all quite wrong. English league players are notable, just as all first class cricketers are notable. The Championship or League One and Two are not the equivalent of baseball minor league players. Nick mallory 04:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we're invoking American comparisons, then Macari's case seems on a par with that of Mel Stottlemyre, Jr. He played at a professional level but his career seems to have been comparatively insignificant and he seems much better known for his family connections - do the American editors above think he should be deleted? ChrisTheDude 07:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Championship a "minor league"? I advise you do some research, as it has the fourth highest attended football league in the world. Dave101→talk  08:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the team he plays for states its a tier two team, and not in the Premier League. Therefore, he didn't play at the top level of of competition. Mel Jr, played with Kansas City of the American League. The precedent has been established where American Baseball player who do not play at the top level of competition generally do not recieve their own articles (unless they are touted prospects). Soccer players who do not play at the top level (A Tier One League) shouldn't get articles either. Sasha Callahan 11:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case what you are requesting is a major change to the WP:Notability (people) guideline. The guideline currently states that athletes have to have played in a "fully professional league", and the top four levels of the English football league system are all fully professional, therefore Paul Macari satsifies that guideline easily. If you feel the guideline needs to be changed, then that should be taken up at a much higher level than a single AfD.... ChrisTheDude 11:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I see your point. Sasha Callahan 11:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment Nick and Scottmsg, I hate throwing WP guidelines in people's faces but the above professional league criteria WP:Notability (people) is not referenced in the more specific WP:FOOTBALL. Given the numbers of existing and former professionals, we are talking about (several thousand). You can't use that argument that each English league player is notable and/or warrants their own article. WP Guidelines frequently conflict and most importantly (1) WP is not an almanac and (2) this information is easily found on any number of player directories - it is not notable or distinct. Finally, If David Seaman is an example of a Mid Importance article then how is Paul Macari worth an article? Dick G 05:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He'd have a 'low' importance article. It doesn't mean he's not worth an article at all. Wikipedia is not paper, so it doesn't matter how many articles there are and the WP:Notability (people) guideline takes precedence over anything an individual project comes up with. You will of course find that the WP:FOOTBALL project agrees with the wider notability standard, it's not in conflict with it. This issue has been debated many times before and you seem almost willfully ignorant of the standards which everyone else has long agreed to. Paul Macari is clearly notable because he played in the English Football League. Feel free to put up other English league players for deletion if you think this is wrong or that the community agrees with your position rather than mine and Scottmsg's. Nick mallory 05:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::Trust me I am not trying to reinvent the wheel but I think it's worth adding a dissenting voice in AfDs, particularly where a 'keep' or 'delete' decision is made on the basis of a long-standing practice that has not recently been challenged. The criteria for deletion must be dynamic - particulary where the cited guidelines frequently butt heads. I am not about to trawl the thousands of entries on footballers just to make a point but you have to admit, as a general reference work, we lose a bit of credibility listing every single player ever to trot out in a professional league match since the 19th century, regardless of their individual impact or achievement. Dick G 05:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is an encyclopedia, which means we lose credibility when we don't have an article on a notable person or thing. I agree that criteria should be open and subject to criticism and change but this is just a waste of everyone's time. Every time your argument is refuted you simply post another, even weaker, argument for deletion. Arguing that because his information could be found elsewhere, it should be deleted here is ludicrous, for instance, as all the information on wikipeida has to be drawn from third party sources and not be original research. The criteria for inclusion are not 'butting heads' here. This person doesn't need to meet all the criteria, just one of them. He's played in a fully professional league, he's notable, that's the end of it. Nick mallory 06:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the WP:Notability (people) guideline doesn't apply anymore? When was this decision made exactly? Once again, 'Competitors who have played in a fully professional league' are notable. Nick mallory 06:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as stated above, Huddersfield still play in a fully professional league, therefore any player who has played first-team football for them satisfies the requirements of WP:Notability (people), in exactly the same way that any player who has played foe the Chicago Cubs does ChrisTheDude 07:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd hazard a guess it could theoretically lead to the deletion of at least 2,000 articles including at least two GAs..... ChrisTheDude 12:09, 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. Singularity 00:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

County Fair Mall (Thunder Bay)[edit]

County Fair Mall (Thunder Bay) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable shopping mall and no reliable sources to be found. Tomj 00:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

declined speedy, let the afd run. Malls cannot really be speedied as A7, in my opinion at least. The article will go soon enough. DGG (talk) 02:08, 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, hoax article, author blocked indefinitely for hoax articles. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partrick Moore[edit]

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

Prod was removed. Probable hoax - can find no Google hits for a Patrick Moore that won an Oscar. Oli Filth 00:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that the bulk of the author's other edits are on his other article, which has also been ((prod))'d as a hoax. Oh, and there's his other ((prod))'d creation. —Travistalk 00:34, 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 to Playstation 3. If there's any content to merge here, then the article's history will support it. --Haemo 08:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation 3 technical problems[edit]

PlayStation 3 technical problems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Pretty much all the "references" are blogs and forums, which do not qualify under WP:V. In any case, most of the claims in the article are speculation, and even if they weren't, I would say that this is verging on an indiscriminate collection of information. Oli Filth 00:06, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Wars[edit]

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

This article has been speedy deleted in the past for CSD A7. The article was rewritten and reposted and the author has already contested speedy deletion that hasn't been requested yet. In my opinion, this article does not satisfy notability guidelines and is not properly sourced. Nick—Contact/Contribs 06:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The Open Source Pictures link just goes to a script, not an article, as the previous editor claims. Since the link is user-generated content posted without any apparent editorial oversight, I see nothing there that confers any notability to the link, or the the article up for AFD. MikeWazowski 19:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Even if the film is a long way away from ever being notable, I'm appear to be familiar with the subject matter, I have to expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability. I think the best way to address this concern is to have published, third-party sources about the subject. Starkiller88 03:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But this article is tagged with a ((notability)) tag since this month days ago since its creation. There is no reason for you to keep this page unless its notability can be established by referencing reliable sources. Take note of this, its uniqueness of project and existence of its script on the Open Source Pictures website tends to give it notability because it has meet at least one definition of an open content film. Starkiller88 17:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The film is my own work. I've created it. I still need to provide its reliable third-party sources and by extension WP:MOVIE. Starkiller88 09:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, that's precisely the point. The AfD was begun because of the lack of reliable third-party sources, and the reason why people have been advocating deletion is as a result of the fact that these have not been provided. I don't think anyone doubts that it's your work. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't keep an article because "it will eventually have reliable third-party sources". It needs to have them now. --Farix (Talk) 12:13, 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.
More