< August 1	August 3 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Nix[edit]

Non-notable minor league player, per WP:BASEBALL. Truest blue 00:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 00:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Truest blue 00:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Player is on the Rockies 40 man roster. The article could definitely be expanded, going over his Rockies bio Nix has a lot of minor league awards and all-star appearances and seems to be a highly touted prospect. The writer of this one should expand it more. Spanneraol 00:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Players on the 40 man roster are minor leaguers. Currently, teams are only allowed to have 25 players on their major league roster. If he is on the 40 man roster when major league cllubs are allowed to have 40 players then he should be eligible for an WP article.--Truest blue 00:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for inclusion are clear and this player doesn't make it. Allowing players who haven't made full appearances on wikipedia opens the door to hundreds of thousands of fringe cricketers, footballers, baseball players etc. 'highly touted prospects' can have their article when they make their first proper appearance. Nick mallory 00:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, but recreate if he plays in a major league game. Although Spanneraol feels he's a highly touted prospect, the first couple of pages of non-wiki ghits didn't show much notability.--Fabrictramp 00:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for now. He has not played on a major league field yet. Once he gets in there and sets foot on the field in a MLB game, we're good, but until then, he doesn't meet WP:N. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though I might have a soft spot for the Rockies, until he shows up sometime mid September, he doesn't qualify for a wikipedia page.Ravenmasterq 02:05, 3 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. --Core desat 05:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Perkins[edit]

Non-notable minor league player, per WP:BASEBALL. Truest blue 00:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 00:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Truest blue 00:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because he haven't played yet in the majors.--JForget 01:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays in the Eastern League which is a "fully professional league" per WP:BIO. Spanneraol 02:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'No stats in major league baseball' seems to clear this up...Ravenmasterq 02:08, 3 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. --Core desat 05:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

muCommander[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable software. No sources provided that are not affiliated with this software. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no assertion of notability and no sources. --Boricuaeddie 00:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Google search doesn't readily disclose anything to provide reputable third party support of notability. --Moonriddengirl 15:18, 3 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Len Picota[edit]

Non-notable minor league player, per WP:BASEBALL. Truest blue 23:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Truest blue 23:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guy played in the World Baseball Classic which alone should be enough to qualify him as does playing for the national team in Panama. Spanneraol 23:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article says (without a source) that he represented Panama. He was 40 years old at the time, which should lead one to suspect what represent means. Panama has a huge inventory of Major leaguers to choose from. Why should they choose a career minor leaguer? It is highly suspect.--Truest blue 00:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply A quick google search leads to the WBC Rosters [1] He is included on the Panama roster.
Keep. Since he represented his country in the highest level of international baseball, I would assume he qualifies for wikipedia. Even if he only pitched four innings. Len Picota 0 0 2.25 1 1 0 0 0 4.0 2 1 1 1 0 2 2 1.00 0 0Ravenmasterq 02:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per participation in the WBC. Unlike some countries in the tournament, Panama's team consists largely of players who have not appeared in MLB. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:11, 3 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 wasSpeedy keep on withdrawal of nomination.

Luis Raven[edit]

Non-notable minor league player, per WP:BASEBALL. Truest blue 23:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 23:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reason. --Truest blue 23:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Ravenmasterq, Spanneraol,Ten Pound Hammer. My bad.
KeepIf he's playing in the highest professional league in Venezula, then doesn't he qualify under WP:Baseball?Ravenmasterq 23:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the same reason as the other minor league players.. They are all notable under WP:BIO. Why is it that all of these nominations are made by Truest blue? Apparently he is the only one with a problem with minor leaguers. Spanneraol 23:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. He's in the Venezuelan Professional Baseball League, which is the highest league in Venezuela, so he passes WP:BASEBALL. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:52, 2 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 due to lack of meaningful discussion. Who is Norm? Sandstein 21:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OpenDevelop GNU/Linux[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Notability to come. Chealer 22:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep--and a warning to the nom about WP:POINT.DGG (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and CLOSE - What is this? Corpx 22:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Struck due to NeoChaosX fixing the nomination. Corpx 22:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fixed the nomination, he meant to nominate OpenDevelop GNU/Linux. Remember to use the preview button to make sure what you're editing comes out right, folks. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:50, 29 July 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 23:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm. KTC 04:01, 4 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 technically no consensus, since none of the opinions here are particularly helpful (see WP:ATA), but I speedy deleted it per WP:CSD#G11. Sandstein 21:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garfio[edit]

Notability to come. Chealer 20:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also name for Mexican comic strip about a cat. Mandsford 14:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls short of WP:NOTE. --Aarktica 21:56, 1 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 23:21, 2 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 Arguments for merge, keep and delete present. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Temnikova[edit]

The notability of the subject is very low, not an important nor famous person and per My cleanup project I have vowed to rid of articles like this one. The sunder king 14:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Serebro. No individual notability, no real information. --Dhartung | Talk 15:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as notable member of a band and by herself. Show (3rd place) in a major reality show. Needs more cites. Bearian 19:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --Hillock65 09:08, 3 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 23:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did a little bit of poking and found enough third party sources to apparently verify that she placed in the Russian contest. That seems to qualify her under Criteria for musicians and ensembles on the notability guidelines at #9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." If not for that, I'd be going with Dhartung in recommending merge & redirect. --Moonriddengirl 15:30, 3 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 23:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Fighter 6 Finale[edit]

Crystalballing, no verifiable information available. east.718 at 07:48, July, 2007

Delete per nom. Vegaswikian 00:11, 2 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 23:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. Otto4711 00:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Cyborg Ninja 00:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Moonriddengirl 15:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per crystalball. Carlosguitar 22:13, 3 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 23:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel of Fortune (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Wheel of Fortune (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest)

Fails Notability guidelines for music, fails verifiability. See WP:MUSIC#Songs. Perhaps some information in this article should be merged with Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (soundtrack)

Delete per nom. Oli Filth 10:23, 28 July 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 23:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Eyrian 23:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I was going to suggest merging, but the plot description is unrelated to the song itself and doesn't belong in an article about the soundtrack. The film's plot is already amply described in its page. --Moonriddengirl 15:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC, and smells an awful lot like OR. fuzzy510 01:43, 6 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 I will not allow a single-purpose account to drag us into another debate on this article, given the overwhelming sentiment that notability is established. Shalom ^Hello 00:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Railpage Australia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A magnet for edit warring, trivia, random unreliable sources that just mention the site. Original research from primary sources. Tezza2 23:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC) — Tezza2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy keep. Those are reasons for ((cleanup)), page protection requests, and so forth. Not reasons for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep all this has been address previously, and there is no additional evidence presented. Is the intention to continue nominating until chance fluctuations bring about a predominance of delete !voters? Not explicitly against the rules, but in my opinion a clear abused of process. "askuntiltheygivein" is a variant of "ask theotherparent"DGG (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. Bad faith nom by probable sockpuppet SPA. Thin Arthur 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This has come up time and time again. Speedy Keep as per WP:SNOW Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 00:29, 3 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 Arguments for delete, keep and merge are presented and the positions of the three are not well reconcilable at this time. The determination of how related the terms Chindia and Chindian are is not resolved and is central to the disposition of the two terms. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chindian[edit]

Apparent neologism - the only source I trust in the list of four only mentions the term in passing. Will ^(talk) 07:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found 6 other sources. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] If you want to exclude sources of questionable reliability, that still leaves The Star, Straits Times, The Guardian, and Rediff. Wl219 06:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Harlowraman 11:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:NEO - lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" Corpx 16:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Associated term Chindia is notable, this is not a neologism. Wl219 10:55, 1 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 23:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Chindia, a legitimate and quite widely used term. --Targeman 23:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment interestingly the Chindia article refers to the word Chindia as a neologism. Either the article is wrong, or it should be deleted. Bigdaddy1981 00:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're right. I removed "neologism" - it was a neologism two years ago, I think it's safe to consider it an integral part of the language now. --Targeman 01:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. This and the Times of India have used this word, though not exactly in the same context as outlined in the article.--Sethacus 00:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Bigdaddy1981 20:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you're basing your delete vote on Chindian's relation to Chindia, I don't think you're doing this in good faith since you haven't responded to Targeman's edits. If Chindia is no longer so new as to be a neologism, it follows that Chindian isn't either. Wl219 04:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Sorry, but that's illogical for two reasons.

First: Just because Chindia exists and is not a neologism does not mean Chindians exists as a non-neologism. BRIC (Brazil Russia India China) also exists and is not a neologism but if someone puts up an article for "Bricians" or "Bricites" as a purported term for the denizens of these countries; I'll vote to delete that one too.

Second: If you read the two articles carefully you will see how bad an idea a merge is. Chindia is a term used to refer to both China and India while Chindian refers - not to denizens of either India or China - but instead to only people of *mixed* Chinese Indian ancestry.

Please think more carefully before accusing other editors of bad faith - its very rude. Bigdaddy1981 05:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never accused you of bad faith, I simply refused to extend to you an assumption of good faith based on the fact that you didn't explain your vote in light of your earlier comments. Further, bringing BRIC into this is WP:WAX. Bottom line, Chindian is not a neologism, having been the subject of several sourceable media articles ([8] and [9] and [10] and [11] and [12] and [13] and [14], among others, with the earliest mention I could find going back to 1998). Wl219 06:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, my mention of BRIC has nothing to do with WP:WAX - it is simply a hypothetical example of a similar case to this one - where a non-neologism noun exists but the collective noun does not. I am afraid I must disagree with you with regards to this article. Chindian is a neologism and moreover bears no relation to the non-neologism Chindia. For these reasons, this article should be deleted not merged. I did not feel I had to make more mention of Chindia in my initial vote as I consider the two subjects quite separate, I merely pointed out earlier that the Chindia article incorrectly deems the word a neologism.

As an aside, I note that you are encouraged to assume good faith on Wikipedia something you freely admit you refused to do - that's nearly as rude as accusing me of bad faith. Please, let's keep some civility to these discussions. Bigdaddy1981 06:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not assuming good faith is not the same as presuming bad faith. I have made no personal attacks against you or presumed bad faith, malice, hidden agenda, whatever. I simply pointed out that, since you did not explain your vote in light of Targeman's edits, automatic AGF is questionable without further explanation from you. You have since provided further explanation, which I do not agree with, but nonetheless. If you want to keep this civil, don't make this bigger than it is (or more accurately, isn't). Wl219 06:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it came off as rude to you, and not to lump you in with them, but I've had more than enough AfD experiences where editors have pulled the WP:CIVIL card on me when they themselves have been uncivil... Wl219 06:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that, I understand that you were not intending to be rude. I suppose I should have offered more explanation in my earlier "vote" as I accept now that it is not unnatural to assume that my comment re Chindia and my "vote" re Chindian were related. Bigdaddy1981 06:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is no longer a Neologism. It has enough sources. Bearian 15:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closer A main criteria for a word being a neologism is its absence in dictionaries that describe English in wide use either generally or for specific knowledge areas. The site http://www.onelook.com is a reasonable place to start when trying to determine if a term is a neologism or not owing to the large number of dictionaries accessible via that site. However, there are no hard and fast rules as to when a term stops being a neologism; the evolution of word usage is complex and the appearance in popular press can be more a statement of the editorial practices of the publications than the prevalence of the word in common usage. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:41, 8 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 "keep" opinions are rather thin on policy; see WP:ATA. Sandstein 21:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmark[edit]

no assertion of notability, orphan Will ^(talk) 07:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs improvement Harlowraman 11:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Can anyone find any reviews or something that'll attest notability? Corpx 16:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like it has hundreds of hits on Google. It might not be the most popular social bookmarking solution, but it certainly is known. 23:31, 1 August 2007

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 23:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Article does not assert notability, and while it has many hits, notability is not the same as fame. I've found a few blog reviews--one stellar one by an individual who contributed to the project :)--but I haven't seen anything yet that seems to satisfy third party sourcing that would establish notability. --Moonriddengirl 15:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Class project lacking the sort of reputable independent sources to meet WP:VERIFY. Seattlenow 03:36, 8 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. --Core desat 05:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tonny and tanya[edit]

Non-notable couple that are so-called "stars" of a web forum about Manchester United, perhaps better known for web-streamed sex shows. No independent sources to speak of, no verification, no way this article should stay. Contested prod. Realkyhick 22:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable in any way, no verifiable sources found Recurring dreams 23:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability, no reliable sources. --Targeman 23:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Article is in the process of getting fixed, please give ample time to fix it. --ryanovski 20:09, 2 August 2007 (CST)
- I don't think the problem is the writing of the article (though it needs some work). The subjects simply aren't notable by standards, and the best writing in the world won't fix that. Sorry. I'm still a Yank that loves Man U, though. Realkyhick 01:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are on the rise. you cant knock talents that are up and coming! ryanovski 22:20, 2 August 2007 (CST)
    - Uh, yeah, we can. Realkyhick 05:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs to be left open, they will be minor celebrities before long - long may they last! (a scouser)

Delete. When they become minor celebrities, there might be a case to re-create the article, but certainly not before then. It's questionable whether every "minor" celebrity deserves an entry anyway. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the biggest stars in their field with many thousands of supporters in the european arena

- And the sources showing this are where, exactly? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should stay. In Manchester, Tonny and Tanya are well knownand respected figures. As it says in the article, fans have sung about themat games. I don't know how to prove that, but if you were to ask any Mancunian Manchester United fan, they would back this up. Vaz21 12:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This user previously created an article by this name, which was speedy deleted, and then temporarily blocked for activity regarding that previous version. Realkyhick 15:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think thats irrelevent now. Vaz21 16:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article must stay. I am sure that Robert Tressell was considered insignificant at one time. I have heard their names sung by thousands. As the football season unfolds their noteriety will rise exponentially untill Tonny and Tanya take their rightful place as king and queen of Manchester. — Stured (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete unnotable and technically a BLP violation (unsourced and possibly controversial) Will ^(talk) 16:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki mods, have it in your hearts to keep this page.. Vaz21 16:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I'm sorry, but this is rubbish. I live in Manchester too, and I've never heard of these people, thank God; Association Football fans will sing about any old rubbish, and if these comments are even true, this just shows it. Lordrosemount 23:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you a football fan though Lordrosemount? Evidently not!
  - You think? Even if I was, I'd still call this nonsense (and I wouldn't sing songs about a couple of porn stars, or whatever the hell these people are). Lordrosemount 22:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether or not he's a football fan is irrelevant. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do the mods care about this one page? There's so many pages on Wiki and many are about pointless things, why don't you let this one go? It's obvious Tonny and Tanya are well-known due to the amount of external links provided and information given. Find it deep in your hearts to leave this page. Thank you.

In answer to your question, someone happens to have found this page and argues (based on policy, consensus and guidelines) that these two are not notable. I quite agree that there are pages on Wikipedia about "pointless things". If you think some of them aren't notable, you're welcome to nominate them for deletion as well. In terms of what the information given means, it doesn't establish notability, which is different to being well known. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as for those other pages — we're getting to them. :-) Realkyhick 01:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been here so long now it should be left. It is no harm to anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.182.182 (talk)

It was posted August 2. You call that long? What are you smoking? You didn't even sign in. I smell sockpuppetry here. Realkyhick 19:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - quite simply no reliable sources. -- Whpq 19:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really isnt that bad. Its better than some of the other articles out there and it has more sources, categories, attention than alot of the other ones... so give it a break eh? Ryanovski 04:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are worse articles out there, you're welcome to nominate them for deletion. The fact that there are worse articles out there doesn't mean that this one should stay. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Card (Delete) - Nothing in this article leads me to believe that are notable. The only references are MySpace WP:YMINAR, YouTube and Forums. These are all user driven and do not constitute a reliable, verifiable third party source. A friend of mine thinks they are plants or spies from Arsenal or Chelsea. Helmsb 14:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is a user drive source... so then it must not be reliable? Ryanovski 02:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Slightly different situation. The point about Wikipedia is that it's a user-created thing, but based (or at least intended to be based) on reliable sources which are not user-created. The addition of information stemming purely from user-created websites most definitely renders an article or a fact less than reliable. That, oddly enough, is why this article - based as it is purely on user-created sources - is being nominated for deletion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Never heard of them, and they're supposed to be "famous" former residents of my hometown.

--Eivind Kjørstad 11:44, 6 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. Carlossuarez46 20:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biological horror[edit]

Non-notable term. No reputable sources that verify whether this is notable. See WP:NOT a dictionary. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 22:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, apparently exists mainly to link to a web site. Realkyhick 22:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the phrase crops up reasonably often in discussion of the works of David Cronenberg. See Google and Google News Archive. But this article is not about that, and clearly pushing a website as the sole source. Gordonofcartoon 23:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no reliable sources confirming this use of the word. --Targeman 23:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bigdaddy1981 00:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the horror aspects are covered under body horror and the sci-fi aspects (and most of the examples are more sci-fi than horror) are covered under biopunk. (Emperor 22:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per above. Interesting, and I like it, but not yet notable. Bearian 16:00, 6 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. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Philip J. McMahon[edit]

There are zero Ghits for "neuropsychodynamic therapy". The sources are blogspot and myspace. Hoax? There are also only three Ghits for the "renowned" "Genesis Recovery Clinic". Corvus cornix 22:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I don't know, he may be notable for something. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 22:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that comment doesn't serve any purpose in an AfD discussion. Please point to policies which support your stance. Corvus cornix 22:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, changed from weak keep - That was my only reason really. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 22:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable hoax. No reputable references or sources to establish notability. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 22:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Either a hoax or self-promotion. Realkyhick 22:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as possible hoax, didnt fit within speedy.DGG (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam/vanity/conflict of interest. --Targeman 23:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. This is a thinly veiled attempt at promoting Genesis Consulting (see the links to a Blogspot blog and a Myspace page on the article), and was created by a user similarly named. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:11, 3 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. --Core desat 05:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second city of the United Kingdom[edit]

A magnet for edit warring, trivia, random unreliable sources and ridiculous original research. The United Kingdom section of our article Second city contains everything that needs to be said on this topic. ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 22:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge and strong redirect any reliable, verifiable material to the abovementioned article section, and create an anchored redirect. -- saberwyn 22:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ADDITIONAL: Above is a not-a-delete not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 11:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, that BBC and the New York Times are no better than blogs. THis has much more detail than the all inclusive article, and thats the way it should be. The main article is already unwieldy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The New York Times is, of course, a great source. Here's an article from the NYT identifying Birmingham as the UK's second city. And here's an article from the NYT identifying Manchester as the second city. So that's got us precisely nowhere, except to demonstrate that there is some debate over the issue: exactly what the concise statement in the main Second city article says. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 22:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, seems to pass WP:V but the potential for edit warring is high. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of high quality references. NYT and BBC! Mathmo ^Talk 22:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as far as I know, potential for a lot of edit warring isn't usually used as a reason for deletion, or most of the 'controversial articles' on wikipedia would go.Merkinsmum 23:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I'm surprised this and similar articles even exist, and that they look like original research at first glance, I've got to admit this one is well-written and decently sourced. A slight aftertaste of WP:OR lingers after reading it, but it's nothing that would warrant deletion in my book. --Targeman 23:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good article on an issue which many people might wish to look up. RegRCN 00:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of interest in this topic meets any notability guideline you could think of. Has plenty of sources to enable an article to be written without original research. Edit warring not a grounds for deletion. Davewild 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, I just came across the article because I wanted to understand the debate and found it balanced and informative.Billlion 08:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable debate with plenty of outside sources. --Beloved freak 16:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources for both sides of the argument, including polls reported in the BBC, to keep it NPOV if both 'factions' chip in as they have recently.Merkinsmum 17:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Knowing the 'first city' (London), is quite enough. This article may continue to be place for 'edit wars'. GoodDay 17:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure yet The problem with this article is that it was created to promote the view of the Manchester City Council PR department that there really is some sort of widespread debate in the country over which is the second city, and that the long-established definition of second city as second largest city is somehow no longer appropriate. A complete re-write, also emphasising that Manchester has a very good claim to be third city (with citations), might be enough to give it a properly neutral stance. TharkunColl 18:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge The article has plenty of rather useless information on it and would be better suited as a much shorter balanced paragraph on the Second city article and then would be able to benefit from more input from international users on that article. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 20:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst I have the greatest respect for the authors of the Second City article, this looks to me to be a classic case of more information than can reasonably fit in one article, justifying a separate one with a 'see also' link. It's also a pretty good article, and doesn't seem POV to me - perhaps people who disagree are themselves being POV in refusing to acknowledge that a debate exists? Lordrosemount 23:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is all about a controversial topic. Merging it into Second City will simply move the controversy there, and as such will serve no purpose. There is a genuine debate regarding the topic (as can be clearly seen simply within editors of the article), and I do not believe that the article has yet passed "the point of no return". Indeed, some good progress has recently been made. Fingerpuppet 11:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As regards the nominators view on the edit-warring, I agree with Fingerpuppet, it's seemed a bit better recently.:) with a slightly more conciliatory spirit between the editors. As to the nominator saying it's Original Research, it may be collated in the article, but it's all sourced to newspapers etc. The abundance of sources and the diversity of editor's views, I think keeps it from being POV or OR.Merkinsmum 11:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This page is just a collection of cherry-picked POVs on an issue that is largely unimportant. It's fair enough to have a page defining Second city, but this page is an attempt to establish as fact something that can really only ever be a matter of opinion . --Escape Orbit 13:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a reasonably good article, with many references, on a subject of genuine interest to many who may refer to Wikipedia. – Agendum 15:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if we end up having to block 130,000 IPs because of a dispute over this, it's more trouble than it's worth Will ^(talk) 13:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we'll probably just get a resolution and then an opinion in favour of Glasgow, Edinburgh or Leeds will disrupt the setting and we're back to sqaure one. Onnaghar ^{tl | co | @} 18:46, 5 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 — Caknuck 16:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt McInerney[edit]

To quote from the article lede: "Matt McInerney is the founder of social networking site Gleamd. Gleamd is a new social bookmarking site where instead of voting on stories or links, you vote for people based on their bios. Gleamd has been growing quickly since its launch a mere two weeks ago, and has already attracted investment." Only sources are blogs and PR sites, and Gleamd appears to still be in beta testing. NawlinWiki 21:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What other sources are needed? The blogs are notable ones, Mashable and Downloadsquad. Does it need to be in print? Andweallfalldown 21:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blogs are not reliable sources which are required for notability. Any sort of actual news coverage is better than a blog, it does not have to be print. If his site is not notable, it is highly unlikely he is. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." Both Mashable and Downloadsquad have an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. And Wired (magazine) was also mentioned as a sourceAndweallfalldown 22:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a PodTech interview as a source Andweallfalldown 22:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per Andweallfalldown. The fact that blogs can easily be created and run by individuals without evidence of credibility does not automatically discredit every blog that exists. Further, the sources in this article do not establish sufficient notability is not a proper reason for deletion as per WP:DP; it must be evident that such notability cannot reasonably be established based on a demonstrated probable lack of potential sources, not lack of currently listed sources. This condition for deletion is far from being met. --xDanielx^Talk 22:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per Andweallfalldown and xDanielx. Mathmo ^Talk 22:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Google news archive search for "Matt McInerney" +Gleamd gets no results. Also, that Wired Blog (separate from the magazine) citation seems to mention McInerney once, by first name only. The Mashable article does not give his name at all. None of the articles are actually about McInerney, just things he was involved in. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, promotional. Realkyhick 22:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete' per Z-man. He seems to be on the fringe, but not quite notable enough yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from the very article, not yet notable, hough it tries to talk around the fact. "Attracted investment" with no further details is not notability. DGG (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Z-man and TenPound Hammer. Created "two weeks ago". Bearian 16:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete creating a non-notable web site does not make a person notable; the article itself says that his site started only 2 weeks ago, which means that the article actually asserts the non-notability of its subject. Life, Liberty, Property 16:32, 7 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. Non-admin closure of a nearly unanimous (and correct) result. Shalom ^Hello 20:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Pifarély[edit]

Delete Nothing of any note here, Self promotion probable. Henryjimdix 21:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pifarély has released several CDs, including two on a major label (ECM - see catalog entry here), which per WP:MUSIC is enough to assert notability. The article just needs some work (compare with the French article). --Targeman 00:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at the moment it reads as crappy vanity but the subject is notable. Bigdaddy1981 00:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject seems notable, though the article needs work. --Moonriddengirl 15:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable. Keep and improve. --Beloved freak 16:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. Why a person will post a bare-bones autobiography is beyond me, but he is notable. Bearian 16:10, 6 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. Carlossuarez46 20:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End of the Night[edit]

Unsourced article about supposed upcoming single. No information provided at all really. - eo 20:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no refs, no verification. Realkyhick 22:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 23:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references are provided, not verifiable. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 01:00, 3 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 09:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volusia Mall[edit]

Non-notable mall, fails WP:RS. Nothing special about it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The mall has 120+ stores, comparable to the Great Mall and other famous ones. ~~WP:DP~~ (edit - I meant to reference WP:RS) focuses primarily on establishing verifiability for claims in academic articles, and really isn't suitable for judging notability of major local malls. An article about the mall is appropriate as a means of providing information to locals or visitors. Establishing notability for attractions such as malls is naturally more difficult since the internet attention they draw is naturally concentrated on travel guides and what not rather than more scholarly publications. Intuitively, there is good reason to believe that a reasonable number of Wikipedia readers will want information about a major mall such as this one. Remember WP:IGNORE. --xDanielx^Talk 22:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources exist it would appear. I really don't have the time to look all over the place for it, but here are a couple even I have found without any trouble: [15] [16] Mathmo ^Talk 22:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of them is a real estate dealers page, the other is a PR release. Neither come anywhere near independent or reliable. The are substantial, substantial advertising that is. All information needs can be met better by their website 23:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC) DGG
Keep per XDanielx and I will always keep that argument for such malls. Always notable center for a large touristic area , Daytona Beach.--JForget 01:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems that most of the keep votes so far are along the lines of WP:USEFUL... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but WP:USEFUL is not a Wikipedia policy, and I would venture to say (as I have said regarding other individual parts of the essay) that much of the argumentation within the essay are rather ill-founded. The section you referenced gives no reasoning for why usefulness is not an appropriate standard apart from "it's subjective" - well, so it notability, source reliability, and essentially any other standard that can be used in an AfD discussion. Of course subjectivity isn't black and white, but I think the usefulness of this article, while not enormous, clearly outweighs the cost of preserving the article in the database, which is literally in the ballpark of one hundredth of one penny per year. The other argument, that "other sites exist apart from X where some material Y could be posted, therefore Y should not be included in X" (X being Wikipedia) is both a non sequitur (because it presents alternatives without any assertion that those alternatives are superior) and a ignoratio elenchi (because even if true, it does not challenge the premise that usefulness is a good standard). (Yeah, the essay could probably use some cleanup.) --
xDanielx
^Talk 06:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shopping centre seems to be notable (Particually being 1 million sqft in size and in a tourist area_, but some work needs to be done to the article to improve it. As for the unsigned comments by DGG, it's consistantly been accepted that property owner sites are a perfect reliable source for base information on shopping malls which can be appropriatly referenced. This is because the information is used in their day to day business, must remain truthful to attract clients, and is generally speaking included as part of company annual reports and returns of assets. The only other source available is the directories published by the countries BOMA affiliates, who generally have to source this information from the centres anyway. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And with a few clicks of the mouse and some magic, we now have a well-structured stub article just crying out for someone with BOMA, Factiva or LexisNexis access to do some additional research on the centre and improve it's history and development sections. Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks a little better now, perfectly serviceable stub. I think we should just let this run its course -- obvious consensus for now is "keep". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you got those otters under control. :) Thanks for being willing to withdraw your nomination, and thanks to those who improved the article. --
xDanielx
^Talk 04:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources exist to prove notability. Rebecca 03:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A super-regional mall has generally been found to be notable in previous AFDs. Still could use independent references to show its importance. Edison 20:37, 6 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. While a merge can be an outcome of an AfD, deletion is the primary use. AfD should not be used to discuss an article where deletion is not a possibility. A talk page discussion with a link on WP:PM will suffice. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Explorer 7[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article is mostly comprised of the same information as the Internet Explorer article and related articles. Themodernizer 20:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Perfectly valid, well-sourced article, contains more than enough valid info to stand on its own. Nominator's rationale does not call for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep. Perfectly valid article, compliant with WP:N. No policies support this articles deletion. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 20:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. What the...? --Targeman 20:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to WP:AFD: Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus. The page is then either kept, merged and/or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, or another language's Wikipedia, and then redirected or deleted—please note that it cannot be transwikied to Wikitravel or Wikinews), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. Therefore, a merge is a valid result of this nomination. Moreover, according to WP:MM: There are several good reasons to merge a page: Duplicate - There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope. Therefore, duplicate information is a valid reason for a merge. Themodernizer 20:38, 2 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. --Core desat 05:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signal Hill Mall[edit]

Non-notable mall in North Carolina. Sub-stub class and has never been improved. Mall doesn't even seem to have a website so I doubt that it's notable in any way. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That mall is in my hometown. It's completely non-notable and would probably fit better as a small, small mention in the Statesville article. 345th 20:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as seemingly unverifiable.Ga rr ie 04:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After doing a bit of research on the centre, I concur that the mall does not seem notable at all and can't find anything to demonstrate it's notability. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:45, 3 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. --Core desat 05:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honeygo Village Center[edit]

Non-notable strip mall. I doubt it could ever be notable, given that its largest tenants are a supermarket and a Blockbuster. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On reading more about the centre, it sounds like a small local shopping centre within a community development. Can't find anything to demonstrate notability of the centre. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability. --Moonriddengirl 15:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neighborhood shopping center with 158,000 sq ft of retail space. Edison 20:28, 6 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. --Core desat 05:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saige Thompson[edit]

Non-notable actress. 10 roles in 3 years, including one TV series that lasted only 5 episodes. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, etc. Valrith 19:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: guest starred in ER and Coldcase. Also part of the main cast for a tv series. Mathmo ^Talk 22:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this actress is plenty notable and currently active in the industry. --Evb-wiki 22:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reasoning above. --xDanielx^Talk 22:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. NSR77 ^T_C 23:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was the one who objected to the proposed deletion. She has already had enough roles to be notable, plus she is still active.--Svetovid 09:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What are the keep voters basing their opinions on? The article is a very-stubby-stub which does nothing to establish the notability of the subject. If her various roles were in some way prominent in the various series mentioned, then the article needs to say so. Also, to keep we'd need at least one reliable source. Everybody has an imdb page, and a I can't work out in what way an internet bio of George Clooney establishes the notability of Saige Thompson. AndyJones 12:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the previously inserted wrong link.--Svetovid 18:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable for above reasons. No good reason to delete it that I can see. --Belovedfreak 16:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't understand? What "above reasons"? I don't see anything in the article or any of the keep votes above that establishes the notability of this actress. As I've said above, if the parts she has played are significant or prominent then the article needs to say so before notability is asserted, and at least one reliable source must be provided before notability is established. Being "in" a TV show doesn't by itself make you notable: for all any reader can tell she played "teenager standing in background" or something. AndyJones 16:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - actor has had a cast role in a TV series. One could argue the TV series was also non-notable, but it did receive press coverage so meetsWP:BIO for me. -- Whpq 19:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You're asserting knowledge that isn't in the article. What press coverage? What reliable source do you have that isn't in the article? If you want this kept, please add your source to the article. AndyJones 09:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - According to WP:BIO, an actor with a significant role in a notable production would pass. As part of the regular cast of a TV show, she meets the element of having a significant role. The show itself was covered in the media, for example this USA Today article so I would say that there is notability to the show meeting the condition of notable production. -- Whpq 16:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and per AndyJones. No sources, no assertions of notability, not a sliver of a shred of a breath of a hint of any impact on the world nor of anyone or anything saying anything at all. WP is not a directory of minor actors, nor is it IMDB Lite. --Calton | Talk 03:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above. TruthCrusader 09:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion by TruthCrusader, Whpg, et al. An awful article, but it can be rescued. Bearian 16:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added TV Guide. This can be fixed per WP:HEY. Bearian 16:26, 6 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. --Core desat 05:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercer Island Rodeo[edit]

Staggeringly non-notable improv comedy group in Ireland. Yields 57 hits in the Google Test. It claims to have won and ISDA award, which would mean something, except that ISDA stands for the Irish Student Drama Association. Consequentially 19:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom. --xDanielx^Talk 22:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't believe student awards satisfy notability guidelines. --Moonriddengirl 15:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources. ISDA doesn't appear to be a significant award. -- Whpq 19:29, 4 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 World War I per nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War to end all wars[edit]

~~It is basically just a term used to describe World War I. No valuable information to keep, all that is necessary is to add the term to the WWI article.~~ See !vote below. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 19:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to World War I Iain99 20:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what is mergeable and redirect to World War I. --Targeman 20:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Iain99 and Targeman. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 20:39, 2 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, therefore article kept. -- Visviva 15:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuberculosis in history and art[edit]

Half Category:Deaths by tuberculosis, and half the trivial equivalent. Best served by the existing category, and not this long, rambling directory. Eyrian 19:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a painful failure of WP:N. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 19:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Cough* delete *cough*. This is just a list of famous people who died of tuberculosis. There is nothing here that discusses the influence of the disease on history or art. Should we have Diarrhea in history because it killed Thomas Jefferson? --Targeman 20:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - again, I'm sure an article on TB would be huge and have subarticles - many notable people have succumbed - similar to the issue wih lion/pop cult stuff. (Sorry forgot sig). Clearly needs to be improved -still is this any less notable than a single Simpsons or Southpark episode? really?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Title made it seem legitimate but after skimming.....per nom. Bulldog123 22:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with Bulldog, I agree that this doesn't live up to the title. It's about famous people who died of TB, which might make a worthwhile article.

I like the idea of "Diarrhea in history" as an article.... Mandsford 01:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice; this is mostly redundant to List of tuberculosis victims. Tuberculosis in literature and art is a quite valid subject. Susan Sontag's Illness as Metaphor contains many thoughts on the subject for starters. This list is not all that helpful, though. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge part and retitle the rest - The list of historical people who had TB is redundant with List of tuberculosis victims, but this article is much better annotated than the list article. Merging that part of the article into List of tuberculosis victims would improve the list article. Retitle the remainder of the article to Tuberculosis in literature and art. As Smerdis of Tlön states, tuberculosis (usually called "consumption") in literature and art is a very valid subject. The "art" part of the article is currently a glorified list, but it's a valid start towards a worthwhile article. --orlady 02:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clean from the crap and rename. Keep serious and valuable items like the works of Dostoyevski. Pavel Vozenilek 23:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and fix per Smerdis, Pavel Vozenilek, and Orlady. The best can be kept. Bearian 16:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. Start with the most notable best known stuff, of course, but see what can be found for the rest also. I think the skeptics will be surprised. DGG (talk) 02:31, 8 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. --Core desat 05:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Burke[edit]

Non-notable Canadian politician. She's a town councilor in Arkham, Ontario, and draws 158 hits on the Google test -- half as many as I do. Consensus for local politicians is that they have to have done something individually notable, local-officeholding by itself is not a qualification for inclusion Consequentially 19:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's Markham, Ontario, but delete anyway as nn. Clarityfiend 05:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC

Oops. So it is! Sorry 'bout that. Consequentially 05:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because even if she is notable, the article gives no reason why we should think so, nor any sources. Lordrosemount 23:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - municipal councilors are generally not notable. There does not appear to be any press coverage that raises her above the average local politican. -- Whpq 20:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — TKD::Talk 03:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Consuelo[edit]

Non-notable performer. No sources provided in over a year. Fails all criteria for inclusion (WP:MUSIC, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, WP:BIO). Valrith 18:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Forceful argument, Valrith. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 19:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourceful argument?!?! More like flawed argument, Valrith says there has been no sources given in over a year... yet the article has not yet even existed for a single year! Also there have not been zero sources supplied over that time, ones have been added. Mathmo ^Talk 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has magazine article and discography. More than good enough for a stub. Mathmo ^Talk 23:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Don't remove ((Uncategorized)) tags from uncategorized articles such as this, and don't add Amazon links. I'll assume it was good faith error of yours to attempt to add a source, but Amazon are not used as a reliable source. Crazysuit 02:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for not leaping to unfair conclusions, and instead assuming good faith (makes a nice change from what I've been seeing recently....). I did indeed edit the article with good intentions, the article was already categorised (Brazilian music group stub). Thus it made perfect sense to remove an incorrect tag. Mathmo ^Talk 02:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough. --Beloved freak 16:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC. The discography consists of nothing more than a single song featured on a 36 track compilation album. One article published on an online magazine in no way meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Victoriagirl 07:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with thanks to Whpq for the good work. Discography more than meets WP:MUSIC. Victoriagirl 06:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article does need improvement and better sourcing but singer appears to date back to 1966. Discography as listed here indicates a rather large body of work and on the Warner music label meeting WP:MUSIC for criterion 5. -- Whpq 20:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because it's a stub doesn't mean it's not notable. 5 seconds on Google: [17] Wl219 05:13, 5 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. --Core desat 05:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wayland Smith in popular culture[edit]

Trivia collection, often with entries that use only the name. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE and WP:NOT#IINFO. Users worried about the main article should know that I watch it and will keep it clean. Eyrian 18:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Casperonline 20:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - directory of loosely associated items combined with original research. "The character Waylon Smithers from the TV show The Simpsons may be named after the mythical figure." OR. "Weyland Smith is mentioned in Neil Gaiman's novel Stardust." Who cares? Get rid of it. Otto4711 21:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and mini-merge Mostly trivia and unsourced.--JForget 01:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This figure is monumentally important as an archetype that has affected literature for the last thousand years. The article may need some work but should not be deleted. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; no notability asserted nor sourced. Carlossuarez46 20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the editor was aware that this goes against policy, but does not defend himself here. (Of course a reference inside an article about for instance Waylon Smithers is very interesting.) /Pieter Kuiper 16:32, 6 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—users have shown that the article has potential and does not take the form of an indiscriminate list. The article is also already sourced, which is a solid start. — Deckill er 14:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian mythology in popular culture[edit]

Trivia collection, avoiding any of the serious issues concerning modern understanding of culturally-different mythology. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE and WP:NOT#IINFO. Eyrian 18:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep since when is serious consideration a requirement for Wikipedia articles? If so, about 3/4 of the site could go. Adequate and appropriate information for the article. Notable subject, ad the material demonstrates. Almost all could well be sourced. DGG (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eyrian seems to have picked the worst of the worst for this day's nominations. Usually, a lot of debate, but this one isn't really about Egyption mythology at all. I mean, it starts with "The Mummy", adds some stuff about cats named Isis, maybe an ankh or a scarab here or there. I don't think an article about references to Egyptian mythology would need to be as serious as nominator suggests, but this one is at the opposite end of the spectrum with dull trivia. Mandsford 12:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only the mummy part and rename I am not sure that mummies are Egyptian mythology and more than inhumations are part of American mythology. And at the risk of judging a book by its cover, there seems to be at least one book I found on Amazon likely discussing the pop culture aspect of mummies: The Mummy's Curse: Mummymania in the English-speaking World by Jasmine Day. Carlossuarez46 20:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike most "in popular culture" articles, this one shows promise. Is it perfect the way it is now? No. Is the subject of enough interest to be worth expanding into a high-quality article? Most certainly. spazure (contribs) 09:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one is not a mere list of examples, as if that were grounds to delete anything, and has many possibilities for expansion. There is in fact an extensive literature on the Victorian reception of Egyptian mythology and themes, Egyptian motifs in decorating, Egyptianizing influence over the Shriners and other Masonic organizations, in Theosophy, in latter day Rosicrucian orders, and so forth. Egyptian themes fill early 20th century pulp fiction; Tennessee Williams's first short story was a pulp styled tale, The Vengeance of Nitocris. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has been renamed to Egyptian influence in architecture and visual arts, and, thanks to User:DGG is now moving towards an article that obeys policies. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 22:02, 8 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 userfiy to User:AndyJones userspace and delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marduk in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Trivia collection, often consisting of name-only references. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE and WP:NOT#IINFO. Users worried about the main article should know that I watch it and will keep it clean. Eyrian 18:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Casperonline 20:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and repurpose (i.e., keep) as List of entities named Marduk. This is a set index article, which has a purpose similar to (but not identical to) a disambuation page. It is a supplement to the Marduk article that fills a specific, encyclopedic role and that is maintainable, verifiable, and non-arbitrary in its scope. Incidentally, WP:FIVE is a summary of policies -- you should limit yourself to citing the actual policies that support the nomination.--Father Goose 20:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The five pillars describe Wikipedia's fundamental principles. They are more important than policy. --Eyrian 21:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And it includes words that imply the existence of policies that don't actually exist. You can't use it it as a back door to support claims which are not held up elsewhere. "Delete per fundamental principles" is too open-ended to have any weight.--Father Goose 21:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, removing something because it goes against the core principles of Wikipedia, is unacceptable because it doesn't cite policy? This is Wikilawyering at its worst. --Eyrian 21:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Specify the actual principle. Otherwise it's like saying "the Bible says so". This isn't a case of Wikilawyering.--Father Goose 21:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a trivia collection", from the first pillar. --Eyrian 21:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

So where is that principle stated, other than on WP:FIVE?--Father Goose 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More importantly, what is a "trivia collection", beyond "this article I'm deleting right now"? One could say that "Wikipedia is not a place for crap" is a fundamental principle, and I'd agree with it -- heck, I even agree that Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. But if you said "Delete. Crap." you'd be expressing an opinion, and I might even agree with it, depending on the article in question. But saying "per WP:CRAP" just translates back into WP:IDONTLIKEIT. One line inserted into one page -- no matter how much holy water you sprinkle on that page -- doesn't really amount to blanket support for your opinion.--Father Goose 23:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) Let me return to an actual fundamental principle: why is Wikipedia better without this page than with it?--Father Goose 23:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not encyclopedic. Why is Wikipedia better without a directory of phone numbers? Or recipes for various dishes? Because that's not what Wikipedia is about. --Eyrian 23:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not a good enough answer. It's a good question, and that if that is the best answer you've got, you've lost the argument. (and I don't think it is true that it isn't "encyclopedic" anyway). ElectricRay 23:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not functioning as a useful disambiguation page or as a quasi-sub-disambiguation page. None of the appearances of the word "Marduk" mentioned in this trivia list are likely to spawn articles, and if any do spawn articles then they can be added to Marduk (disambiguation). Otto4711 00:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 20:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the lesser of two evils. I created this page especially to keep trivia out of the main article about Marduk. I wholeheartedly agree that it's a totally stupid, worthless and pointless page, and on literal application of the policy ought perhaps to be deleted. But it keeps this stupid, worthless and pointless material out of the actual article, and deters people from adding more - since there is a link through to this page, where they can add trivia to their hearts' content. To make an omelette you have to break some eggs: this is one I think we should prepared to break, in the name of the greater quality of the omelette. I don't think this compromises the quality of Wikipedia in anyway, and to the contrary acts like a sort of appendix - putting rubbish stuff out of the way of real information. Who cares what gets posted in Marduk in popular culture? Think of it like a sandbox. It's only a problem if you make it a problem. You see a problem: I see a solution. ElectricRay 21:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I created this page, it has been edited over 100 times. It is keeping some people, who care about trivia, happy. LET THEM BE HAPPY. Otherwise they are going to be happy all over the main article about Marduk. Eyrian I know you're on an anti-trivia crusade, but don't win the battle in spite of the war - you need to be less committed to unfilinching application of policies, and more lateral thinking. Think of this as a wall erected so people can grafitti on it, and so they don't feel inclined to grafitti somewhere more important. ElectricRay 21:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But people are more likely to put up graffiti if there's an article that says "Graffiti goes here" than if it's aggressively removed. --Eyrian 22:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that's utterly false. But even if it's true, isn't the better thing to put up the wall, let them have their fun, and you don't need to get on your high horse and "aggressively remove" anything? Life's too short to be on a constant school patrol. You might enjoy it I guess, but, honestly, smell the flowers!ElectricRay 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Marduk graffiti" has long been put on the Marduk page, so the existence of an entities named Marduk page can't be claimed to cause the behavior. I don't understand why having a page with verifiable, non-problematic content is so intolerable.--Father Goose 00:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, I think it's a shame some editors believe it's justifiable to create Wikipedia articles just to act as a "sandbox". They are only adding to the problem by encouraging it. Crazysuit 01:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sandbox" is an unfortunate, and inaccurate, characterization. I don't advocate the retention of actual "sandbox" articles. But maintainable, non-arbitrary articles? They're fine.--Father Goose 02:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. HOw unfortunate that it doesn't apply here. --Calton | Talk 01:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hello, another useless and random collection of factoids, documenting where a bunch of unrelated writers drop in cheap pseudo-mythical references to prop up their stories. Whoop-de-do. --Calton | Talk 01:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I gather you think that mythological references indicate nothing much--this is a private value judgement of your own. I think that's what adds to the culture density and significance of games. The makers of the games certainly seem to agree with me, as do the players. DGG (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - List of trivial mentions like this = loosely assosiated topics Corpx 20:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AndyJones. Mathmo ^Talk 23:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further elaborating: I feel that it is important to keep popular culture articles because they inherently demonstrate the notability of the parent article while at the same time keeping the parent article more streamlined. Mathmo ^Talk 22:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This reasoning is completely flawed and against Wikipedia policy, please read User:Eyrian/IPC#The number of entries in the list proves notability in popular culture. --Eyrian 15:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I see another vague copy and paste reason for deletion.... oh well, nevermind. Mathmo ^Talk 22:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge—shows no notability as a whole, and in its current state is just a list of trivia. I support User:AndyJones' userfy request, and highly recommend it. — Deckill er 14:45, 9 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, not userfying. --Core desat 05:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hermes in popular culture[edit]

Trivia collection, consisting of straightforward, trivial usage of the appropriate myths. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE and WP:NOT#IINFO. Users worried about the main article should know that I watch it and will keep it clean. Eyrian 18:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Simply an indiscriminate collection of information, mixing incidental references to Hermes with more significant uses of the figure, and making no attempt to provide analysis or to place its contents in the context of reception of classical mythology more generally. However, some of the works mentioned could be added to Category:Greco-Roman mythology in popular culture or subcats, and the most significant appearances of Hermes in post-classical art and literature could be discussed in the Hermes article. EALacey 19:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you indicate which ones you're talking about? I can't see any that are particularly relevant. Shakespeare is certainly important, but his use there is as mere allusion to a well-understood myth. --Eyrian 19:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment. The one that struck me as possibly noteworthy was the novel Quicksilver, with Hermes as the main character. However, it seems that this novel lacks a Wikipedia article, suggesting it probably isn't notable enough to mention in Hermes. And I see that the films mentioned are already in Category:Films based on Greco-Roman mythology. So, I think we should just delete this article without duplicating its contents elsewhere. EALacey 19:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of this article is on a short Wikibreak to deal with some real life issues, according to notes on his Talk page. I suggest that we give him a fair chance to voice his opinion, which might extend the time required to resolve this AfD. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Popular culture references are not in themselves at all an indiscriminate collection of information, so that argument as rationale for deleting is completely baseless. Could it use improvement? Sure, but then lots of articles can. If you don't think it's good right now, EDIT IT. This information can certainly be written in an encyclopedic way, and it's important enough information (though the trivia parts can be deleted) and needs some place in this project, and there's not a good way to keep it on the main article. We've been splitting these off into separate articles for years now. That's the Wikipedia way. We have a stream of people nominating any pop culture articles for deletion, and they should be warned to stop as a gross violation of the WP:POINT violation. (I am at my new location and have limited Internet connectivity, so saw this and came to vote.) DreamGuy 19:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this a violation of WP:POINT? Am I gaming the system? Making a practical parody? Lashing out after one of my articles was deleted? I have the good faith belief that all of the articles that I nominate should be deleted, and I think that this belief is supported by policy. --Eyrian 19:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Reception is an important aspect of the topic of classical mythology and should indeed be discussed, but cataloguing mentions of Hermes in manga subtitles etc. isn't the way to go about that, any more than cataloguing mentions of Hermes in Greek inscriptions would be a good way to produce an article on his worship in antiquity. If someone wishes to find reliable academic works on reception of Greek mythology and compose an article discussing their analyses, that would potentially make an excellent article, but I don't see how having this article here would facilitate that. EALacey 20:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply an indiscriminate collection of information. GlassFET 19:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all articles ending in "in popular culture", but since that won't happen... Articles like these tend to grow into oversize trivia pages, which are, by definition, an indiscriminate collection of information. Sean William @ 19:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA. Not much else to say. Bulldog123 22:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - directory of loosely associated trivial mentions. Otto4711 00:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure author wanted to call this Mercury in pop culture, rather than Hermes, but Mercury is too ambiguous. Sorry, but this is a list of people with wings on their feet, actors who landed the Hermes role in the Greek myth epic, etc. If it's reworked, then call it "Hermes/Mercury in popular culture", because most of us think of the fast guy as Mercury. Mandsford 01:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Most of us think of the fast guy as Mercury'...please avoid making such claims....please? Because even if we were to accept and/or dispute this claim, without a scientific poll, all our banter would be useless CaveatLector^Talk 03:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article. An article on the Classical Tradition is dying to be written though...maybe I'll do it someday. CaveatLector^Talk 03:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Calm down. What I meant (see source) was that most of us think of him as "Mercury" rather than "Hermes". ^[1]. Let me make another claim.... most people believe that "Hermes" is something you can get if you're not careful ^[2]. Mandsford 11:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. nn Carlossuarez46 20:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DreamGuy made the article as a place to dump the garbage from the Hermes article. He should be happy if it now gets deleted. Dicklyon 22:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because of policies: 1) 'WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information', 2) 'Wikipedia:Avoid_trivia_sections_in_articles', 3) 'WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory', 4) NOT 'Wikipedia:Five_pillars'. --Standardname 03:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 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. Accusing participants in an AFD of having a certain point of view is not a reason to keep an article. --Core desat 05:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moloch in popular culture[edit]

Trivia collection. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE and WP:NOT#IINFO. As a cultural phenomenon, the main article does an excellent job of containing scholarly commentary. Users worried about the main article should know that I watch it and will keep it clean. Eyrian 18:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep. Not because the page has any reasonable quality. I agree with the sentiments of the person seeking deletion. HOWEVER, if this article is deleted, the fancruft folk will want to put it in the main article -- which is where it originally was. But in the main article it detracts from the relatively good content that this there. I believe that deleting this fancruft page will cause a deterioration in the main article. So, I say keep it. --Blue Tie 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'd be glad to keep the article clean, as I now watch it. --Eyrian 23:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I note that the above keep is based on WP:BHTT#Better_here_than_there. Bigdaddy1981 00:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - directory of loosely associated items. A collection of every time the word "Moloch" appears in a comic book or video game is not an encyclopedia article. "People will want to add it to the main article" is not a valid criterion for keeping. Otto4711 00:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 20:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 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. --Core desat 05:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Watergate scandal in popular culture[edit]

Unacceptable trivia list, per WP:FIVE and WP:NOT#IINFO. The actual cultural impact is already covered in the main article. Eyrian 18:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete as an almost unmaintainable list of minor trivia. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Casperonline 20:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some of the elements and added sources please to the main article. It is a major history event in US politics and I think some elements can be transferred to the main article. Although an article looking like this (the IPC article) is not really acceptable.--JForget 01:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another good call. Mr.Z-man says it best... it's minor trivia. Mandsford 01:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I think at some point someone could write an article along the lines of how "-gate" entered our language as a synonym or suffix for scandal, with several linguistics references, but this is neither the germ of such an article nor encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 20:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andy Jones. Also, this seems notable in itself, with real cultural impact, and a 1st year college student (born in 1989) could use this article for research. Bearian 16:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete—as users have stated, the article in its current state is an indiscriminate list of fictional appearances; the article fails to show why the Triangle's popular culture references are notable as a whole, and no user has listed sources. Obviously, the article will be userfied per Andy's request. — Deckill er 14:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bermuda Triangle in popular culture[edit]

Unacceptable trivia collection, per WP:FIVE and WP:NOT#IINFO. Since the Triangle is fundamentally a cultural phenomenon, the main article already possesses all the scholarly and citable analysis. What is left is what we have here: detritus --Eyrian 18:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete as trivia. Useight 18:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Casperonline 20:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it because the main was getting long, with countless asides, "This rock band recorded a song with the Triangle as a theme" type of additions. Glancing at the original, it seems not so important anymore. So it's not that big a deal with me. dino 19:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reformatted this comment to remove it from the TOC. Otto4711 21:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely pointless, utterly un-article-worthy trivia. Bulldog123 22:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The only one of Eyrian's nominations I've disagreed with so far. This article is well written, and let's face it, the Bermuda Triangle is pure folklore. Yes, there have been lots of real incidents, and the B.T. is the "explanation" conceived by one fiction writer after another, a set of unsolved mysteries open to all types of interpretations. As long as it can keep out the references to things called "Bermuda Triangle", it can remain a good article. Mandsford 01:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot has been written about The Bermuda Triangle and it should be discussed there, because other than the geographical coordinates it is the synthesis of various events by pop culture writers that gives any notability to the concept. Carlossuarez46 21:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unacceptable synthesis of trivia from primary sources. Cool Hand Luke 03:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford. Needs proper sourcing, but is notable as a folkloric topic. Bearian 16:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia does not belong in an encyclopedia article. It never should have existed long enough to overtake the bermuda triangle article. --Bachrach44 21:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same kind of reasons the other nomination should be kept: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loch Ness Monster and popular culture. Mathmo ^Talk 22:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ctrl-v. NearestAvailableNewt 21:17, 8 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 - unanimous decision after references were provided. Non admin closure --L-- 12:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sajeeb Wazed[edit]

His mother and grandfather seem to be his only claim to notability. On his own, he fails WP:BIO. Jauerback 18:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree. He has shown up talking about things, but there's no reason to believe he's actually done anything that would give notability. In addition, sources are very weak, except for BBC which is really just a passing mention. Recurring dreams managed to find some good diffs. Does seem notable now, so keep. I suppose this makes this a unanimous keep vote now then, would anyone be objected to closing it? --L-- 18:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Notability is not inherited. The article is also spammy (external link - the guy's blog). Both interwiki links are bogus. Very possibly a vanity/COI case here. --Targeman 19:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — the article has references from two different news organisations, with headlines and stories directly focussing on him. These are not trivial mentions, and the organisations seem like reliable, independent sources. If I'm correct on both counts, the guy is definitely notable — completely aside from questions of his ancestry and of his blog. Nyttend 19:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Nyttend. Most reliable sources are in another language, and the fact that he was part of Bangladesh's political maneuvers as an active participant surely provides notability. Recurring dreams 22:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I still have my doubts about his notability. He gave a couple of interviews as a famous person's son. He went to Harvard. Until now, no big deal. In my book, his only substantial claim to fame could be his 2007 global young leader award; however, if you look here, you'll notice this award is given to scores of people every year, and the overwhelming majority of them don't have Wikipedia entries. And the award has only been around for 3 years. --Targeman 22:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the early biographical detail that makes him notable (I don't disagree with your arguments regarding that). It's his involvement in Bangladeshi politics. Here's just some coverage from the Daily Star, the country's largest selling English language newspaper: [18], [19], [20], [21]. I'd be able to find ten times as many references if my Bengali was good enough. Recurring dreams 23:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I didn't take into account the obvious fact that there could be several different transcriptions of his name (Sajeeb/Sajib, Wazed/Wajed). Your sources are convincing and should be incorporated in the article, together with the alternative transcriptions. I hereby change my vote to keep. --Targeman 23:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per sources found by Recurring dreams which demonstrate notability. Davewild 07:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly notable figure, obviously groomed by AL as future prime minister of the country. Do note that there are also articles like Chelsea Clinton. --Soman 08:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable figure, article needs expansion however. Ozgod 03:58, 4 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. Carlossuarez46 21:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos[edit]

The topic would be better served by just a disambiguation page. As it is, the article is just a bit of etymology (that should probably be shunted to Wiktionary) and a few links to other pages. Given that "chaos" has been used in so many contexts and with so many meanings, it seems impossible to unify the subject without doing OR. Jordansc 17:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So just move it to the disambig. page with a redirect, preferably after some discussion on the talk page. Not really an AfD issue, since you're not saying the article should be deleted. I agree with your comments about its content, though; there's nothing there that isn't already covered in more detail in the appropriate sections on math, physics, etc. ◄Zahakiel ► 18:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I would think that Chaos falls under Core articles, it is definately notable enough to be kept. The body of the artcle should be about philosophy, symbols, concepts, etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zidel333 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 2 August 2007
Keep per Zidel333, but slap Wikify tags on it. --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page used to be a lot larger, but it seems someone was too overzealous in branching it out into sub-articles. I'm sure there's a few sections in the page history that can be salvaged. —Xezbeth 21:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no valid reason given for deletion. IPSOS (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous discussion, and Expand. -- KTC 04:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In support of Xezbeth. Xangel 15:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, contra nom. Bearian 16:45, 6 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. --Core desat 05:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manner (Online Etiquette)[edit]

This article is Unsourced, violates WP:NEO and most of this is covered in Netiquette, and List of Internet slang phrases Gorky malorki 17:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure OR neologism. Can't help but notice it's got a pop culture sectstub just waiting to be filled. --Eyrian 18:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete OR, dicdef stretched beyond all recognition. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR and as per Gorkymalorki. -- KTC 04:18, 3 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. --Core desat 05:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preston NOISE Department[edit]

Non notable record label that fails to establish notabilty. All of it's roster are made up of Myspacecore bands, who again fail to establish their own notability. I'm pretty sure this has been speedily deleted in the past, but I can't find a link to it. Lugnuts 17:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - six Google hits are all that it gets, which strongly indicates that its projects are not notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources, and no indications any could be found -- Whpq 20:54, 4 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christiaan Richter[edit]

Delete if the red-linked award claimed is not a major one, given its red-link that's probably so, not notable per WP:MUSIC, also note that the primary author is User:CR music who by coincidence of name may have a WP:COI. There are about 150 ghits for "Christiaan Richter", mostly about a chemical engineer and nanotechnologist (if that's a word), but a few about this guy too. Carlossuarez46 17:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, If anyone bothers to look in other language Wikipedia the award is given with a article on the award and this person as the winner for two years.. I do not read Dutch, but do read a bit of french and he seams to be notable for the winning of those two awards. I attached the link of the article http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prinses_Christina_Concours Callelinea 18:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, this guy won a notable Dutch competition twice. I read Dutch and for what it's worth, the Dutch article is currently disputed for copyvio and self-promotion, but AFAIK this shouldn't influence us in any way. --Targeman 19:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violation of WP:AUTO. I don't speak Dutch but it's clear that this is a competition for teenagers. Sorry, but, just like we don't have articles on high-school athletes who aren't notable on a larger stage, winning a competition for kids doesn't meet the standard of WP:NOTABILITY, especially without any other evidence of notability. Darkspots 16:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a prestigious nationwide competition for musicians aged 12 to 19 (so it arguably includes adults). It is not open for "high school kids" but for potential young prodigies (think Vanessa-Mae, etc.) Richter was covered my national media [22], [23], so I don't think we have a notability issue here. --Targeman 16:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The key here is the word "potential." Vanessa-Mae had an impressive discography at this guy's age--if any notable recordings of Christiaan Richter's work exist, now's the time to put them in. Please see WP:CRYSTAL--we don't have articles about people who may become notable, only those who are notable now. Regarding your sources, are there any English-language ones? Why is it necessary for him to have an article on English Wikipedia if he only has things written about him in Dutch, and his only notability is winning a Dutch competition for young adults? Also, these sources are not feature-length, but merely report his name and the fact that he won the competition. WP:NOTABILITY specifically requires sources to be more significant than this kind of trivial mention. Darkspots 19:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Richter satisfies criterion #9 of WP:MUSIC and none of the others. In theory, this should be sufficient per WP policy, but I understand your point. I think you're right that keeping this article would be stretching policy a bit. Deleting the article until Richter gains more notability seems reasonable. (On a side note, I don't think deleting articles just because of a lack of sources in English is a good idea, but that's an other matter altogether). --Targeman 20:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, just so it's clear for the closing admin, you're changing your recommendation from keep to delete? Regarding your side note, I think you're right in general, but this might be an example of a biography that we'd delete and the Dutch Wikipedia would nevertheless keep. Darkspots 23:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, deleting this won't make me lose any sleep :-) --Targeman 23:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Richter won a Dutch national competition for students twice. At least the later prize was mentioned in the Dutch press, however it is still early to include him in our encyclopedia. There are so many students who win competitions and get mentioned in the press. Some of them later seek careers outside the music field. I prefer to wait a little for Richter's career to take shape. gidonb 09:45, 5 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmg records Inc[edit]

Fails to establish notability, non-notable label only seems to have success distributing music via iTunes. Lugnuts 17:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CORP. Notability is not established by multiple, nontrivial sources. In fact, no sources are cited. The article does not read like an encyclopedia entry, but instead like a marketing piece or advertisement. Complicating matters is WP:COI where the sole author is an employee for the label. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentMMG Records Inc is a NYC based record label selling albums in the 10th of thousands. There's a very high focus on the company, and being able to retrieve NEUTRAL info on it is of value for Wikipedia users. THe article is not meant as promotion, and I've shortened it down. However, it is interesting to observe how the user who placed the speedy deletion on the site have articles on completely unknown labels with completely unknown artist, but that the user properly like. Its also interesting, how its made neutral the talk about nontrivial sources may not exist, when in fact if active in our industry one would know about this company before many of the others listed in Wikipedia. As for sources, the 10 thousands of consumers of who some might want to know more through Wikipedia. I don't see how this serves as marketing and I especially do not see how it could NOT inform.(Oncewereviking 05:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- First of all, while it may not seem "fair", the argument WP:OTHERSTUFF is generally not a valid argument for inclusion during deletion debates. If we have other non-notable record labels, they clearly should be listed for deletion as well. The answer to articles that don't meet our guidelines for inclusion is not to add more articles that don't meet our guidelines. Also, have you read WP:CORP? You claim that "there's a very high focus on the company", but how is a wikipedia reader to verify that information without resorting to independent sources? Please, verifiability isn't simply an option, it is a policy. Where are the independent sources for this article which establish notability?-Andrew c ^[talk] 12:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But it's not encyclopedic, lacks notabilty and fails WP:CORP. So you honestly think that "10 thousands of consumers" would look here first, and not the label's website instead? That pretty much admits that it is an advert to promote a label to draw as much business to it as possible. I have no problem if it is notable, but you need to cite reliable sources to prove that it is. Plus there is the fact of you creating an article for a business you work for in the first place, but that's a whole other issue... Lugnuts 09:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Legnuts, we thought you were supposed to be neutral and non emotional. Feel free to delete the article a any time. Your knowledge on unknown Swedish actors (du er jo svensker) and unknown labels are still appreciated. Seriously.
"Legnuts, we thought you were supposed to be neutral and non emotional.". Nah. Lugnuts 16:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC

Exactly, and you failed to acknowledge iTunes as a distributor and Brandon Beals fame as an artist. By not considering that a source. This is what is really all about. Listen, I read some of all of the articles you created, appreciated and informative, but some where of completely unknown Swedish film people and never heard even for a Swedish person myself. Just be careful as active as you are in Wiki world, to steer straight and dont get beside yourself of how you define "encyclopedic", lognuts. You clearly demonstrates lack of knowledge with US labels, and you adjust you little world of definitions to that. (Oncewereviking 18:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment but at the end of the day, your article doesn't have any reliable sources. In the time you've typed that, you could of found some sources to back up the notability of your article. I guess they don't exist, because, shock horror, it's not a notable article. Lugnuts 20:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks reliable sources -- Whpq 21:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAs said and now repeated, no problem with deletion if article don't go by the ethics and guidelines for Wikipedia, the rules makes total sense. Wikipedia rocks. Only problem as addressed before is that iTunes is not considered a source. The statements by lagnuts "only seems to have success distributing music via iTunes" is what lingers through this entire discussion for my part at least. If a proper, neutral conversation is provided to me without "nah shock horror" words, to the point where why, without circumventing the matter with listings of rules, iTunes is not a decent source, then I'm fine with afd. Itunes is not a webpage we created.
Comment' Why dont you guys use the artice on MMG records that was in a UK Hip Hop magazine a couple of weeks ago?

It was a small mention but nevertheless establishes notability. PS I looked up MMG on Wikipedia after reading the article. BritBoy J

Keep - iTunes is a notable and reliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.91.249.142 (talk • contribs)

question - Britboy7, what article? I mean, what magazine? (Oncewereviking 17:50, 8 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, major WP:COI and WP:RS problems not addressed. --Core desat 05:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Pong Tour[edit]

Note to admins: This AfD has no consensus, as we have an editor who is possibly a spammer, violating WP:COI as he seemingly has an involvement with an agency which sponsors the tournament which is the subject of the article in question. Also, a suspected Sock has voiced xyr opinion. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 22:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--- The issue of deletion should be based on whether the article is WORTHY of inclusion in Wikipedia and if it is WRITTEN in a NEUTRAL point of view. 'World Pong Tour' is a company which is notable, cited with several 3rd party sources. In addition, the article is written in a NEUTRAL point of view. It is not being used as a promotion tool. The article is what wikipedia strives to accomplish: provide a collection of neutral information about a topic which would aid a researcher in an investigation of the subject. If you look at the beer pong article, World Pong Tour has been listed as a notable 'tournament/league' for some time now. Why is it notable? If it is notable does it not merit it's own article instead of paragraphs of extra information in the article about the game itself? MLB is not merged with baseball for the same reason. Edit World Pong Tour if you feel there are outstanding COI problems within its text, but to delete this article is just ridiculous.---

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Non-notable beer pong tour. Conflict of interest problems. The Evil Spartan 17:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article and merge useful info to beer pong. BEST.of.BUFFALO, I do not believe you are trustworthy, as you appear to be a spammer and one of the major COI problems surrounding this article. ~~Change to Weak Keep per the recent edits to the article by B.o.B.~~ change back to original support in favor of deletion. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 17:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Notability: A series of events covering a large geographical area with coverage by multiple media outlets would be considered 'notable' and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Merge? The beer pong article is already very cluttered. Notable tournaments/leagues (in the tournament/leagues section of beer pong should have their own articles with detailed information on WHY they are notable 'tournaments/leagues'. COI Problems: Please point out. The article gives history and information about rules and game play. It does not "promote", but simply gives a description of what the tour is. BEST.of.BUFFALO 14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI problems: Sponsors: World Pong Tour has developed relationships with many companies for both local and regional sponsorships. Regional sponsors currently include FYE, BJ's Beer Pong, Red Eye Breaks, and The Best of Buffalo Promotions. Interestingly, this is a promotinal agency, which you appear to represent, and you also appear to be writing an article on this pong tour. Hmm. The Evil Spartan 19:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI Problems: First of all, yours. All of your edits as of 14:15 UTC today are Beer Pong related subjects. You are !voting against deletion as an obvious fan of the subject of the article in question, which is extremely fancrufty. Perhaps this article should be stripped down and moved to a detailed list of Beer pong tourneys. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 20:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Non notable beer pong tour" Spartan u must be the biggest idiot on the face of this earth, probably the only notable beer pong tour in this country. this is a great entry, keep up the good work guys, don't let lowlifes like this try and keep you down. TMan007 — TMan007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wow, that's not assuming good faith at all. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 01:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And surprisingly, your only edit has been to this page. It is a little suspicious that your first edit is on an AfD discussion. Most people have their first edit in the mainspace. Anything to say? J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 01:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't happen to be a sock, would you? No accusations, just curious so I can report it. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 03:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I appreciate the support for the article, it looks like a sock. Not mine though. Feel free to report and check my I.P. on log-ins/edits. Back to business: I have edited the article, removing unnecessary elements under the 'Events' and 'Divas' sections. I believe those edits should remove COI problems. I, in good faith, feel that this article is appropriate for Wikipedia inclusion because a) It regards a 'notable' ongoing series of beer pong tournaments that cover a large geographical area and have received media attention in multiple cities b) There is enough information and history on World Pong Tour to merit its own article. Merging with the beer pong article would create too much clutter and unnecessary information which would take away from the original aim of the beer pong article.BEST.of.BUFFALO 04:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all of your edits to this afd have been anonymous, so I already have your IP. I have a checkuser open for TMan007, so I should be able to bag him. I'm pretty sure he's a sock. No one's first edit is to an XfD.

I have noticed your edits to the article. Well done! I have changed my argument to a weak keep. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 15:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient reliable sources. University papers don't quite cut it. -- Whpq 21:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Whpq. Lots of cites to college papers might help. Bearian 18:06, 6 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. --Core desat 05:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Hafner[edit]

Despite the claims, this WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY is not of a notable artist. Quite simply put, it fails WP:MUSIC. The Evil Spartan 17:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not imdb. Bigdaddy1981 17:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, even the imdb listing only shows a single contribution - to a short film. Bearian 20:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:AUTOBIO which fails notability. Carlosguitar 12:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I have copied the content to the user's page. Bearian 13:42, 6 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 nn corp and spam. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Innovadia[edit]

Non-notable organization, written with a conflict of interest The Evil Spartan 17:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant advertising. So tagged. EALacey 19:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. --Targeman 19:41, 2 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 Workforce planning. Sandstein 21:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skills gapping[edit]

Non-notable neologism that has already been transwikied. No references to demonstrate widespread usage, or going above and beyond a definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 17:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not to mention that the article is a freaking sentence long. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Workforce planning which is the concept that this buzzword refers to. -- Whpq 21:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Whpg. Bearian 16:56, 6 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 James Bond (films) as film does not meet requirements for WP:MOVIE (it has not yet entered the production phase). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bond 23[edit]

AfDs for this article:

An article at this title was already deleted because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bond 23; it has been reposted and a speedy requested as WP:CSD#G4. I however think this article is significantly different than the deleted one to justify a full discussion. In particular, some sources have been added. IMO, it is still crystalballery, but some people disagree. See talk page of the article for rationale. Tizio 16:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Bond franchise is somewhat different from your typical D-Hell film. It's all but certain to get made, many of the particulars are known well in advance, and it receives plenty of ongoing publicity. They really do start planning 23 while making 21. Yeah, WP:ILIKEIT, but I think this is the exception that proves the rule, the one that shows why it's just "almost always". --Dhartung | Talk 16:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've read both sources and they both consist of rumors and things that may happen someday so this article falls afoul of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Whispe ring 16:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful delete. By all means compliant with WP:N, however, see WP:CBALL, rule 1. It is OR and not compliant with WP:V. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 17:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Article has at least 2 reputable sources, production of Bond 23 has been confirmed previously. Details on Bond 22 were announced prior to production of Bond 21 (Casino Royale). If all it was was idle speculation I'd say it was premature, but with sources it does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. Previous AFD doesn't count because at that time such an article was premature. But if there is already reputable media coverage for Bond 23, then it is no longer premature to begin an article on this. 23skidoo 18:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The article isn't speculative at all, reporting only what has already been confirmed. The question is whether this is enough to justify an article—I'm not too sure on that, but there's little harm in keeping it since as the film gets closer to being made, the article will eventually be recreated anyway. 19:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Crystal balls are not always what they seem. There is existing speculation and discussion on this future bond movie. Even if it's never made, it's still valid speculation for something that may happen. Note what Crystal says. Unverifiable speculation. But [24][25][26][27] is all verifiable. Variety reported it. That makes it quite different from some random person writing about their ideas for a Bond movie. FrozenPurpleCube 22:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bond 22. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to merge somewhere, let's merge to James Bond (films) which is a more balanced location. FrozenPurpleCube 23:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. If it's to be merged, it has to go in James Bond (films). —Eickenberg 06:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The only way this film doesn't get made is if SPECTRE takes over the world. Clarityfiend 05:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not true. Its track record has been fairly strong, but even major franchises like Superman and Batman had to take a cinematic break. Additionally, this article is going to be stubby for a good while, so it should belong in a broader article until it can be spun off per WP:SS and WP:NF. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep As almost certain to take place and with some verified information in the article. Davewild 07:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Based on the comments below and after reviewing the relevant guideline changing to Merge to James Bond (films) until filming starts. Davewild 22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Production of Bond 23 has been confirmed, and the article has reliable sources to show this - • The Giant Puffin • 10:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What sources? All I see are rumors. Whispe ring 11:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)|[reply]

Um, there was an article in a little known newsmagazine known as Variety. Perhaps you've heard of it? FrozenPurpleCube 20:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's got a point, there are no rumours in this article. The problem appears to be that there is essentially Nothing in the article. And two fact tags as well. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the sources well atleast the Variety source anyway. From the article it's self: just now working with writers on the next Bond film for 2008, there's a 2010 date for the one after that. All of this advance planning doesn't necessarily translate into "ready to go." So there is no script yet, it hasn't even began filming yet. So the source falls afoul of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and therefore the article it's self. Whispe ring 11:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC

This source doesn't run afoul of crystal ball, since Variety is a reputable source and if this movie had already been released, it'd easily merit an article. The depth of the information may be low now, but that'll change. FrozenPurpleCube 17:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; see my arguments on the article's talk page. —Eickenberg 15:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per your response to Lenin and McCarthy, are you recommending for either keep or merge? There's a distinction. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

changed to merge below —Eickenberg 02:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has reliable sources. - Peregrine Fisher 17:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; In 2 or 3 years this article will have to be created with the updated info so why not keep it, I agree with what User:Dhartung said: The Bond franchise is somewhat different from your typical D-Hell film. It's all but certain to get made, many of the particulars are known well in advance Highfields 16:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all verifiable speculation to James Bond (films) in a Future section. Whether this film will enter production or not is not an argument to make here, and it unfortunately appears that this is the case. This article will be underdeveloped for a long time, considering that Bond 22 has not even entered production. Per notability guidelines for films, it is not appropriate to create articles about films until they enter production, and this film is far from being produced. If this article is kept (since AfDs are not the best way to go to address preliminary information about future films), I will be requesting for a merge discussion based on the arguments I've presented, but in a more detailed manner. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For similar implementation (to support above merge argument), see Jurassic Park IV, Spider-Man 4, Wolverine (film), Magneto (film), and X-Men 4. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bond23-article is in accordance with WP's notability guidelines for films, because—as the Variety article clearly states—production on Bond 23 has already begun. I quote: "That 2010 Bond pic exemplifies the latest trend. Many studios, with dates lined up for '09 and the year after that, have set marketing and merchandising plans in motion and have started talks with visual effects houses." In a way that's logical… as soon as you have a release date, you start working. —Eickenberg 02:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC) see below[reply]

The guideline says that it must be production of the film. If you take a look at filmmaking, this is the middle stage. Bond 23 is either in development or pre-production. It certainly has not begun production; Bond 22 has not begun production, either. Production of Bond 23 is still a long way off, so this article is going to be stubby for quite some time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Althoug the WP:NF are quite clear (start of principal photography), the reference to the filmmaking-article is still misleading, because the article is… well… old-school and wrong in its neat separation of filming stages. As the Variety article states, many modern films (like Bond 23) start the final marketing phase etc. as part of the development stage, which is only sound economic reasoning. Writing and shooting often go hand in hand. Some films don't even have a screenplay, some don't even have a shoot (e.g. Jarman's Blue). Production and post-production very often run parallel (e.g. the first XXX-film). Stanley Kubrick chose a young boy for the android-role for his A.I. and started shooting footage of him before the screenplay was written, over a decade before planned commencement of the primary shoot. On (partially) animated films and back-to-back films (e.g. BTTF, LOTR etc.) it's also a completely different cup of tea. Some footage for the 3rd film (not only 2nd unit) is often shot as part of the 2nd film's production phase etc., while they're still working on the screenplay. —Eickenberg 08:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there are expectations; I know a film like The Invasion (film) had to be re-shot. However, I think it's pretty clear here that Bond 23 is not going to start principal photography until after Bond 22 finishes its own shooting, and there's no telling that Bond 23 will begin right after the completion of Bond 22. After all, there's been some downtime between Casino Royale and Bond 22. The reason for the threshold of article creation at the start of principal photography is that until that point, it's still possible for production to halt, even with a writer, director, and even a cast attached. If you look at the production history of American Gangster or Speed Racer (film), this has happened. I think for any back-to-back films, information could possibly go into a film series article; discussion should take place about that. The WP:NF guideline isn't binding, but it should be followed unless exceptions can be provided. For example, I'm not in total agreement with merging Bond 22 because I recognize the franchise's strong track record. Bond 23, however, is still too far in the future for any real certainty and article development beyond a stub. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no viable reason to keep this article. The only real world content is Craig's salary, which can easily be stated on Bond 22. Nothing says this fill WILL get made, nor does it say anything about WHEN it will. It could be 5+ years before they get this out. There is no reason to have an article that will just be home to tons of OR and speculation and other vandalism. A studio saying "we're going to make a film" doesn't mean the film will get made. Warner Brothers said that for 20 years with Superman, and for half that long with Batman. Spider-Man had 20 years of "it's coming" before it finally got made. Talk is cheap, and doesn't negate CRYSTAL. There is no ironclad proof of when this film will get made, let alone released. No reason to jump the gun. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral, because we're not talking any film series here: we're talking the mother of all comeback routines. The biggest gap for a Bond film was six years. It could be merged to Bond 22, as James Bond (films) is a bit too broad in my view. Alientraveller 21:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge viable content to James Bond (films) as per Erik and Bignole's comments. The film notability guidelines specifically denote that no films are to have articles until shooting has been confirmed to have commenced, and all relevant content is to remain in the article about the source material until that point. The guideline is unambiguous, easy to implement, and requires no deletion of content, nor does it make any judgment in any respect as to the likelihood of the article eventually meeting the requirements. Please respect the guidelines - this was hammered out relatively recently, but with extensive discussion before, during, and after, and was announced in every normal venue to the Wikipedia community. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola 22:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then why hasn't the article about Bond 22 been deleted? If commencement of shooting is the requisite for an article creation, this would even be enough to make a speedy delete. Therefore I change my vote to Merge both Bond 22 and Bond 23 to James Bond (films). —Eickenberg 02:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, AfD is a poor course of action for addressing these film articles. The articles are usually based on at least some kind of valid announcement, so usually these announcements by Variety or The Hollywood Reporter should be mentioned on the article of the source material or the article of the director (see Neil Marshall). These articles should instead undergo WP:MERGE discussions to determine the placement of the content. A lot of articles are created far too soon and languish without development due to the projects not advancing beyond mere announcement or screenwriter hires. There are still other future film articles that need to be addressed, so this is a stepping stone. —Erik (talk • 8contrib) - 02:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, film is part of the obviously notable Bond series. Enough information has been released for it to deserve its own article. --musicpvm 09:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheshire Cat in popular culture[edit]

Trivia collection, consisting of brief and irrelevant references, without any kind of citation or analysis to be seen. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE ("Wikipedia is not a trivia collection") and WP:NOT#IINFO. Eyrian 16:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:FIVE as trivia. Useight 18:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Cheshire Cat... which, after all, was a player in a scene in Lewis Carroll's book. Keep for reasons listed by Slashme Mandsford 02:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? He just said better here than there. --Eyrian 13:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he said "don't merge" back into "there", and I agree with his reasoning; his lightning rod theory makes sense. Mandsford 18:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of the consensus against that idea? If you're concerned, I'll be glad to watch the main article and keep it clean. --Eyrian 18:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What consensus? You, me, Slashme and Carlos are the only guys in this one. Mandsford 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Eyrian is referring to a general consensus against trivia/pop culture articles. I don't know about that, as I haven't been following that discussion. I agree that the article as it stands is just a list of pop culture trivia, but I think it could be improved. I wouldn't mourn its loss, though. --Slashme 20:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or keep, Strong not merge This was split off the Cheshire Cat page for a reason. I agree that it is trivia, and I feel strongly that stuff like this should not be in the main article. If you keep the "pop culture" article, it can act as a lightning-rod to keep that stuff away, and if you delete it, you have to fight a running battle against the "Dragonball-Z episode 99323" cult of trivialists. But merging back into the main article would be really sad. --Slashme 08:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not Merge this crap into Cheshire Cat - the weight of trivia will eventually destroy the article - as it threatens to so many others. Bigdaddy1981 03:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no "general consensus against trivia/pop culture articles". Thank, you, Mandsford. Bearian 17:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:AndyJones. Mathmo ^Talk 23:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep somewhere so it can be improved. Nobody has shown why it cannot be improved, why the material cannot be sourced. DGG (talk) 03:26, 8 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 to delete. And I don't really see one to merge either... but that's harder to tell from an AFD. W.marsh 04:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bigfoot in popular culture[edit]

As bigfoot is solely a cultural phenomenon, the main article already possesses all the scholarly and citable analysis. What is left is what we have here: a trivia collection, consisting of minor references, common subjects, and one-off jokes. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE and WP:NOT#IINFO. Eyrian 16:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

*Comment I split off this ~~pile of old tut~~ list to help reduce the overlong Bigfoot article (as per WP:SIZE), and I don't give a stuff about its continued existence. Do as you will. Totnesmartin 16:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would have to disagree. Among this list are quire a few notable examples of how bigfoot has influenced or crossed over into independently notable pop-culture elements, making Bigfoots impact on popular culture notable in itself. I would also point out that precident is on the side of this entry. There are already many other similar entries, such as: Yeti in popular culture, Loch Ness Monster and popular culture, The Bermuda Triangle in popular culture, Extraterrestrial life in popular culture. I also vote to keep on the grounds that this information if valuable but detracts from serious discussion in the main bigfoot entry and so does not really belong there. - perfectblue 17:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good point about distracting from the serious discussion. Let me investigate that further. – Dreadstar † 21:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not important. If you wish, I will watch the Bigfoot article and prevent these entries from creeping back in there. --Eyrian 21:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I commend your willingless, but you've nominated far too many pop culture articles to carry out the job effectively for many of them. Besides, the Bigfoot article isn't going to die any time soon. --

xDanielx

^Talk 23:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please keep in mind that Better here than there, Notability is inherited, and Other stuff exists are not viable arguments during AFD discussion. Also, Yeti in popular culture and Loch Ness Monster and popular culture are also being considered for deletion. María (críticame) 18:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better there than here does not apply as I am arguing that it is a notable topic in itself, that argument only applies in cases where a fork is created between a notable topic and non-notable content that people try to exclude by forking off. Notability is inherited also does not apply as portrayals in popular culture can be notable in themselves. As for Other stuff exists, I'm afraid that I am not in consensus with this. It is just a personal opinion (which I a allowed to express here), but if president and consensus state that a related topic is viable, then it should be able to be used as an argument. - perfectblue 20:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind that the referenced articles are essays, not policies. To be frank, I don't find the opinions you referenced to be particularly persuasive either. For example, the only argument against BHTT is "information is no less trivial for being in its own article" - but the pro-BHTT argument typically has nothing to do with the quality of the material; rather it suggests that moving trivial content would help keep the main article clean and not bombard readers with material that they probably aren't interested in. --
xDanielx
^Talk 23:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are essays. And? This does not detract from the fact that they are still incredibly weak arguments. No one has been able to cite policy and/or guideline in order to support a keep !vote in an AFD discussion for any IPC articles, and for a good reason: nothing exists. María (críticame) 00:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no policy mandating that the article in question be kept, therefore the article should not be kept" is a non sequitur. There is no clear policy favoring either side of the debate, hence it is appropriate to examine the merits of the arguments presented. Perfectblue presented an argument for the preservation of the article, you attacked the argument by referencing an essay and concluding that perfectblue's argument was "not viable" for an AfD discussion, and I challenged the merits of the said essay. You seemingly grant (implicitly, at least) my response that the essay has no bearing on the weight of perfectblue's argument, and you have yet to give a reason for perfectblue's argument being "incredibly weak" as you claim it is. After all, what is there to weigh the argument again? Server space/bandwidth? Not very compelling, seeing as the cost of maintaining the article in the database for 10 years is roughly one tenth of a penny. --
xDanielx
^Talk 06:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have given my reasons for deletion, and bandwidth was not one of them. I cited policy. I would also like to point out that I did not "attack" Perfectblue's argument, but rather (correctly) stated that his reasons for keep are depreciated in most AFD discussions. There is no contesting this fact. María (críticame) 12:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The essays you sighted are open and can be modified by anyone, whether it's an administrator or an anonymous user, or whether it reflects consensus or not. They are no more official than any argument presented by you or me. I have pointed out why I think the section referenced doesn't apply to this discussion. --
xDanielx
^Talk 21:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The essays aren't being used as a reason to delete, they are being used to refute the arguments that have been made frequently but contain no merit. The reason for deletion is that the article is just a collection of loosely associated topics and fails WP:NOT#DIR, which is policy. No argument for keeping as been presented in the spirit of any policy or guideline. The only thing supporting the "keeps" is WP:BASH which says "Go ahead and make bad, meaningless arguments. No one can stop you." Jay32183 21:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, I think you're attacking a straw man. I understand that the essays referenced were in response to an argument for keep, rather than an argument for deletion; I don't think I said anything that would imply otherwise. In fact, I didn't cast a vote for keep - all I did was point out that the referenced essay fails to "refute the arguments that have been made frequently" and does not establish that they "contain no merit." I'd rather not get involved in a policy-based dispute when the sighted policy (]]WP:NOT#DIR]]) is so ambiguous, but frankly I think the comparison to "a list of loosely related topics" is rather shaky. In fact, five of the nine content-base sections in the questioned article are written in natural prose rather than list format. Some of the material (including many of the listed facts) is probably only loosely associated, but it's fairly obvious that much of the content is very closely related to the subject of Bigfoot - most of the Advertising section, the whole Conventions section, five movies which have "Bigfoot" in their titles, some of the novels, the "don't kill Bigfoot" law, "The Bigfoot Song," and a couple of the TV shows such as Bigfoot and Wildboy. Remember, as per WP:DP, "this article needs cleanup" does not equate to "this article should be deleted." --
xDanielx
^Talk 22:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced violation of WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Primary sources are not acceptable in IPC articles because they only prove the reference's existence and not its impact on PC. What is needed here (and which will probably be near impossible to find) are reliable, third-party sources. Without this, the references are irrelevant, indiscriminate, and trivial. Any noteworthy depictions (such as films that portray Bigfoot as a major character) can be merged back into the parent article. María (críticame) 18:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into Bigfoot. If some of the lists are reduced per WP:Lists in Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Lists, then article size wouldn't be an issue, and it would be a good addition to the main article. – Dreadstar † 21:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bigfoot. Though I take exception to the nominator's characterization that bigfoot is solely a cultural phenomenon. Bigfoot is REAL. - Crockspot 21:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge back - The bigfoot article has been dealing with size issues for a while now, and is currently very nicely sized at ~ 27K. Adding this stuff back in would once again bloat the main article. As for keeping or deleting the stuff, I'm in general "weak delete" for "popular culture" articles. So overall I'm weak "delete" and strong "no merge". - TexasAndroid 21:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The current size for Bigfoot is about 13kb, according to a calculation performed per Article size..just fyi..;). I do recommend reducing the current content of BFinPC quite a bit, though...if we're going to merge the two. – Dreadstar † 21:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get the 13K figure. Looking at the article's history, which for the last few months has listed exact sizes, shows the size of Bigfoot as 27,772 bytes, or around 27K, as I quoted. The size of Bigfoot in popular culture is 12,976 bytes, so maybe that's where you got the 13K figure. But put them back together and you are over 40K, which is over the recommended size of articles. And it's an increase that, IMHO, is for no good purpose. Either the material belongs on the project or it does not belong on the project. If it does not belong in it's own article, then IMHO it does not belong adding almost 50% more to the main bigfoot article. - TexasAndroid 22:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my calculations are quite correct. I provided a handy link to how I calculated the 13K figure, I'll post again for you: Article size - Readability issues, specifically this note: exact list. The size indicated by the article history includes content that is not counted when calculating article size for readable prose, which is the primary standard for size limitations now that browsers are technically able to handle much larger sizes than when we first came up with the 32kb size limit. For example, readable prose excludes External links, Further reading, References, Footnotes, See also, and etc. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to discuss on my talk page. – Dreadstar † 23:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bigfoot in popular culture sizes out at about 9K, so the combined total would be 22K. My concern would be the large number of lists, which should be significantly reduced if the article is kept or merged. – Dreadstar † 23:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I see the problem. You are arguing the "readability issues" section, I am arguing the "technical issues" section. Both are there, both have their places. And both our numbers are right for the sections we are arguing. It still remains that above 32K is not great from a technical issues standpoint, and while the "Article Size" article says not to rush to split at 32K, that is still the threshold it talks about. And in this case we are not rushing to split, we already have them nicely split. And IMHO I still have seen no good reasons presented why they should be merged as a way to prevent the data from being deleted. As I said earlier, either the data is worth having on the project, in which case it should be fine as a separate article, or it's not worth having, in which case it should be removed from the project. - TexasAndroid 01:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're arguing the very same thing: article size. The technical reasons for the 32k limit are no longer binding. Only the main body prose should be counted toward an article's total size. I don't mean to press this issue, but I think it needs to be clear. Check out the thumb rule too.– Dreadstar † 02:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as both the people who want them in the article and those who want them separate agree that there is content worth keeping, then the merge is an editing qurestion. DGG (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because others have said keep? Nice. --Eyrian 00:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge the sourced parts to Bigfoot to eliminate the listcruft.--JForget 01:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know, I've seen variations on the concept that "the main article already possesses all the scholarly and citable analysis". As with Bermuda Triangle, the main article looks at claims and skepticism from people debating whether Bigfoot is real. In popular culture, I think it's well established that Bigfoot is not scary, but rather a fun, big dumb character that can be portrayed in many different ways. Trying to do a scholarly analysis of Bigfoot is like trying to do a scholarly analysis of talking dogs. Mandsford 02:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge it back. This information is mostly bulked up and could easily be merged back into the original article if cut down and cleaned up. I see no need to make this article seperate from the main one. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 05:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG MERGE A strong merge with the Main 'Big foot' article after shortening the article.Sauron 16:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like the Bermuda Triangle, the article should cover the pop culture aspect because that's all there is to it. Carlossuarez46 21:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have removed the more loosely related trivia references from the article in question. Needing cleanup is not a reason for deletion, but it seems to have been the source of many complaints in this AfD nonetheless. My quick cleanup may not have been entirely comprehensive, and I left many borderline references intact, but I think the improvement is significant. Please do a little research before claiming that the large majority of the references are only loosely related; some sections did contain many loose references, but there are many very close references as well. Again, it was a quick job and I avoided the references that seemed borderline, but it should do for now. --
xDanielx
^Talk 23:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after reviewing the material within the article, it seems clear that the subject is highly notable, and that the commonly sighted WP:NOT#DIR RfD doesn't apply as it might with other popular culture articles. I don't see anything in WP:NOT#INFO that relates to the article in question. Notability is clear, and I see no clear reason for deletion. --
xDanielx
^Talk 23:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#DIR still applies. The article is still a collection of loosely associated topics. It is not a problem that can be fixed. Also, the notability of "Bigfoot in popular culture" has not been established. Most of the sources are from IMDb. The fact that WP:NOT#DIR is cited frequently is because there is a severe problem with many Wikipedia articles, all of which should be deleted eventually. Also, you are completely incorrect in your above statement that WP:BTHH and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS were not being used correctly. The "keep" being refuted said "there are other articles like this one" and "this information is important but detracts from the main article". Jay32183 23:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How are the topics listed loosely associated? Again, I may not have done a perfect job, but the most of the listed items are cultural references that are very closely related to the topic of Bigfoot. A TV show in which Bigfoot makes a one-time appearance does not constitute a close relationship, but a movie centered around the subject of Bigfoot does. The vast majority of the article falls into the latter category, and if there are a few items that fall into the former then they can be removed. I do not see how one can reasonably say that an assortment of movies, books, etc. which all revolve around the subject of Bigfoot can be "loosely associated." --
    xDanielx
    ^Talk 00:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never said anything regarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so again you are attacking a straw man and not an argument I made. I also did not say that WP:BHTT was used incorrectly (though perfectblue did; you can argue with ~~him~~ her if you must); I just pointed out that the only attack the essay makes against the BHTT argument is "the information is no less trivial for being in its own article." As I said, this does not actually refute the BHTT argument, which is not that "moving information makes it less trivial" but rather that "moving information (in certain cases) helps keep articles clean and avoids large clusters of loosely associated info"; therefore the essay's commentary on BHTT is an ignoratio elenchi and has no bearing on the merits of perfectblue's argument. --
    xDanielx
    ^Talk 00:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That should be "her", perfectblue is a she...;) – Dreadstar † 02:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, my mistake. --
        xDanielx
        ^Talk 04:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a collection of loosely associated topics, because the things listed are not associated with each other. Two TV shows about Bigfoot do not necessarily have anything to do with each other. An other stuff exists and a better here than there argument were made, they were refuted, and you started complaining about it, so it is not a straw man. perfectblue made the exact WP:BHTT argument. "I also vote to keep on the grounds that this information if valuable but detracts from serious discussion in the main bigfoot entry and so does not really belong there." That says "keep because this article keeps that article in a better condition" which is exactly what WP:BHTT says not to do. You haven't presented a sound argument, you're just throwing out "fancy" words and phrases to make it look like you have. perfectblue's argument has no merit, neither does yours. Jay32183 01:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let's not pursue a debate that revolves around interpreting the word "associated" in a policy article. There's no wording committee, no minutia-focused review process, etc. -- the ambiguity is evident, and that's enough to say that a decision in this case should not be largely policy-based, especially considering the massive generalization and oversimplifications that policy articles have to make and keeping in mind WP:IGNORE. Again, I didn't say anything regarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so please don't fault me for "complaining about it." I only contested the WP:BHTT essay section, which clearly presents only a logical fallacy (as explained previously) and so should not be considered. --
        xDanielx
        ^Talk 02:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The only logical fallacy is in your head. We do not keep articles to use as content filters. Also, the only way you can claim these items are not loosely associated is to claim that the entire article is original research. Both result in deletion, so there's no point in making that argument. Jay32183 02:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What are "content filters"? Why must an article that is not a list of loosely associated topics be original research? Does this mean we should delete all articles on Wikipedia? Please, let's just drop it - this is headed nowhere other than WP:POINT. Let's be WP:COOL and WP:CIV. --
        xDanielx
        ^Talk 03:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't use the "you're a jerk" defense. You do not understand what is going on here. This article was forked because the content was not appropriate for the main article. The problem with that is that the content should be deleted not forked. Also, we are only talking about this article. I'm claiming this is a collection of loosely associated topics. Your problem with that has been the "loosely associated" part, but you know that Wikipedia policy is against that. Therefore, you must be claiming that this is a collection of closely associated topics. It is original research to claim that two works of fiction are closely associated simply because they both involve Bigfoot. You said "moving information (in certain cases) helps keep articles clean and avoids large clusters of loosely associated info". That is what I mean by content filters. We do not make one article to keep information out of another article. When you make a split for summary style it is because you wanted all of the content in the article, but there was just too much. If you want content out of the article to keep it clean you don't give it its own article, you delete it. You must not understand WP:POINT. I am allowed to present an argument to prove a point. I am not allowed to disrupt Wikipedia processes to prove a point. Jay32183 03:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No original research does not mean that we're not allowed to think for ourselves. Your logic leads to infinite regression - by your logic a source would be required to verify a factual statement like "Bush is the president," and then another source would be required to verify that "Bush being the president is notable," and then more sources to verify that those sources are reliable ones, and then additional sources to verify those sources, and so on. So we would eventually be forced to delete every article in the database. It's an extreme example, yes - but I don't think my implicit claim that, say, "the movie titled Bigfoot is relevant to an article about Bigfoot" is particularly contentious either. Even this AfD topic requires that we exercise our own judgment, since there isn't a Lexis article which tells us whether to delete or keep. Again, I never advocated the BHTT argument (though I don't find your refutation persuasive, since you assert what we should do without giving reason for why we should do it); I only defended it from an essay-based refutation that I think has no logical substance. --
        xDanielx
        ^Talk 04:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without secondary sources providing an outline, this is simply original synthesis which reflects no more than the editors whims. Failing deletion, merge back into bigfoot, where most of it should be removed anyway, but I don't see much redeemable material here. Cool Hand Luke 03:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Luke, what sources are being synthesized? Synthesis in the context of WP:SYN means combining sourced material with original analysis (lots of good explanation and discussion here). Of course some minimalistic original analysis analysis is always necessary, like the fact that Bush is the president justifies writing "Bush is the president" in his Wikipedia article. If you think that some synthesis being done throughout the article is contentious, could you point it out? --xDanielx^Talk 06:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unsourced analysis is not allowed at all. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If some one else didn't already say it, then it has no business being on Wikipedia. Jay32183 15:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. As Jay points out, this isn't even quite synthesis because nothing is sourced at all. If it were sourced, it would be a trail of primary sources which we're compiling into a new list. Unless there really are secondary sources, we have no idea how to weight or edit this list. The result is an original synthesis. That's the fatal flaw here: no secondary sources to establish WP:N, or ensure against WP:OR. Cool Hand Luke 17:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - May I ask again what "unsourced analysis" you are referring to? What kind of contentious analysis is required to establish that movies, books, etc. with "Bigfoot" in their name, or which by common sense clearly have a high relevancy to Bigfoot, are related to Bigfoot? Or perhaps you are suggesting that labeling books, movies, etc. as cultural items constitutes original analysis? Do we really need a Lexis article to tell us that movies are cultural? --xDanielx^Talk 02:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The claim that the items on the list have a meaningful connection because of Bigfoot, as well as the claim the "Bigfoot in popular culture" is a notable phenomenon. There are no secondary sources, so if the article contains any analysis it fails WP:NOR. Also without secondary sources, the article fails WP:N no matter what it says. Jay32183 04:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        A link to the Internet Movie Database is a secondary source; it is secondary to the movie itself. I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to find secondary sources for the vast majority, if not all, of the cultural references--and WP:DP makes it clear that lack of sources isn't a reason for deletion unless serious efforts have been made to find such sources and those efforts failed.
        
        (Continued) Against your challenge that "items on the list have a meaningful connection because of Bigfoot," that is really outside the scope of WP:NOR. Note the choice of language - "original research," not "original thought." The WP:NOR article is geared primarily toward factual claims or contentious opinions. It is acceptable to say that a collection of books, movies, etc. on the subject on Bigfoot are meaningfully related. If that constituted unacceptable original research, then participating in an AfD debate would be blasphemy.
        
        (Continued) Your challenge to the claim that "the claim the 'Bigfoot in popular culture' is a notable phenomenon" is more reasonable in my opinion. It is a fair argument, but given the volume of books, movies, etc. (considerably notable items) specifically on the subject of Bigfoot, I think it is reasonable to assert notability. The assertion is essentially verifiable insofar as it's premised on all the secondary sources that are listed in the article. WP:SYNTH is unclear on this point, and really isn't meant to be applied to notability discussions.
        
        --xDanielx^Talk 07:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        First off, WP:NOR refers only to articles, not discussions. Also, actually read WP:NOR do not just look at the title. For the most part, IMDb does not meet WP:RS, and a secondary source repeating a primary source is the same as simply using a primary source. Lack of sources is absolutely a reason for deletion as it is the responsibility of those wishing to add or retain material to provide sources, as stated in WP:V. Stop trying to wikilawyer. Jay32183 18:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I am perfectly familiar with WP:NOR, and I don't recall suggesting that it applies to discussions. The Internet Movie Database seems perfectly reliable to me; it is a well-established source of information and I've never heard of concerns regarding the quality of its reports. The IMD does not "repeat" movies, or anything close to that. It summarizes and provides information commentary on the contents of movies; it does not repeat them. Hence it is a secondary source just as surely as the Harvard Law Review is a secondary source. WP:V does not say that articles presently lacking adequate sources should be deleted; it says that claims need to be verifiable. Verifiable, not verified. WP:DP explains the issue clearly - an article may be deleted if its existence is predicated on "[a]rticle information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources," or if "[a]ll attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed." By contrast, this is a case where it is extremely easy to find sources backing the large majority of the claims in the article; the article just hasn't had enough time to mature. There is zero evidence suggesting that unsuccessful attempts have been made to find sources for the article. Many of the claims are already adequately sourced, and the rest is just simple grunt work that needs doing. --xDanielx^Talk 07:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        IMDb is not a reliable source, any member can contribute. There are also two claims that cannot be backed up by any sources: The notability of "Bigfoot in popular culture" and the claimed relationship of the fictional works. It does not matter that all of the fictional works actually contain mentions or appearances of Bigfoot, no one was claiming that it was untrue. The problem is WP:NOT#DIR which this article fails in a way that cannot be fixed. BY the way, "presently" means "soon", not "now". The fancy word for "now" is "currently". If you think the article can be sourced, go get sources, saying they are out there is not good enough. The closing admin is not a verification service. Jay32183 18:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As far as I know, only user reviews are user-generated. WP:NOT#DIR is easily misinterpreted. Wikipedia is not a directory of random facts, but that does not mean that it cannot contain facts. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information, but that does not mean that it cannot contain information. "Presently" can be used synonomously with "currently" as well as "soon." — xDanielx^Talk 22:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Your argument doesn't mean anything to this article. No one claimed that the article should be deleted because it contains topics or information. The complaints are that the topics are loosely associated and the information is indiscriminate. Unless you get a source to show otherwise, which is very unlikely, you haven't a leg to stand on. Jay32183 02:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I've contested that same point too many times already. This debate is going nowhere; let the closing admin do as they will. — xDanielx^Talk 05:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I haven't been presenting the argument to the closing admin, you will be ignored by the closing admin for failing to present a valid argument. I'm trying to get you to understand why you are wrong. Jay32183 18:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs to be improved but bigfoot as a character in popular culture film, TV, books, etc. is a genuine part of the reality around us. Perhaps retitle to Bigfoot (stock character) or perhaps do like Vampire and retitle to Bigfoot fiction WAS 4.250 18:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I think this analogy shows why this article fails. Vampire fiction has several book-length treatments about the depiction of vampires in fiction. This article has not been shown to be anything more than a whimsical compilation of bigfoot cameos. Cool Hand Luke 19:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right that the article in question doesn't have the same literature backing that Vampire fiction does, but that doesn't mean that the article in question necessarily "fails." The implication is that it is less well-sourced, not insufficiently sourced. We can't use the best sourcing as a test for sufficient sourcing, otherwise there could only be one permissable content-based article on Wikipedia. --xDanielx^Talk 03:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent there is anything in this article that does not flunk WP:OR, merge with Bigfoot. THF 20:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no harm in it, it's interesting, and there are references. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article has been rewritten, it's no longer a terrible list of random stuff. There are one or two lists left in but overall I think it passes muster. It should still remain outside Bigfoot on size grounds, though. Totnesmartin 07:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like a good article to me, and theoretically keeps the main article from being overwhelmed of such references Stephenb (Talk) 07:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as the article itself says: "...has had a demonstrable impact as a cultural phenomenon". Mathmo ^Talk 22:48, 8 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 sources for the purchase. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satan dot com[edit]

Internet persona created on livejournal, the rights to which were purchased by Comedy Central, and never created into a series. Fails WP:N outside of livejournal circles (and therefore WP:WEB), unreferenced, no google news hits for purchase of site. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 16:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a news outlet. Bearian 17:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dot com dot org. Burntsauce 18:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, has a heavy claim to notability with "In 2004, Daniels sold the rights to the journal and the persona he had created to Comedy Central for $125,000, a record purchase price for an online journal at the time." Additionally you shouldn't rely only upon google news search to find sources. I'm going to take a good guess they do exist for those who really try to find them. (didn't make any attempt myself, so only a weak keep. But if they are later found.... think of this a strong keep instead). Mathmo ^Talk 21:54, 8 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. --Core desat 06:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cerberus in popular culture[edit]

Trivia, trivia, trivia. Straightforward, minor references to the mythological beast. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE and WP:NOT#IINFO. Eyrian 16:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The only reason for the creation of the article was to remove all the pop-culture cruft that was swamping the main Cerberus page. Unfortunately if this is deleted the same thing will just happen again. Not that I care if the article is deleted, its all alot of rubish anyway. --Theranos 18:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now watch Cerberus, and pledge to keep it clean. --Eyrian 18:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want Wikipedia to have any sort of respect from the scholarly community, or within education in general, do not argue for keeping articles on a 'better here than there' basis. Perhaps a somewhat stretched analogy? If a government decided to dump toxic, radioactive, cancer-inducing materials into the ocean rather than burying them in a public street, the logical person would not say 'better there than here'. They would say, 'Stop bloody well producing toxic waste!' So, stop bloody well producing fanservicey fluff. There are ways to make serious articles containing the about the influence certain things have had on popular culture. A list in which every fanboy and fangirl out there can throw in a sentence mentioning a reference inside whatever popular culture element strikes their fancy. If you care about the articles in question, police them! CaveatLector^Talk 03:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, again a non-notable alleged pop culture phenomenon. Carlossuarez46 21:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eyrian the Barbarian is right about this one; it's mostly a list of things named Cerberus (and what a cool name that is, unless you misread it and thought it was pronounced "Ce-REE-brus"). Indeed, one of the few mentions of the three-headed puppy is that Kevin Sorbo "once fought Cerberus" on the Hercules TV show. Mandsford 00:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, delete this trivia. --Tony Sidaway 00:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 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 08:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Stark[edit]

Subject does not meet guidelines for notability as listed in WP:BIO. 6thAvenue 16:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion- Claim of non-notability is absolutely untrue, though it's possible that the article needs to be modified to highlight notability better. Stark played a central role in the demise of the George Allen campaign in 2006, one of the biggest stories of the 2006 election. He has played prominent roles in other election stories as well. Highly notable; I will seek out reliable sources to demonstrate this. -Pete 18:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You say the claim of non-notability is "absolutely untrue," but I see no evidence to suggest otherwise. Saying that he played a "central role" in the demise of the Allen campaign is also unprovable, because there was no such "demise"--Allen lost to Webb in the slimmest of margins (49.59% for Webb, 49.20% for Allen [28]). But you are obviously welcome to try and find reliable sources to show otherwise. 6thAvenue 20:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patience, please! I have addd one citation so far, but will find more. Regarding the Allen/Webb campaign: Allen had been regarded as a shoo-in for re-election, and a potential front-runner for the '08 Presidential election. His political career is now essentially over. That is what I meant by demise; certainly the margin was slim, but that is not the only measure, especially in such a high-profile race.

I have no problem seeking out additional sources, as the article certainly needs some work. However, deletion on the grounds of notability is a non-starter. Here is the relevant guideline:

“

A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; however, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

The person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.2
- If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability.
- Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.3
- Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content.
The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography.
The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.
The person has demonstrable wide name recognition
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.4
Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products

”

Prior to your nomination, the article contained at least four, or perhaps six reliable secondary sources (depending what you count.) I have since added one more, and plan to add more. Can you please give an indication how may reliable sources would be required for you to accept that the subject is sufficiently notable to merit an article? -Pete 22:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My problem is that Mike Stark meets virtually none of those criteria. Yes, his exploits have been covered by the media, but in most cases his name wasn't even attached to the coverage; for instance, when he yelled at Sen. Allen, he was identified as a "heckler," and most major media outlets left it at that. I would most certainly identify the coverage of him as "trivial" at best. He has not been the subject of a "credible independent biography," he has not received any "significant recognized awards or honors," he has no "demonstrable wide name recognition" outside of a relatively small group of people, and he has made no "widely recognized contribution" to the "enduring historical record." In sum, I just don't think that his activities really merit an entire article. 6thAvenue 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had some doubts, but there do now seem to be sufficient sources for notability. DGG (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fairly notable political activist. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources to meet notability standard. Davewild 07:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what I can see the guy yelled at a senator once and then used a website to harass some talk show hosts. That hardly seems notable to me, and certainly doesn't seem to fit those notability guidelines. 345th 17:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep only 2 of the many sources appear to meet WP:RS, but two are all you need. Someone has to be the least notable bio on WP, maybe it's this guy. Carlossuarez46 21:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Carlossuarez46. It has to be somebody. Bearian 17:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Super Duper Uber Delete - Not notable. The majority of the article has to do with his attacks on Bill O'Reilly, which is largely unsourced, save for a Media Matters link, and even Media Matters does not cite their sources on this one, so I am inclined to exclude that source. And anyone who has edited George Soros or Bill Moyers knows that Bill O'Reilly is not notable enough to be mentioned outside of his own article, or so I have been told. And without Bill O'Reilly, who is Mike Stark again? - Crockspot 20:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Keep, Keep He was on CSPAN on a tape of YearlyKos only tonight. His name is all over the news too for the so funny prank he played on ORielly. Link"Daily Kos diarist Mike Stark took the Daily Kos/Bill O'Reilly feud to another level 7/31 posting pictures of his trip to O'Reilly's house where he confronted O'Reilly in his driveway while he retrieved his morning paper, delivered copies of O'Reilly's sexual harrassment lawsuit to all his neighbors, and plastered O'Reilly's neighborhood with signs with statements like "Bill O'Reilly: PERVERT."Stark explains his actions: "After O'Reilly provided an "accountability moment" to the JetBlue CEO at his home, I decided to provide O'Reilly with his own accountability moment at his home." Link He is famouser each and every day. Bmedley Sutler 07:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Playing a prank on someone famous hardly elevates an individual to "notable" status. Besides, most of the stories in that Google News search that you posted don't even have anything to do with this particular Mike Stark. 6thAvenue 15:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proofs, all from Google news. Many more on normal Google. He was just on CSPAN only last night. How can you argue he's not notable? Link#1 and Link#2 and Link#3 and Link#4 and Link#5 and Link#6 and Link#7 Seven is enough. It's a lucky number too. Mike Stark might be the next Michael Moore for his 'Gonzo Journalism'. Bmedley Sutler 22:46, 7 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elementals in fiction[edit]

Unacceptable trivia collection (WP:FIVE: "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection"), far overshadowed by the main article in relevance and citation. Eyrian 16:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete Another trivia-filled article without the proper sources.--JForget 01:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The material is verifiable; the current lack of sources is cause for improvement, not deletion (and that's not the only thing that can be improved). The material is encyclopedic; it could be useful to someone trying to find a game, book, etc. based on partial memory, or to an author looking for sources. This is not trivia; within the scope of the books, games, etc., the material is significant. Matchups 01:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A minor pop culture phenomenon, where medieval mythology from Paracelsus continues into modern day mythology, as in Magick: The Gathering.Mandsford 00:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful fantasy fiction archetype. Verifiable, and hard to see how this forms trivia. A list of examples and a list of trivia are two totally different things. JulesH 17:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Matchups. Mathmo ^Talk 22:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loch Ness Monster and popular culture[edit]

Unacceptable trivia collection per WP:FIVE and WP:NOT#IINFO. Public perception is well covered in the main article; this is just a bunch of one-off jokes. Eyrian 16:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The only argument for keeping this is as a way of keeping this kind of crap from the main article. Delete. --John 16:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It has already been established that BTTH is not a valid contribution to an Afd. - perfectblue 20:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and he is claiming that with that out of the way, there is no reason to keep this. --Eyrian 20:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. --John 20:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a violation of WP:NOT#INFO. The list is completely unsourced (J.K. Rowling does not count, as it's a primary source) and trivial. María (críticame) 17:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works of fiction are self referencing, it is only inperpritations of fiction that require fill sourcing (eg, saying "X is a character in Y" requires no additional sources than the media in question, it is only things like "most fans believe", or "Critics say" that need full sourcing"). perfectblue 20:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their importance is not self referencing. --Eyrian 20:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability and importance are separate issues. Popular culture would still exist largely in its present form even if the LNM was not part of it, therefore it is not particularly important. However, the sheer number of appearances of this single theme in popular culture make it notable. Recurring themes are often notable, especially when , as in this case, they cover so many different areas of popular culture, and cross international boundaries. perfectblue 20:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid WP:RS disagrees. María (críticame) 00:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that WP:RS (which is only a guideline) would only apply here in the case of a secondary source analyzing a primary source or a topic, not in the case of a primary source being cited as proof of its own existence. A Primary source is always WP:V for its own existence regardless o whether it is WP:RS to discuss the topic, there are no exceptions. After all, something must exist in order to be cited, therefore citation of a source that exists is always validation of the sources existence. Are you disputing that these primary sources exist? - perfectblue 20:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm not, and you missed my point entirely. Secondary sources are required in order to prove that these references are necessary towards the subject matter's impact on popular culture, hence the entire purpose of an IPC article: to show how important these subjects are to the world around us. However, "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." - WP:PSTS (policy) That the references have occurred is not being contested; rather, their importance is. Therefore, secondary sources are required. Without it, their notability is called into question. Without that, the article is unencyclopedic and should be deleted. María (críticame) 02:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Mergethe LNM has proven to be a notable and recurring trend in popular culture and as such is a valid topic that is notable beyond the fact/fiction of alleged LNM sightings in real life. - perfectblue 20:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable, eh? Want to provide some independent sources discussing its importance in popular culture? --Eyrian 20:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The sheer number of works based on the LNM or containing it as a theme is evidence enough of its notability.. For example, references in the Simpsons and the film Lockness, both prove that the LNM has become a cultural phenomona in the US (I'm pretty sure that it turned up in an episode of South Park, too). In the UK there are even entire series devoted to the LNM, such as the family ness. You don't find something non-notable showing up nearly so often in popular culture. - perfectblue 20:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments such Eyrian's are disappointing to read, you don't need a source to explicitly say it is notable for it be notable! The act of being noted makes it notable, by definition. Mathmo ^Talk 22:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the merge proposal The main article currently has "The Loch Ness Monster is a recurrent figure in modern literature, television, movies and games." I would very strongly resist any major increase of the coverage of trivial cultural references on the main article. --John 21:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep the notability is shown by the number of references to the subject, and there is presently no rule against the use of primary sources of this sort to show the widespread use of subject as a theme.DGG (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like Bigfoot or The Bermuda Triangle, there is no there there but for pop culture; all this stuff that matters should be in the main article, if it doesn't matter then it ought be deleted. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is not all in works of fiction the coverage of these subjects, there is extensive academic coverage of this and many claimed "sightings" of the loch ness monster. Mathmo ^Talk 22:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's unfit for merging into the main Loch Ness article, but there's no denying the pervasity of the monster in popular culture, nor its influence on the tourist attractions industry world over. One thing that I didn't catch from the article, but after the Loch Ness monster became a popular legend, everyone else wanted a mascot. If you've been in upstate N.Y., you'll hear of "Champ", who supposedly "haunts" Lake Champlain. The monster is a beloved (some would say overrated) figure, generally in comedies, and one of those things that makes for a good yarn. Anyone remember the anti-littering campaign in Britain that went, "Be like Nessie, don't be messy"? The article needs to be maintained, but it's hardly unmaintainable. Well done. Mandsford 00:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - this is a good way of organizing the info. - Peregrine Fisher 17:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original synthesis of primary sources. Not a single secondary source provides guidance for this article, which speaks poorly of it in terms of both WP:N and WP:OR. Cool Hand Luke 03:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a list of trivial mentions of the loch ness monster - The monster made very very small appearances in these items Corpx 20:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for.... well too many reasons! Mathmo ^Talk 22:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding slightly more detail: keep per (picking out my favourite vote comments): perfectblue, DGG, AndyJones, and Mandsford. Mathmo ^Talk 20:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, please don't take offense were but is that the most broadest and vague vote ever? Heh, mine was not much better. So on that note... Mathmo ^Talk

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 06:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Wars (1999 film)[edit]

Non-notable fanfilm. It exists, but no assertations of notability, and no independent third party references or citations. Delete. TheRealFennShysa 16:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, it is notable fanfilm, according to the Word from a Director - Fan Wars, it is a successful project, garnering lots of good response. This article should be edited to establish its notability. Keep. --Bryan Seecrets 18:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary reliable sources, as defined in WP:NOTE and WP:PSTS. The movie director is not an independent source. Karaboom 20:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it isn't self-published, and the publisher in this case is independent, which means the article was effectively independent (i.e., if they thought it was biased, they wouldn't have published it). JulesH 17:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very notable, not just as a "fan film" but also as a pioneering example of the made-for-Internet fan film genre that has led, ultimately, to entire series of Star Trek being produced by fans and involving Trek actors and writers. The Lucas association pushes this into the realm of notability, as does Trooper Clerks. 23skidoo 18:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Very notable"? Based on what, exactly? Notablity based on the comments of the director is NOT enough - you will need credible third party sources. If you can find them, please insert them, but nothing as yet in the article asserts any real notability, nor are there any references to it being a "pioneering example" - which it is not. And there is not a Lucas association with this film - it was never part of the Official Fan Film Awards. Trooper Clerks is a different case, and has quite clear citations and references to its notability. This article/film does not. TheRealFennShysa 20:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The notable fan film is based upon The Phantom Menace's Trailer B, with the motif of fans invading a theater on the opening day. Don't delete this article and keep it instead, I need credible third party sources to verify this. --Bryan Seecrets 07:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I struck through your vote, Bryan, as you've already done that - no need to do it again, as it won't count multiple times. It is up to you to provide credible independent third-party sources to establish notability, not minor details about the construction/basis of this fan trailer. It's highly unlikely that you're going to find them, and the trailer is not notable just because you say so, or because you're trying to establish an article as a springboard for the article you've already had deleted about your proposed feature version of this trailer that you're planning to make. TheRealFennShysa 15:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable, no reliable sources. Also suspect pattern of vanity edits from article creator. MikeWazowski 19:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and ors, a non-notable film with no reliable sources, WP:CRUFT. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong keep. Reliable sources are TheForce.net. I'll provide more reliable sources to conform it as notability. --Bryan Seecrets 19:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding "keep" votes, Bryan. You don't get to vote multiple times - as a matter of fact, this isn't strictly a vote - it's judged on the strength of the arguments for or against - and you haven't yet made a case for this article, as the "reliable sources" you cite are not enough or relevant. TheRealFennShysa 22:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fan Wars at Celtx Project Central appears to be a possible reliable source, and explains existence of the future open source film that is made out from this fan film trailer. Bryan Seecrets 19:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Existence, yes. Notability, no. No one's debating the project exists. Is it notable? Nothing you've provided to date shows that. TheRealFennShysa 22:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThere is something that makes its source notable, according to user KerberProductions, is this project sounds awesome and great. Bryan Seecrets 18:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I had an awesome and great meal for dinner the other night - doesn't make it notable, though. KerberProductions (who only posted that it sounded awesome, *not* great - don't invent more stuff that doesn't exist) isn't notable either, judging by the lack of Google hits on the name. Try again. TheRealFennShysa 19:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Succubus in fiction[edit]

Trivia collection, imparting no greater knowledge of the subject, just a list of trivial mentions. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE ("Wikipedia is not a trivia collection") and WP:NOT#IINFO. Eyrian 16:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep Never heard that great knowledge of the subject was a consideration for keeping or deleting. If it were, there wouldn't be all that much left of WPedia. Enough of the items are even going to be sourceable from reviews to show the clear recognition of this. I do not do so now because neither I nor anyone can source the dozens of articles as fast as someone can nominate them. The nom that he is deliberately attempting to bypass the opportunity to improve articles and form consensus by overwhelming AfD. DGG (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or, DGG, he might just be trying to improve the encyclopedia by getting rid of what amounts to junk. Also, though you have 'never heard that great knowledge of the subject was a consideration for keeping or deleting', you might want to check out what exactly an encyclopedia is supposed to be, where the word comes from, and why we call it that. I'm trying to say this as civilly as possible, so please forgive me if it sounds a bit harsh. The object of a Wikipedia article is and always has been (I thought) that the reader comes away with a certain knowledge of the subject. What knowledge do these articles impart? In fact, if anything, they mangle the potential knowledge of the original article's subject. I'm not sure how exactly these articles are making Wikipedia better. In the article for Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, it would be a good idea to mention that Fluffy is inspired by Cerberus; however, the Cerberus article or a separate article for Cerberus in popular culture is simply not the place for it!. If Cerberus plays a primary role a work of popular culture, categorize that work's article into Category:Greco-Roman mythology in popular culture. But for Pete's sake, what the hell are we doing here if we're not trying to impart knowledge onto our readers?? CaveatLector^Talk 03:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable pop culture phenom and no WP:RS says it is. Carlossuarez46 21:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It never will be a pop culture phenomenon. Adolescent boys, the only real fans of the concept, generally can't spell it, don't know how to pronounce it, and end up making fun of someone who does say it correctly. Suck-ya-buss. It's not popular, it's not culture. At least Incubus has a chance.Mandsford 00:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Mathmo ^Talk 22:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Surely it's obvious that this page should be merged with [29]. The information is valuable, and referenced. And of course it's culture. --Greatest hits 20:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sirens in popular culture[edit]

Trivial collection, unacceptable per WP:FIVE ("Wikipedia is not a trivia collection"), and WP:NOT#IINFO. Eyrian 16:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 17:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nomination. To be honest I started out on Wikipedia by editing this page and cleaning it up when it was a lot smaller - back then it had some use as a reference point - many readers failing to appreciate the connection between the classical sirens and teh numerous references in popular culture. There's a tendency for folks just to stick any old nonsense on there now (e.g. the woeful song lyric section) and it's unwieldy now. The only problem is, if you take it out, the main Sirens article and the dab page will probably suffer without strong-handed editing.Dick G 00:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now watch both, so rest easy. --Eyrian 00:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Having re-read it just now, it's clearly a list of trivial references - and any actual Siren references are picked up in the dab. Delete away Dick G 00:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment hard to vote keep when even the article creator hates this one. The legend of the Sirens (which is only a small part of the Odyssey) has certainly had an influence on popular culture, but it's on the wane-- most people think emergency vehicle when they hear of a siren, thanks to a fellow named Charles Cagniard de la Tour (1777-1859). Wikipedia... gotta love it. Mandsford 00:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AndyJones, it is requirement that AfD's have proper discussion before an article gets deleted. As it stands now with the floods of related articles being nominated for deletion it is impossible for interested editors to properly discuss the deletions with the depth the articles and wikipedia deserve. Mathmo ^Talk 22:52, 8 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Avengers and New Avengers cast members[edit]

A terribly unencylopedic list of people who are loosely related by having made guest appearances on a TV show. Fails WP:NOT#DIR. —gorgan_almighty 15:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the list isn't that developed, it's hardly a loose association. Appearing on a television show is in fact, a specific and narrow criteria. A loose association would be something like "list of people who appeared in British spy shows" or something. BTW, this list is not limited to guest appearances, but includes main characters. Tag for improvement. FrozenPurpleCube 16:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the list was limited to the main cast then it would be specific and narrow (although it would be better merged with the main article). But a list of people who made guest appearances on two long-running shows like these is very loose and unmanageable. This list is by no means complete, there must be hundreds of notable actors who made guest appearances on one of these two shows. —gorgan_almighty 18:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unmanageable? Loosely associated? Hardly. This is a criteria of people that is unquestionably associated in a specific way. It's no more loose or unmanageable than lists of members of legislatures. Not to mention, this is something done by quite a few other resources. They seem to manage just fine. If you're going to object to this kind of list, you're going to have to try something that isn't obviously mistaken. FrozenPurpleCube 22:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - many of the cast lists were created following a CFD for the equivalent categories. Consensus was to listify the categories and then delete. I'm neutral on this article but wanted to offer the background on its creation. Otto4711 17:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if categories covering this are not being allowed. We need one or the other. 23skidoo 18:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we "need" one or the other? Otto4711 21:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because people are interested in the information, thus it makes no sense not to include it in ways that are most effective in providing that information to them. I think it's a given that Wikipedia is going to include information on television shows and actors, therefore, it becomes important to organize it. FrozenPurpleCube 22:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that it's interesting is irrelevant per WP:INTERESTING and WP:ILIKEIT. A list like this is nothing more than WP:TRIVIA. —gorgan_almighty 08:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, jumping to essays....but wait, that's not at all convincing in this case. Sorry, but I think you're misunderstanding the point of the essay, and missing the point of my comment. The fact is, television programs are unquestionably the subject of much much much in the way of reliable, third-party coverage. This includes both on Wikipedia and off Wikipedia. There are books, magazines, papers, and yes, even television shows about television shows. That indicates to me people are interested in this subject. Don't you think so? So, maybe you should read the top of [[WP:ATA)) and not try to dismiss arguments when they're quite valid. Or do you think there's no valid case for television shows meriting encyclopedic articles? FrozenPurpleCube 17:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Avengers is one of the most famous programmes on British TV. This list has clear criteria for inclusion and can be sourced properly. There's nothing loose or unmanageable about it. The fact that a list is incomplete is a reason to complete it, not delete it. Nick mallory 00:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not in the best of shape, but eventually could mature. Carlossuarez46 21:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still favouring delete on this one, but if we must keep this wouldn't it be better as a category rather than a list? —gorgan_almighty 16:31, 6 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 all. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seoul International Darts League[edit]

Nonnotable pub darts league in Seoul, South Korea. No independent sources showing any notability. Also including all the teams in the league (listed below). NawlinWiki 15:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Also including:[reply]

Take it Easy Darts Team
Cake Mix Darts Team
Eberhardt Darts Team
Alley Ratz
Foxes 'n' Hounds
BlessU Survivors
Blessed Bulls
[[Category:Darts in South Korea]]
Comment The use of the word "pub" here is unnecessary. Darts is almost always played in pubs. The use of the word here appears to be to win over opinion by attempting to lessen readers' impression of the league from the outset. I request its removal. I also request definition of "notable" and "nonnotable".JPBarrass 16:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Request denied. The league plays in pubs. As for the definition of "notable," that is clearly spelled out at Wikipedia notability standards. Realkyhick 17:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Request resubmitted! The definition of notability has already been cleared up below, so quite why this has been brought up again here I don't know. As for the "pub" part, as I said, almost all darts leagues are in pubs. Therefore, you have used loaded language.JPBarrass 17:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I brought up notability up here again because you requested the definition up here — again. The league plays in pubs, and that is relevant. Realkyhick 17:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you'll find that I requested the definition here 3 minutes before I did to another user below, but that's irrelevant, almost as irrelevant as the premises in which the matches are played, in fact.JPBarrass 17:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many of these are now tagged for speedy deletion. A speedy a7 seems fine to me, but I wanted to get a 2nd opinion. NawlinWiki 15:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all. It's a local darts league, nothing more. No relevant Google hits from independent sources, just their own site and links to it they have posted on other sites. I think NawlinWiki and I were stepping over each other here, with him posting AfD notices and me posting speedy tags. Realkyhick 15:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Notability, advert, etc. They also like to remove the tags I noticed, which isn't a reason but it is a bad habit. Pharmboy 16:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pharmboy, I'm not sure how you thought I could be accusing you of racism. That seems like quite a leap of imagination, to be honest! I'm not sure where you're going with that one, so I'll leave it. I just meant that "they" implied that the committee or indeed the entire league was removing your tags! Anyway, that's irrelevant. Thank you for putting the link to the notability guidelines on this page. I have read them and now believe more firmly that it is indeed notable, as it qualifies on every point. I have read of the league many times in independent printed media and will find details of these in the coming days and append them to the article page. Like you, I was unable to find links through Google, but I will find these printed materials and put details on the page soon.
Interesting use of the word "they", Pharmboy.JPBarrass 16:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Also, interesting use of "nothing more", NawlinWiki. What would constitute "more"? On another note, I took offence to how my writing which I'm sure you can see took a great deal of time has just been slapped with these notices without a single note in any discussion page, be that my own page or the pages noted above. That seems extremely impolite to me. Now then, I responded saying things such as "Grow up.", which had a cooler head prevailed, I would not have done, so I apologise for that, but I still feel affronted by this sudden combardment of notes saying all my efforts are pointless. There is a point to this and this is that though it is admittably a small league when compared with great things like the Premier League, it still has a following in much the same manner and means a lot to many people, which I feel warrants its existence here in precisely the same manner as Manchester United's page warrants its own existence, though, as I said, on a smaller scale. A proper discussion on this would be much appreciated, as would putting a hold on any rash actions.JPBarrass 16:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all. No evidence whatsoever of notability. --Finngall ^talk 16:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Define "notability".JPBarrass 16:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Notability is readily defined at length at this article: Wikpedia notability standards. Realkyhick 16:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment "They" because I didn't verify that it was a single person, and I certainly hope you aren't claiming racism or bad faith. Tagging your articles isn't an attack on the content, you, the league or darts. It isn't personal, it is just at least a few people think the articles are not "encyclopedia material" or that the league is not "notable" under WIKIPEDIA's policy, not your or my personal opinions. I would suggest reading WP:notability before arguing your case. Pharmboy 16:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's another tack. Look at another of the pages I have created: Pungdeokcheon. Now it's just a stub, but is it nonnotable? I suspect not, but why not? You didn't know anything about it, but neither did you know anything about this. Why is it different for a piddly little river than for a league with hundreds of players and followers?JPBarrass 16:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You might want to look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. NawlinWiki 16:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Notability standards are different for geographical locations, which have been established for many, many years. In this case, a Google search found many more hits for that word than for the darts league. Sports leagues come and go. Waterways generally don't. Realkyhick 16:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You are right: they do. However, it has come. If, through some future misfortune, it goes, then so may the page if Wikipedians so agree at that time.JPBarrass 16:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pharmboy, I'm not sure how you thought I could be accusing you of racism. That seems like quite a leap of imagination, to be honest! I'm not sure where you're going with that one, so I'll leave it. I just meant that "they" implied that the committee or indeed the entire league was removing your tags! Anyway, that's irrelevant. Thank you for putting the link to the notability guidelines on this page. I have read them and now believe more firmly that it is indeed notable, as it qualifies on every point. I have read of the league many times in independent printed media and will find details of these in the coming days and append them to the article page. Like you, I was unable to find links through Google, but I will find these printed materials and put details on the page soon.JPBarrass 16:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is some stuff online, too:
  - Thailand Dart Association: http://www.tdadarts.com/index.php?option=com_bookmarks&task=order&Itemid=1&mode=1&catid=-1&orderbycol=title&orderbyupdown=asc&search=s
  - Korean Dart Association: http://www.darts.or.kr/zeroboard/zboard.php?id=f_board&page=7&sn1=&divpage=1&sn=off&ss=on&sc=on&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=44&PHPSESSID=636facac18adfeb123e26c5d0dad8672 (in Korean)JPBarrass 17:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The link in Korean is of no help at all (this is English Wikipedia, after all). The other link simply shows a message that someone from the SIDL evidently posted, as it seeks to recruit: "...We welcome all players", and then merely links to the SIDL web site. That is not a reliable source. Realkyhick 17:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, you are right. As I acknowledged, it is difficult to find verifiable media online. I will be able to find verifiable media in print, however, though that would I am sure be more easily verifiable in Korea than outside.JPBarrass 17:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete All For the same reason I can't have a wiki article about my Office Fantasy Football League, not notable. Helmsb 17:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. And anyway, I've just told everyone on here that it is indeed notable as defined by Wikipedia and that evidence to such effect will be posted on here in the coming days. Please read what has been discussed before you enter the argument!JPBarrass 17:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not sure what your argument is with WP:OTHERSTUFF, I will agree that there are articles on Wikipedia of questionable notability but most will eventually be tagged for deletion or have been tagged for deletion. As WP:OTHERSTUFF states just because these articles exist, new articles do not automatically inherit this false notability. Helmsb 17:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No no no, you totally missed the point there. It was ironic. Scroll up and you'll see that another user suggested that I read it. Well I did, and it taught me that using another concept or article as reason doesn't suffice, and then when you did that, I just copied and pasted what was there, thereby providing a little light entertainment, but I guess it went over your head on that occasion. JPBarrass 17:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all per A7. It's all been said. I wonder what's going on with the User:Jpbarrass account... looking into past contributions it seems to be a good-faith contributor with a number of helpful edits going back several months, but the last few days... well, just look at it: hopelessly unencyclopedic stuff like pub darts teams and borderline attacks/silliness (see his messages on User_talk:Realkyhick). There's no way to prove it, but this sort of situation where a good Dr. Jeckyll account suddenly becomes a terrible Mr. Hyde might indicate someone hacked his account as a prank and is now running amok with it. In any case, definitely speedy delete the articles as textbook A7 material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the notes about my past contributions. There's no Jekyll/Hyde going on, though. As I mentioned, I just felt extremely affronted at this bombardment of calls for pages to be deleted from several users all simultaneously (which I still find odd, since several of those pages had been online for days, yet the first to be put up for deletion had been there for mere seconds). I think it would have been far more polite to have raised the issue on the discussion page first, since I had spent hours doing the pages. In that heat, I made the comments to which you refer and for which I have since apologised (see above).
Delete all. I admire the design, but I see no notability. --Bobak 19:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References - Added as promised. See article page. I trust this will satisfy the notability requirements.JPBarrass 06:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not nearly specific enough. Please read WP:CITE. Realkyhick 06:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Importance - As per the A7 rule, it states clearly that an article "that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject" should be deleted. I accept that the article as yet does not do this, though I must point out that I myself have stated it in this discussion and I will state it once again. Though this league is not important internationally, it is important in Seoul, which I'm sure you will agree is a pretty significant city internationally - on a par with London, I'd say. To a great many people therein, it is both important and significant, thus satisfying the A7 rule. I believe that this, along with my previous comment relating to references, satisfies all complaints made about these articles thus far. JPBarrass 06:21, 3 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. --Core desat 06:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian women[edit]

Wikipedia is not for lists =of loosely associated topics. While some lists may be useful, "Indian women" is an impossibly broad category. Moonriddengirl 15:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apologies for my own horrible pun. It was truly unintentional, I promise you. blushing --Moonriddengirl 16:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't know what you mean, there's only about 560 million of them~~ Delete per nom. —gorgan_almighty 16:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete: Seriously, could you imagine maintaining this list? It'd be like documenting every Phillies loss. Fantastic pun, by the way. Sidatio 16:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*delete How about a List of everyone, and we all just have to add our own name? Pharmboy 16:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modified my vote to delete or category below. Pharmboy 15:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia used to have that list. It was called List of people by name but it was deleted after a very long debate. ●DanMS • Talk 00:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Impossible to maintain this kind of a list, and pointless, to boot. 6thAvenue 16:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Moonriddenbroad. hehehe :-) --Evb-wiki 17:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion has lost all humor. As with most worthwhile lists, this collection of loosely related articles can be better presented and maintained with a category. --Evb-wiki 16:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment grin --Moonriddengirl 17:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Harlowraman 17:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violation of loose list, and collection of internal links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useight (talk • contribs) 19:37, August 2, 2007
Delete per nom and all above.--Targeman 19:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment missed the pun at first reading - I like it! :-)

Delete per nom. Mkdw ^talk 20:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a directory list and non maintainable.--JForget 01:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as a non-maintainable list. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy relist and warn the User:moonwiki for deliberate disrupting the AfD. This cannot be properly discussed while somebody is ranting and raving in this form of filibuster, while simultaneously distorting the formatting of the entire AfD page. CaveatLector^Talk 04:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you can do that?! It's off topic, I know, but I need to consider doing that to the List of Iranian women AfD - how does that get done? Sidatio 16:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As its non- maintainable. Moonriddengirl, though you received a barnstar for this Afd (the first time I saw this on WP), the pun you 'didn't' intend was infact intended by the phrase which followed it- 'no pun intended'. Such statements should be discouraged and are regretted. Please refrain from doing this. Knowledge Hegemony 17:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I assure you that the pun was not intended. I did not realize the pun until I was reading back over the discussion over 20 minutes later, at which point I included the note because I realized what I had inadvertently done and thought that the proper thing to do. Since somebody had already responded to the AfD, I did not think it proper to revise my nom. I do apologize if my unintentional pun hurt anybody's feelings. --Moonriddengirl 17:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment: Also, I suspect the barnstar was for the three hours I spent creating categories for each of the women on that list, not for the nomination. Timing would suggest as much. --Moonriddengirl 18:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The barnstar was for exceptional diplomacy during this debate, coming up with a creative compromise, and taking the time to implement it. Sidatio 19:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DON'T DELETE[edit]

Ladies and Gentlemen !

It is an important list that shall showcase the incredible range of the achievements of Indian women and shall inspire young omen to be leaders and achievers in their field. The Wikipedia is not only an encyclopedia it is a vast showcase of human diversity as well.

I once again request that this article should not be DELETED. Please let it develop.

With kind regards,

moon 06:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution to this debate, but you haven't addressed any of the issues stated above. —gorgan_almighty 08:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moon, I understand what you are saying but the list in and of itself is not going to do what you would like it to do. The individual articles will contribute to it, if and only if they are read. And they will be found by your target audience even if the list isn't there. And again, this list need not exist in order for the articles to be found. Postcard Cathy 10:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow Wikipedians , Have a heart and broader outlook too ( pun intended ) I am new to Wikipedia and am greatly impressed by lists that constitute it. And I guess there might many more people like me. I say the policy should be flexible enough to accomodate the changing aspirations of the clientele. SO PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS ! Give it a chance. Vive La Wikipedia.Vive La Diversity. moon 10:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you're trying to accomplish is probably best done by a category. Categories, lists and boxes explains some of the differences. If you go to each page linked and add [[Category:Indian women]], the pages will be collected alphabetically onto a category page which can be easily referenced by anyone who wants to see the articles Wikipedia has on Indian women. These kinds of lists are difficult to maintain. Look how many redlinked names (names without Wikipedia pages) you already have--information on Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced and easily verifiable. If Wikipedia users have to research the names on your list themselves, it isn't quickly verifiable that they are women of note at all. As a frequent vandal patroller, I can also tell you that people will add their own names or names of friends to your list. It will require quite a lot of upkeep. A category would not. --Moonriddengirl 12:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent compromise. I'm on board to help out with that tonight after work. On a related note, should we consider doing the same with List of Iranian women as well? Sidatio 12:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would think it could work for List of Iranian women as well, if there's consensus. I should think an AfD would need to be launched, with the category as a proposed alternative. Moon, do you think this would satisfy your goals? --Moonriddengirl 14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. But Hope should win over paranoia. I find that like elsewhere Wikipedia too has overwhelmingly more positive contributors than the vandals . Censorship is fine but the best form of discipline is from within and not which is enforced. I have tremendous faith in human beings essential goodness.Wikipedia has just begun , it will ultimately evolve into a Universal Mind that will immensely benefit Humanity. Amen

Anyway let us now sleep. Happy dreams! Goodnight. moon 17:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give Us a Chance[edit]

I think broadly speaking Wikipedians come in two categories : those who are content providers and those who are editors and give shape to formats.

I am proud to be one of the former but have a deep respect for people like you who are doing an equally important work. We need to have Mutual Respect for each other.

My strong belief is that certain Wiki Lists are maintained by conscientious and passionate people who have a sense of "emotional ownership" to certain subjects.

This passion and emotional ownership helps in maintaining the quality of the List.

So please let the Lists remain. As a compromise I have removed all the Red entries and henceforth shall include only those persons who already are Wikified.

Salutations from an Indian feminist.

moon 14:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual respect aside, you have to understand - this list is inherently unmaintainable. The discussion here isn't meant to be a slight against the Indian people, or an accusation of "unworthy" work. At its core, it's an impressive list. The issue at hand here is that it will most certainly become next to impossible to properly maintain according to Wikistandards. I like the compromise of creating the category "Notable Indian Women". It keeps a tidy list of notable Indian females, and its maintainability dramatically improves because the process becomes more automated. A category page is less likely to be targeted by vandals, whereas a list like this invites sneaky vandalism from people who may not agree with their work (among others). Because of the current size of the list (not to mention its potential to expand exponentially), it would be a full-time job for several editors just to patrol to it. In my opinion, it would be a disservice to these notable individuals to have them so readily exposed to that kind of vandalism threat. I'm sure that's not the intention of the list, but it's an unfortunate byproduct. Sidatio 15:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point appreciated. However I still feel that an impassioned 'owner' coupled with conscientious vigilants like you will ensure that not only will this list survive but also thrive. I am already becoming conscious and protective of my list and this discussion has enhanced my determination to preserve and improve it to Wikistandards. Thank you for giving motivation to a new and enthusiastic wikipedian which to my mind is the essence of the Wikipedian philosophy.

moon 16:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, wait, I don't think I adequately conveyed my message. I am the LAST person who would have time to do vandal patrol. By all reasonable measurements, I shouldn't even be on Wikipedia - I've got websites to build, contracts to fund, a whole host of extended familial duties, and I'm assuming that I sleep. (I don't know for sure anymore.) There are people who are more dedicated to fighting vandalism, I'm sure, but they also patrol every other page on Wikipedia as well. Also, if you yourself spent all of your time patrolling for vandalism on this list, what about those women who were redlinked? How many of those articles would go unwritten because some persistent snot-nose decided he wanted to surreptitiously redirect Gayatri Devi to point to zoophilia, and you had to patrol the list? And that's just for starters - this list has definite potential to grow into the thousands if left unchecked. At some point, moon, you DO have to sleep and eat!

Your zeal and dedication are admirable, but you would be doing these women a greater service by creating quality articles for those who have yet to have the honor, and using a category list to defend and maintain those articles. It truly seems to be the simplest answer, and the option I advocate, with the utmost of respect to you and your abilities. Sidatio 16:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Comment: This conversation is getting a bit sprawling. I have gone through the list in question and categorized every woman born in India or an Indian territory or to Indian parent(s) that I could find. This is the result. I strongly believe this is a better solution than a list, which I do not feel will be easily maintained and do not think fits within the guidelines of Wikipedia based on my understanding of them as per my nom.

Moon, you say that you’ll be very careful, but I don't think this task will be as easy as you might feel. As I went through your list for categorization, I found an entrant who seems to be a man (Suniti Kumar Chatterji, whom I removed) and a mythological character, which I did not, since she is female. You have Saira Mohan listed as a director, when her individual page calls her a model and a writer. You’ve also got several disambiguation pages linked, like Chennamma. You’ve got a lot of people double-listed, particularly in the political sections. Mayawati is listed in three places. Multi-listing is not a problem with categories, but can be with large lists; a great many of your names qualified for more than one category. Again, I’m only pointing this out because a large part of your defense of this page is that you will be vigilant. The challenges will only increase. Categories will allow your target readers to easily find articles on Indian women and appreciate their contributions while at the same time eliminating an impossible list. As I read it, Wikipedia policy specifies that Wikipedia articles are not "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." --Moonriddengirl 20:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that the authors have made it clear that this is a work in progress, and that they'll be improving it. Just as we Westerners have no acquaintance with Bollywood or with most of the subcontinent, the names on the list aren't household words to us; if they'r famous in their own nation, then a link to that is worthwhile. Many of the comments here seem to be based on the name of the article, not on the concept. Enough of the crap about "Oh, there are 500 million women in India, what will we do if they list every single one, oh my!" I don't know another woman from India besides Indira Gandhi, and maybe Mother Theresa, though she wasn't born there. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it's created by editors from all over the world, and you get things that won't make the regular media. Save the list, ladies. Mandsford 01:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such a fantastic attitude there, champ. No, really, that's the way to enter a conversation. But seriously...

The issue isn't notability - the issue is maintaining it. Perhaps you didn't check out the link above for a previous project of a similar scope: List of people by name. Granted, we're talking about one nation, but it's a nation of nearly a billion people. As Moonriddengirl pointed out, it has already presented challenges to that effect, and will only get worse as time goes on. Why? The list will have to be maintained manually.

Now, if everything is categorized, things become easier. Why? We still have a list of Indian women, but now it's maintained more automatically. It's a list, but more efficient. This makes vandal patrol and copyediting much easier, plus it allows more time to add on notable Indian women - and that's really what it's all about, right? Showcasing notable Indian women?

It's great that you want to rush in like a knight in shining armor, Mandsford. Just try not to look like a surly Don Quixote doing it. :-) Sidatio 01:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---->More dragons than windmills here, my friend. I generally don't memorize the Wikiprinciples, but consider WP:BIAS, which basically recognizes that the average Wikipedian is young American adult male, generally in his early 20s, and that one has to compensate to some extent. Notwithstanding the biases of young men in general (i.e., they think they know everything already), there's also the bias that comes from growing up on a steady diet of American news. Whether the news is CNN, Fox, CBS, AP, UPI it doesn't matter... it tends to ignore certain parts of the world. Outside of the USA and its neighbors, our news is from Britain and the rest of Europe; Iraq, Israel and the Middle East, Japan, China, Australia and the Phillipines, and that's about it. The average Wikipedia knows little about Africa (jungles, AIDS) or South America (drugs), or, for that matter, India (Taj Mahal). Forget about New Zealand ("isn't that near Australia?") or Indonesia or Pakistan. India has 500 million people, Indonesia has 235 million, Pakistan 150 million and I would wager that you probably can't think of three notable people. It's not your fault if you can't, because you were brought up that way. When they say this is the encylopedia that anyone can edit, they mean anyone. Mandsford 15:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an adult, cosmopolitan and multilingual editor, I don't see how the fact that you know a country would give you the right to turn Wikipedia into a WP:SOAPBOX for it. And you may just as well turn the argument around - that people from under-represented countries have something to compensate for. And please refrain from presuming that you're dealing with a bunch of pimple-faced, ignorant Yanks. Your comments are quite insulting. --Targeman 15:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mandsford for seeing my point.* Hope will win over paranoia. I find that like elsewhere Wikipedia too has overwhelmingly more positive contributors than the vandals . I have tremendous faith in human beings essential goodness.Wikipedia has just begun , it will ultimately evolve into a Universal Mind that will immensely benefit Humanity. Amen

I have modelled my list on an existing list of iranian women which was also proposed to be deleted but after a spirited defence has been allowed to continue. I think my list deserves to survive and thrive as well. Vive La Wikipedia !

moon 01:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll be calling that list into question tomorrow on the same grounds. I haven't done so tonight because of other obligations. Sidatio 02:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give Peace and Lists a Chance[edit]

Making and keeping Lists is a universal human trait.

Keep the Peace. Keep the List. Have Faith!

Thanks though for raising my level of commitment to Wikistandards.

moon 02:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting out of hand. This has nothing to do with "faith" or "peace", or anything else on an emotional level. This has to do with practicality and the guidelines of Wikipedia. Let's set aside the emotional aspect of the argument and view it from a logical standpoint:

A list of this nature is fatally inefficient. Categorization of the many, many notable Indian women frees more time for editing, would be far easier to patrol, and would be maintained autonomously through the use of templates on the individual pages in the category.
The arguments for keeping this list fail to address various criteria, and are almost completely based on WP:ILIKEIT.
A reasonable compromise to deletion has been proffered.

By now, moon, we realize your fervent desire to keep the page you created. However, you have yet to raise an argument to keep the page that is not based on WP:ILIKEIT that can't be met by categorization. I can see that you want to help Indian women. That's noble, but you're not helping them with this list! If you really want to help them, I strongly suggest seeking out the notable ones who don't have articles here, and create them. This list can be maintained automatically, freeing your attentions to apply them where they're needed more. Don't let vanity keep you from that! Sidatio 03:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understand the Wikipedian essence. Please[edit]

It is not vanity, it is my genuine belief to have a list of notable Indian women like so many other lists. When so many other lists are in existence why this sustained insistence to do away with this list. I only see it becoming better with time. As i have been saying that it still a work in progress and shall evolve to very high standards. Can you stop all the lists that are on the Wikipedia ? Sometimes it is better to leave things flower naturally. Too much of staitjacketing is not the idea of Wikipedia. Releasing it from the bureaucratic clutch of a few self righteous editors is that has made Wikipedia the new cyberian Gutenberg press . As a child I always had the desire to own the Encyclpedia Brittanica and edit it my way. The Wikipedia has empowered so many of us as content uploaders and designers. Come lets have faith in the inherent goodness of Wiki users/contributors. Treating them as potential vandals will drastically reduce the popularity of an enterprise like the Wikipedia. It is a Commonwealth and cultural wealth of humanity and not the preserve of a select few who would like to regiment and control it in the name of preserving its sanctity. When the rulebook becomes sacrosanct the trouble starts with any system. Somewhere it is said that " law sharpens the mind by narrowing it". Let the people power flow unrestrained and let the information revolution play out itself in full utterance.".

moon 03:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooooookay - that still doesn't address WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#LINK, nor does it vary from the theme of WP:ILIKEIT. It also fails to recognize the fact that the list doesn't truly get deleted - it just becomes better managed. Let's try looking at all of that. Sidatio 04:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont make Wikipedia a fortress[edit]

Your repeated quoting of chapter and verse is proof enough of your closed mind and your self appointed role as gatekeepers to the Wikipedian castle. Not that is bad all the time. It only hurts and is dysfunctional when it scares away genuine and passionate talent from making an entry into a world that they don't fully comprehend in terms of "laws" but are genuine candidates who ought to be encouraged and let in to the bastion for a better future. Please don't scare and shoo me away with all that legalese Sidatio.

Regards

moon 04:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is not. --Evb-wiki 04:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this isn't a blog. It's an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias have guidelines. They're not exactly rules, but at some point they need to be addressed - like in AfDs.

I've made my point here. If you care to debate the article on its merits, I'm available. Sidatio 04:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia is not[edit]

Wikipedia is not a Castle . It is not the preserve of a select few. It is not a closed system.

It is not a hippy democracy. It is not a regimented society.

It is made of a range of mature and reasonably rational but more flexible people who believe in working together to keep the Wikipedia growing and glowing .

Please Leave the Lists alone.Vive La Wikipedian Spirit.

moon 04:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia is[edit]

Wikipedia is a FREEencyclopedia it is not a freeENCYCLOPEDIA.

I ain't a lawyer. I am just a passionate Wikipedian.

Long live the Lists. Long live the FREE WIKIPEDIA.

moon 04:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good News[edit]

Sidatio has been bold enough to concede in a similar attempt to delist the List of Iranian women which also means that List of Indian women also survives intact from a well meaning attempt to delist and categorize it. moon 05:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? I never conceded - I clarified my position. There's a HUGE difference there. I still think both lists should be categorized, rest assured. Please refrain in the future from announcing anything on my behalf. I am perfectly capable of handling that on my own. Sidatio 06:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for that faux pas. But I concede to your attempt to lessen the human effort and become more automated. But we need to strike a balance. Why dont we both have both listing and categorization. Again using Taj Mahal as a metaphor we can appreciate the beauty of its constituent structures as well view its pristine beauty as a whole.

Regards.

moon 06:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy defeats the purpose of efficiency. The categorization itself is a compromise, and already done. The consensus at present is to delete this article. The list itself, however, lives on as a category and a host of appropriate subcategories. The difference between the two (at the risk of repeating myself into oblivion) is that the category is automatically maintained, while the list is not.

The facts are this: Concerns about certain policies here have not been addressed. Also, there are serious concerns about listcruft, as a list about notable women from a country with 1/6 of the world's population is inherently unmaintainable - like the List of Europeans was. Address those properly, and we may have grounds to keep this article. Irrelevant allegory won't get the job done in that department, I'm afraid.

I'm done with this discussion until and unless the above are addressed. I will, however, continue to monitor this page to make sure nothing is improperly attributed to me. Sidatio 06:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coexistence of Beauty and Utility is possible. The beauty of true debates and discussions is that we earn each others respect. Speaking for myself, I have been enriched by this discussion and will hope the same from my friends opposed to the idea of lists.

On this conciliatory note I sign off.

moon 06:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interrupt your highly poetic and dramatic exchange, moon and Sidatio. Moon, it is impressive that at your age you still have so much faith in people. But surely you must realize that anonymity and free access bring out the worst in humans. Were it not for the policy guidelines you dismiss as "legalese" and the constant effort of thousands of editors, vandals would have torn Wikipedia to shreds long ago. Creating lists like these, as others have rightly pointed out, is hugely impractical. Enormous and potentially unlimited lists like these are systematically deleted. Sidatio's and Moonriddengirl's arguments for creating a category are perfectly valid, indeed no other solution would be practical here. As Sidatio has said, create articles about notable people instead of just lumping their names in one mass. Such a list might as well be titled "Look how many admirable women we have in India". --Targeman 12:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to category or delete I voted delete above, but after hearing boths sides would agree with Targeman and others. It is not practical or policy to be an article in any way. A category seems to be a perfectly reasonable compromise. Pharmboy 15:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It should be noted that categories are meeting some opposition, at least as far as actors and artists are concerned. I believe the guidelines are clear enough that most of the other categories should not be challenged, but discussion will reach consensus one way or another. --Moonriddengirl 15:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional ownership of an article by the initiator is one way to ensure its viability and maintainability. The great number of lists that are on the Wikipedia are a proof of this. Lists are both utilitarian and beautiful formats. So let them remain especially when they are works in progress. I am sure we all want a free and VIBRANT WIKIPEDIA and not a regimented LIST-less WIKIPEDIA.

moon 16:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Moon, but on Wikipedia, you are not the owner of articles you initiated. You have to be prepared to accept that others users will tamper with them. If you are not prepared to deal with it, you shouldn't publish you work here. --Targeman 16:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oooh, I find all those comments to Moonwiki (highly poetic and dramatic, you shouldn't publish, etc) to be "quite insulting". Happily, however, I am above such behavior. Just ask me. Mandsford 23:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much as I like lists, this one is not a good idea. The organization does not add anything, there is no information given for each, there is no particular reason for grouping them together, we do not have similar lists such as French Women--the only one I see is List of Iranian Women, also up for AfD. -- the category and subcategories would do as well and be much easier to maintain. Frankly, I think this list expresses the POV that there are so few notable Indian women in WP that they should be collected together and highlighted. There do seem to be insufficient articles, and it should be remedied by writing the articles. I'm sure it was not the intent of those making the list to suggest that there were so few notable Indian women that a list was appropriate to make sure they were noticed. DGG (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Comments: Instead of concentrating on delistings , it would be better if we focus on things that are working rather than assume the non workability of a project in in its infancy. All off beat enterprises are not understood, opposed when they are conceived. What was the use of conquering the Everest, why man had to go to the moon, why oh why the need to build the Great Wall of China, Why was the Taj Mahal built, Why Shakespeare had to write his immortal plays, why the computer had to be built. all inventions, new structures, philosophies have been opposed, ridiculed with very rational well meaning people with honourable intentions. Yes Goodness is the rival of Greatness. Goodness is standardization. Greatness is setting new standards. Like life, standards too should be allowed to evolve. And evolve they shall, with or without opposition. As Hugo said " No force can stop an idea whose time has come'. Wikipedia too as an idea would have been ridiculed a decade back. The idea of a mobile telephone was scoffed at in the late sixties. Ofcourse Wikipedia needs standards but it needs to be protected from the well intentioned do-gooders. Oscar Wilde has put it so beautifully: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Freedom to do your thing is the right of people until and unless it seriously infringes on the right of others.

PS : The viability of list should be left to the "market forces". Wikipedia admin may consider an automated delisting of archaic articles that are not visited , improved, edited for a certain period of time. This de-listing would be automatic ,genuine and largely unbiased.

moon 07:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It seems to me that User:Sidatio having just arrived and even not read the regulations (this as evidenced by his own admission on the List of Iranian women - see [[30]]), has set out to removed all entries related to women, not only Iranian women, but also, as I have just discovered, Indian women. In response to my message, Sidatio wrote to me:

"Finally - my "personal ambition" in life is to become independently wealthy and retire young. I don't believe it's possible for me to care any less about the existence of this or any other article (or, for that matter, Wikipedia itself) than I do right now."

I do not believe that someone who cannot "care less" should have the right to begin a crusade to remove entries related to women on Wikipedia. To Sidatio: What you wrote to me, part of which I have quoted above, signifies the attidue of a mercenary! Your entire response to me consists of inconsistencies upon inconsistencies; I did not respond to you yesterday by the fact that I had mentioned that I would no longer write on that particular page. You may ask youself that if you cannot "care less" and if your ambition in life is to become rich, what business you may have to be on these pages, not least by the evident fact that no one becomes rich on spending time on the pages of Wikipedia: in terms of gaining material wealth, this place is the most wasteful place to be. To be brief, I strongly object to the possibility that individuals such as you can undertake such actions as deleting entries on Wikipedia. For those who may not know: there is out there such a thing called misogyny; if you are not a women, ask your mother or sister(s), and they can tell you all about it and the various forms it takes. I am sorry Sidatio, I would not be who I am if I did not call a spade a spade; I regret to say it, but by what you wrote to me yesterday, I lost my trust in you and your motivations. I hereby apologise if I offended you, since it is not, and it has not been, my aim to offend any soul, and least of all you; I am just defending women who seem to be target of injustice the world over, and now, as is becoming overwhelmingly apparent, in this corner of the world called Wikipedia. Lastly, this is my first and last message here. --BF 11:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sidatio did not nominate this article for deletion, I did. I care very much about Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl 12:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did Sidatio not nominate this article, he is not the only advocate for deletion. Plenty of seasoned editors have chimed in with sound policy reasons for deleting this "article". --Evb-wiki 12:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Potentially endless collection of names, unmaintainable, low usefulness. This AfD should be cleaned up, the shouts are irrelevant. Pavel Vozenilek 23:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way too lose of an inclusion criteria Corpx 20:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 23:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Use of Knowledge in Society[edit]

Original Research Pharmboy 15:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pharmboy. And the link doesn't work either. A little "use of knowledge" isn't a dangerous thing, it's just of little use. Mandsford 01:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and the quotes are too long: a Copyvio. Bearian 18:22, 6 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 09:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southmall Manurewa[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:CORP. Jauerback 15:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "It was one of the first shopping malls in New Zealand". Mathmo ^Talk 20:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An additional comment: I'm going to quote from another AfD, while I don't entirely agree with every detail it contains important truths: "All malls should have articles here because they are the local landmarks of our times, often replacing Main Street or town squares. They have as much influence on towns as highways, schools, or stadiums. They are substantial economic enterprises and raise major issues involving land use, taxation, and globalization. Too many people love to talk, read or write about them for us to play silly games and try to exclude them. This may be hard for people to believe, but in the real world, they are far more important than the latest Virtual community, Pokemon card, or webcomic." Mathmo ^Talk 21:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Mathmo ^Talk 21:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But even so, we do not generally have separate articles about the Main Sreet or town square of most towns. We just give them approriate mention in the article on the town. Smallish shopping centers which are not "super-regional" or enev "regional" can be similarly mentioned in the article on the town. Edison 21:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If cites can be provided about it being one of the first, then definitely notable Recurring dreams 22:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source. It sounds like a notable mall but sources would hopefully confirm it. Capitalistroadster 02:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mathmo.-gadfium 05:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Article has now been converted to a well-structured stub and has some references for the information. However, I personally cannot find details to confirm if it is one of the first centres in NZ. If someone with Factiva or LexisNexis, or the BOMA/Property Council databases could step in and confirm this it would be appreciated. Thewinchester ^(talk) 02:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious claim to notability, decent stub. Rebecca 03:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Nicely written article, but I can't see that it satisfies WP:N. About 2% smaller than a regional mall, and even many of them get deleted. There needs to be a more solid ref for it being the country's first mall, than a website saying "it is believed." Even a small mall like this could be notable for historicity, although 1967 is not very early for the oveerall history of shopping malls. Needs solid references showing that it is somehow unusually important for a mall of its size. Edison 21:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepJameeserano 22:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to dementia. --Core desat 06:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Severe dementia[edit]

Metal band from Bangladesh. Main sources are official site and myspace. Unreferenced, contains original research and fails WP:MUSIC. Delete and redirect to dementia unless notability can be established. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 15:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to dementia Will ^(talk) 17:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 23:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oli Filth 23:35, 2 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. --Core desat 06:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of defunct shopping malls[edit]

Listcruft of red linked, USA-centric defunct non-notable shopping malls. The list itself is getting out of hand and is "unlimited and/or unmaintainable". Tomj 14:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If the malls (especially the redlinked malls) are defunct, they will never become more notable and are unlikely to merit their own articles. --Evb-wiki 15:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per above--Victor falk 15:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indeed, I raised this issue on the talk page, and obviously someone decided to simply bring it here. It is USA only, not-notable, and simply silly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by I ate jelly (talk • contribs)

Discussion: If the name was simply changed to "List of defunct USA shopping malls," would that be enough to keep it? 6thAvenue 16:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: No, because the majority of the content would be non-notable and non-verifiable. Tomj 16:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if this list was restricted to the United States, it possibilities are still unlimited. Think about how many shopping malls are built and destroyed every year. Thousands if not tens of thousands. Also this information really serves no practical use for anyone interested in an encyclopedia and anyone truly looking for this information should not be coming here for it. Mkdw ^talk 20:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment doesn't this duplicate the category? 132.205.44.5 22:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been involved with this article for a long time, and it was originally created in order to be verifiable, but it seems to have spun somewhat out of control. Do with it as consensus dictates, but if this one dies, take List of shopping malls converted to outdoor format with it, which has similar problems. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It had a purpose once, as an attempt to bring some order into the articles on the subject, but it is un-needed now. DGG (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the malls there are not notable and it is to much USA-centric as well. Better in a category instead.--JForget 01:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Actually, this is a topic that is a problem in urban planning. When a mall goes defunct, it leaves behind an abandoned building that nobody knows what to do with... it can't be leased out, costs more to demolish than to let rot, leaves a parking lot in the middle of nowhere, and wastes acres of prime land. There's a similar problem when a Wal-Mart leaves for a larger location, and a "box" is left behind. Maybe there's an article about the problem, and this can be merged into it. (By the way, I know this will piss off everyone who hates trivia, but the "Dixie Square Mall" in Harvey, Illinois... that's where the classic mall-destroying chase scene in The Blues Brothers was filmed. The mall had gone out of business in the late 1970s, and was restocked for the shooting of the movie. Maybe someone can nominate this discussion for deletion...)Mandsford 00:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response:Then there should be an article discussing the problems with defunct shopping malls, not simply a meaningless, trivial list of malls that have caused said problems. In fact, there is. See Dead Mall, maybe that article should be improved to include a few illustrative examples from this one, not simply a list.Falard 13:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge blue-linked list elements into Dead mall. As Mandsford says, dead malls are a very big social and economic issue in communities across North America. Merging the list items into the topical article (as examples) would enhance the article. Also note related AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls converted to outdoor format --orlady 16:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned in the outdoor-format comparison, how do you rectify that merged list becoming a gigantic pile of listcruft again down the road? SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bang Strong Delete blue-linked defucnt malls should be deleted as well, unless they're notable such as the first mall built in USA or the largest mall ever closed, since these places are defunct. What's next? city's prime lots available for construction? AMAPO 19:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Put the notable ones in a similiar category Corpx 20:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per mandsford and and orlady. Once notable, is always notable. Mathmo ^Talk 21:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These malls are a real issue affecting many areas! Bmhs823 22:06, 6 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lynnmall[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:CORP. Jauerback 14:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notability--Victor falk 15:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. I refuse to believe that every shopping center needs an entry. Brianyoumans 16:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm going to quote a comment from another AfD, while I don't entirely agree with every detail it contains important truths: "All malls should have articles here because they are the local landmarks of our times, often replacing Main Street or town squares. They have as much influence on towns as highways, schools, or stadiums. They are substantial economic enterprises and raise major issues involving land use, taxation, and globalization. Too many people love to talk, read or write about them for us to play silly games and try to exclude them. This may be hard for people to believe, but in the real world, they are far more important than the latest Virtual community, Pokemon card, or webcomic." Mathmo ^Talk 21:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Mathmo ^Talk 21:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: one second with google turns up a couple of useful references that I've included into the article, and that is from looking no further than the first page of results! Mathmo ^Talk 21:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mathmo.-gadfium 05:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete shopping malls are interesting, yes, even useful, but not inherently notable. Carlossuarez46 21:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Mathmo has demonstrated, sources exist to prove the notability of this article, and considering how easy it was for him to find those, it's pretty hard to believe that there isn't more material if someone wanted to expand this. Rebecca 03:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Quoting directory style information and news articles regarding events which just happened to occur at the mall - the robbery could have happened anywhere, the article was about the robbery - does not establish notability in line with WP:N.Ga rr ie 23:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability demonstrated, and article is now a well-structured and properly referenced stub, and includes information of news events relating to the centre. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 82% of the size to qualify as a"regional" and the refs are only releases from the management, from a steel supplier, and coverage of a robbery. Needds more independent references to show the mall itself has historic or economic importance beyond its immediate area. The refs do not satisfy WP:N and the size does not even satisfy the rejected proposal for mall notability WP:MALL. That said, it is a very nice little article, and those working on it are to be complemented. Edison 20:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very similar to this AfD; same reasoning applies. --xDanielx^Talk 23:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Same reasoning? Sizes are radically different. Vegaswikian 00:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 120 stores v. 116 stores? I don't see a radical difference. If you have evidence that one mall is significantly larger, I'd be happy to see it. I won't claim that the facts backing my comparison were entirely comprehensive (I don't know the mean area of each store, for instance), but I did have a reasonable factual basis for my comparison, if not a perfect one. Again, if you can present more comprehensive facts, I'd be happy to see them. --xDanielx^Talk 08:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Really a small mall. If there is local importance, then merge to New Lynn per WP:LOCAL. Vegaswikian 00:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jameeserano 22:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the sources cited are reliable:
- Three are directory style only so do not assert notability
- One is about a robbery, not the subject of this article
- The only other one is pretty much a promotional puff piece from the steel supplier.

ie, none of the references cited to date are significant independent coverage about Lynnmall. Ga rr ie 23:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You call it "promotional fluff" from the steel supplier, yet would a steel supplier ever mention supplying your roofing? Of course not. Because your house is not notable (I presume... unless you are the Queen of England?). They are only mentioning it because it is notable, unlike your house. Mathmo ^Talk 03:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... sorry if it comes across in a bit of a "yo mamma..." tone. I bear no ill feelings towards your house(or mother...)! Mathmo ^Talk 04:00, 9 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, but leaning toward keep, so keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Oak Mall[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:CORP. Jauerback 14:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notability--Victor falk 15:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm going to quote a comment from another AfD, while I don't entirely agree with every detail it contains important truths: "All malls should have articles here because they are the local landmarks of our times, often replacing Main Street or town squares. They have as much influence on towns as highways, schools, or stadiums. They are substantial economic enterprises and raise major issues involving land use, taxation, and globalization. Too many people love to talk, read or write about them for us to play silly games and try to exclude them. This may be hard for people to believe, but in the real world, they are far more important than the latest Virtual community, Pokemon card, or webcomic." Mathmo ^Talk 21:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You're trying to compare this "mall" to these town squares? Jauerback 13:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, currently in the modern world most town squares have little relevance while the mall has become highly significant in the average modern person's life. Mathmo ^Talk 02:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Mathmo ^Talk 21:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tough call here, large mall likely notable for the area although very little is provided to proove it. I say NeutralJForget 01:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Mathmo.-gadfium 05:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mathmo and JForget. Rebecca 03:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one of those was a neutral.Ga rr ie 22:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I'm all for shopping centre articles there has to be something to say. There may be something to say about Royal Oak Mall - but nobody has bothered yet. No assertion to notability - really, it has a unique mix of shops - out of 80, 17 of them are national franchises. HOW ORIGINAL? - Not original at all.Ga rr ie 08:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find a statement of retail space or GLA, but 700 parking spaces does not sound very large. Lacks evidence of being a large or important mall. Edison 20:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is there even anything to merge to the city article? Vegaswikian 01:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jameeserano 22:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mathmo, sufficiently notable and much moreso than the average Simpsons episode. Burntsauce 17:32, 9 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 09:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waitakere Mega Centre[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:CORP. Jauerback 14:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notability--Victor falk 15:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm going to quote a comment from another AfD, while I don't entirely agree with every detail it contains important truths: "All malls should have articles here because they are the local landmarks of our times, often replacing Main Street or town squares. They have as much influence on towns as highways, schools, or stadiums. They are substantial economic enterprises and raise major issues involving land use, taxation, and globalization. Too many people love to talk, read or write about them for us to play silly games and try to exclude them. This may be hard for people to believe, but in the real world, they are far more important than the latest Virtual community, Pokemon card, or webcomic." Mathmo ^Talk 21:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Mathmo ^Talk 21:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mathmo.-gadfium 05:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is now a well-strucuted stub and all the copyvio in the article lifted straight from ING's website has now been totally removed. Anyone with the appropriate tools should be able to take this article to an appropriatly improved article with additional references and history. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-structured stub, rewritten since AfD began. Rebecca 03:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Mathmo. Twenty Years 07:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Well written little article with print references. Since the refs are not available online, it is impossible to tell if they make more than a passing ref to this property. It is a very small shopping center at 178,000 square feet, less than half the size to be considered a "regional mall" and many of them get deleted. Does it have special historical or architectural merit? Edison 19:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small malls may have local importance and could be merged with the city article. However this one does not seems notable per nomination. Vegaswikian 01:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Mathmo. Jameeserano 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definately seems to have the multiple independent references required by WP:N.Ga rr ie 22:47, 7 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. I wanted to close this as a no consensus but the article is a straight copyright violation of the promoter's website. No prejudice against recreation although it should probably be sent back swiftly to AfD. Pascal.Tesson 04:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albany Mega Centre[edit]

As with all the other malls up for AFD today, this fails WP:CORP and WP:N. Jauerback 14:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notability--Victor falk 15:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm going to quote a comment from another AfD, while I don't entirely agree with every detail it contains important truths: "All malls should have articles here because they are the local landmarks of our times, often replacing Main Street or town squares. They have as much influence on towns as highways, schools, or stadiums. They are substantial economic enterprises and raise major issues involving land use, taxation, and globalization. Too many people love to talk, read or write about them for us to play silly games and try to exclude them. This may be hard for people to believe, but in the real world, they are far more important than the latest Virtual community, Pokemon card, or webcomic." Mathmo ^Talk 21:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Mathmo ^Talk 21:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Mathmo.-gadfium 05:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Mathmo and gadfium. Asserts notability by use of the word "iconic". Badly needs reliable sources.Bearian 17:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Malls are not inherently notable. Needs refs to show it is large or otherwise important beyond its neighborhood. Edison 19:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article makes no attempt to assert notability. If it is of local interest, then merge the information into the local city article. Vegaswikian 01:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Mega centre is going to be part of the biggest city centre project in the history of auckland, besides the CBD.. Which is definitely notable to anyone who actually lives in auckland, not england.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.188.7 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 7 August 2007
Delete at this late stage of the AfD I would expect some references to have appeared. If the topic was notable, then at least a primary source would be cited at some stage during and AfD.Ga rr ie 22:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the above, I mean - nobody has identified how Albany Mega Centre meets either WP:N or WP:CORP. Ga rr ie 22:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mathmo does not cite a valid reason to keep the article, so his/her argument along with the ones citing "Per Mathmo" cannot count from much more than "I Like It" for an article about something failing to satisfy WP:N and WP:CORP. The article is, except for my edits, a copyvio from the mall owners website[31]. It does not look very impressive in the illustration. Per the owners it has only 24,445 square meters (263126 square feet) of retail space, which in the US would make it far smaller than even a regional mall, and those have typically been deleted. The U.S. standards no longer are considered applicable to non-U.S. malls per the 2004 ICSC table (see Shopping mall). That just leaves us with a smallish mall with no references except for mostly cut and paste from the owner's website (unless the owner copied from Wikipedia). Edison 23:26, 8 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 a copyright infringement.-Wafulz 14:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelston Shopping Centre[edit]

Another "mall" that fails WP:CORP and WP:N. Jauerback 14:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notability--Victor falk 15:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm going to quote a comment from another AfD, while I don't entirely agree with every detail it contains important truths: "All malls should have articles here because they are the local landmarks of our times, often replacing Main Street or town squares. They have as much influence on towns as highways, schools, or stadiums. They are substantial economic enterprises and raise major issues involving land use, taxation, and globalization. Too many people love to talk, read or write about them for us to play silly games and try to exclude them. This may be hard for people to believe, but in the real world, they are far more important than the latest Virtual community, Pokemon card, or webcomic." Mathmo ^Talk 21:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You're trying to compare this "mall" to these town squares? Jauerback 13:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Mathmo ^Talk 21:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this one doesn't seem to be very important containaing a much lesser number of stores and is much smaller then the other Afd with the Neutral vote.--JForget 01:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Mathmo.-gadfium 05:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As CSD G12 for direct copyright violation. Not withstanding non-notable centre. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:06, 3 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 dBase#Origins. --Core desat 06:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vulcan (programing language)[edit]

This language doesn't come close to meeting WP:N. Looks like it was up for Speedy Deletion before, but the article's creator deleted the tag himself. So, I feel this is probably the best course of action Jauerback 14:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historically this was notable as the precursor of dBASE, which only achieved the success it did because it was programmable. —Ian Spackman 15:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DBASE#Origins where it is alreayd mentioned with mostly the same content and source. --Tikiwont 15:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tikiwont. —gorgan_almighty 16:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DBASE#Origins. Article has no real content. --Boricuaeddie 18:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only because nobody has yet put in any real effort in expanding it from stub status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathmo (talk • contribs)

Keep, is the ancestor to dBase/FoxPro (which even though they have long gone out of favour are still one of the top twenty languages in the world). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathmo (talk • contribs)
Redirect to dBase#Origins, per the above three commenters who voted Redirect. The source referenced here has so little info on Vulcan that it would not allow the present article to be expanded beyond a tiny stub. Since Vulcan is notable only as a precursor to dBase, the dBase article is where the information should go. EdJohnston 23:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tikiwont. - Cyborg Ninja 00:51, 3 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. --Core desat 06:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gualtiero Cannarsi[edit]

Blatant self-promotion Ian Spackman 13:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as per proposal) Ian Spackman
Delete, idem. --Attilios 19:16, 2 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. --Core desat 06:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Manukau City[edit]

All of these malls fail WP:N and WP:CORP. Creator probably has a case of WP:COI, since all he/she is doing is creating articles about malls. Jauerback 13:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please get your facts straight.

a) Above user is not the creator of this article.

b) The user who created this article is a known, long-term contributor.

c) The user you linked to creates articles about malls owned by different operators, so the WP:COI accusation is dubious. Ingolfson 08:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with WP:N and WP:CORP; but there's no evidence of violation of WP:COI. Oli Filth 13:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per nom Harlowraman 23:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail WP:N and WP:CORP: [reply]

Comment Striking the above five additional articles added for consideration. This is a breach of process as articles were added for consideration after the AFD was opened and comments made. If they are not notable, then open a new AfD to consider these articles. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have removed the AfD templates from the above, struck, articles. If Jauerback wants them back on, correctly this time - fair enough. Ingolfson 12:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response as I posted on Thewinchester's talk page: "Well, you're partly correct, so I won't argue with you. I didn't "attempt" to add five (or four?) more articles to this AFD. That was my intent the entire time. I hadn't reached step III of the AFD listing process where I listed it on the the articles for deletion page with ((subst:afd3 | pg=PageName)). Apparently, someone saw the AFD tag on one the articles and gave his two cents. So, your assessment is accurate, but not entirely... either way, I won't fight what you did." Jauerback 13:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Westfield Manukau City, which at least is sourced. ~~Neutral for now on the other ones until I research them.~~ Weak delete on the rest, which seem to fail WP:RS (I tried and found nothing). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Lukes currently contains multiple references as well, plus I'd imagine there would be a significant number of references only available offline. So don't base your decision purely on what you can find through google. Mathmo ^Talk 20:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- gadfium 19:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with the possible exception of Westfield Downtown, these are major shopping malls and subjects I would expect to find an article about in Wikipedia. At least one of these has an entry in the Te Ara encyclopedia.-gadfium 19:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Being a big mall is not notable.--Victor falk 20:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Having third-party reliable sources is Twenty Years 05:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All, these are all the biggest malls in auckland (which is itself the biggest city in NZ). Naturally coverage of them does exist in multiple sources about all of them. Mathmo ^Talk 20:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

coverage does not per se confer notability. in what way are they connected to an unusual event or person, or what qualities do they possess that separates them from any random mall?--Victor falk 21:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commonly I see this, that people believe notable means the subject has to be unusual/unique. Not so, to directly quote from the start of WP:N: " The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity"". It has been deemed worthy to notice, by being noticed by other than themselves. QED. Mathmo ^Talk 22:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All or at least most per gadfium. They seem notable enough, and are cited. Recurring dreams 22:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All as explained above. They looked to be significant malls for the area although expansion and more sources would be needed though.--JForget 01:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Gadfium. They seem notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Gadfium. All malls costing multiple millions to build and turning over many millions each year have a certain inherent notability, no matter how bland some may appear to you. I may spend some time this weekend to provide refs.Ingolfson 08:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Westfield St Lukes also has a reliable reference for its 6 million people per year turnover. Certainly pretty notable via that alone. Ingolfson 08:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By implication, it seems you are saying that all business that have 7-figure turnovers or more are inherently notable. If not, why are malls a special case? In any case, I would imagine that it's impossible to build a mall for less than a million dollars/pounds, so this really boils down to an argument based on the fact that the mall exists. Oli Filth 02:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I'm not from Auckland, can someone please send me (here, on my talk page or email is fine) a list of the institutional major SCs in the metro area and surrounds? (I'm only asking for what would be common knowledge to a resident from the city - for example I could name about 10 shopping centres in Perth and Melbourne immediately without even thinking). I would be happy to see if I can get researched reliable information on them, we've been working on this for Australian centres as well as some really big ones were getting nominated for deletion. Am also happy to consider requests for any other shopping centre over 20000 sqm. Orderinchaos 13:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable centre, appropriatly sourced, and now formatted as a well structured stub for an appropriate person in country to improve. Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major shopping centre in a major city, appropriately sourced. Rebecca 03:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a big part of the identity of Manukau City Leaderofearth 01:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is the case, why can't the useful/relevant information in this article be merged into the Manukau City article?
  - Because you don't need to merge it if separation makes sense. And yes, anything turning over millions of dollars and being visited by millions of shoppers per year IS inherently notable. As for your 1 million dollars comments, I can only smile. Consultants, architects and lawyers fees eat up more than that before any mall even goes to construction stage. Ingolfson 03:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, misunderstood your 1 million dollar comment. As per my above comment, yes I believe that a mall would have to WORK at being NOT notable. Many may not be flash, many may be boring, but as I put it above, they have notability via commercial importance and being a regular feature in many people's lives. Ingolfson 03:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Moved to the talk page a huge number of references that I previously posted here, so as to make the AfD more streamlined and readable. Mathmo ^Talk 10:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Has a few references, comes very close to the size requirement for a "regional mall". Such a retail establishment might be more important to a smaller country than it would be in a larger one. Edison 20:04, 6 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. --Core desat 06:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Russian players in Russian Football Premier League 2007[edit]

WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreover, I'm curious how the author defines "non-Russian" and why were these particular players chosen. Conscious 13:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 13:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Number 5 7 13:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. indiscriminate collection of information. "Non-Russian" is broad and undefined: born outside of the Soviet Union? The Russian Federation? No Russian heritage?-Wafulz 13:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per WP:NOT#INFO. Totally uncyclopedic list. --Boricuaeddie 14:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons listed above.Zuxtron 15:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC) — Zuxtron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - per nom. Contains many Russian players (who are only "non-Russian" as they are from semi-autonomous republics within the Russian Federation). Maybe purge of said players and replace with a category - Non-Russian footballers playing in Russia? GiantSnowman 16:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hardly "indiscriminate information" as the list has extremely clear inclusion parameters (profession, workplace, and citizenship) to which it largely holds. I see only one questionable entry (the inclusion of a player from Dagestan); all the others are for people from countries outside of Russia. cab 01:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, Chuvashia, North Ossettia, Tatarstan and Abkhazia aren't countries outside of Russia..... ChrisTheDude 07:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazia is related to Georgia, but the rest are Republics of Russia. Conscious 08:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....meaning that players from those areas are officially Russian, is that right? ChrisTheDude 08:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure, they are Russian citizens. I think the author included these players because they think the players are not ethnic Russians (which is just irrelevant in my opinion and needs to be sourced anyway). Conscious 08:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. cab 01:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep better changed to List of Russian Premier League players using List of foreign Serie A players format. Matthew_hk t c 07:31, 3 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. --Core desat 06:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Knights (Martial Art)[edit]

Local Martial Arts organisation, no assertion of notability Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete As per nom - advertisement.Peter Rehse 14:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep They don't assert notability, but given as many people as it looks like they have, I'd be surprised if they haven't won a significant amount of awards. Unfortunately, that part of their website is locked out. If someone can get to it, or something else we can use as a source, I'd say we should keep it --L--- 14:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. Eusebeus 15:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I made it when I was more inclined to do silly things, such as the article. Xander 23:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Recurring dreams 22:54, 2 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. --Core desat 06:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Greene[edit]

This footballer has never played at a professional level, which is required by WP:BIO. Prod contested by article's creator without further explanation ChrisTheDude 13:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 13:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has never played in a fully-professional league. Number 5 7 13:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As someone unfamiliar with these football leagues, can it be explained what type of league he plays in? Is it an amateur league? Leebo ^T/C 13:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- His current team, Sutton United, and his former team, Yeading, both play (or played in Yeading's case, as they are defunct) in semi-professional leagues i.e. the players do receive some form of monetary remuneration for playing but also have day jobs ChrisTheDude 13:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm more familiar with baseball. From what I've seen, a lot of minor league baseball players have articles as professional athletes, even though many of them will never reach their Major League affiliate's team and the contracts for minor league players is often insufficient to fully support them financially. In any case, I suppose I'll try to find some sources for Nicky Greene; if sources can be found, it wouldn't matter what level he plays at. If I can't find any, then I'd be in support of deleting the article. Leebo ^T/C 14:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BIO requires competitors to "...have played in a fully professional league...". Nicky Greene has not. --Malcolmxl5 20:54, 2 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. --Core desat 06:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALSong[edit]

Article had been prod'd a second time; moving to AfD instead. Issue is the lack of references (WP:V) and lack of assertion of notability (WP:N) Marasmusine 13:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Shalom ^Hello 13:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, unlikely to find English-language WP:RS:sources. Bearian 18:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G12 and A7. The incident which occurred in the mall (which appears notable) may be recreated quite easily under an article name appropriate to general usage, but a minor shopping centre really should be documented in the suburb within which it falls, or perhaps on the major road on which it falls. Orderinchaos 13:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three Kings Shopping Mall[edit]

Fails WP:ORG and WP:N miserably. Jauerback 13:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oli Filth 13:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability whatsoever.--Victor falk 14:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm going to quote a comment from another AfD, while I don't entirely agree with every detail it contains important truths: "All malls should have articles here because they are the local landmarks of our times, often replacing Main Street or town squares. They have as much influence on towns as highways, schools, or stadiums. They are substantial economic enterprises and raise major issues involving land use, taxation, and globalization. Too many people love to talk, read or write about them for us to play silly games and try to exclude them. This may be hard for people to believe, but in the real world, they are far more important than the latest Virtual community, Pokemon card, or webcomic." Mathmo ^Talk 21:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Mathmo ^Talk 21:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This (yet another New Zealand mall targeted for Afd) one doesn't seem to be notable for the area and unsourced.--JForget 01:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As you said, this is "yet another New Zealand mall targeted for Afd". Sadly it does seem to be so that every single one of them is trying to be deleted right now...... which is drastically unfair, many are worthy of being saved. And this can be shown to be so if there was a chance given to put in the effort. But with so many many nominator, the time spent is spread very thinly. Would have been far far better if only one at a time had been nominated, then each could have had the discussion it deserves as to if it should be kept or not. Mathmo ^Talk 02:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mathmo.-gadfium 05:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not withstanding this centre is just way too small to justify an article and nothing can be found to support notability, the article is a direct copyvio. Article has been tagged with G12 for action. Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:37, 3 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of collective nouns[edit]

Redundant disambiguation page. More like a table of contents. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary Will ^(talk) 13:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, this can go to Wikitionary as explained above.--JForget 01:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe all the lists could be organized better, but there has to be some way of finding them all. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only the top page is tagged, so we're discussing it rather than all the other untagged articles. That said, it hardly belongs in a dictionary. Carlossuarez46 21:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC) missed the others. Still not dictionary material, all told. Carlossuarez46 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify the whole lot of them. Bearian 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - WP is not a dictionary/thesaraus (sp?) or a grammer guide Corpx 20:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valid navigational index to several associated lists which currently exist on Wikipedia, and is in compliance with the lists of lists guideline. If all the lists listed here get deleted in their respective AfD's, then it can be renominated afterwards. DHowell 03:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per DHowell. Mathmo ^Talk 23:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. --musicpvm 09:02, 9 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 due to current lack of sources. No prejudice against re-creation if sources appear in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — TKD::Talk 07:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt carson[edit]

A biography about an individual who does not meet biography notability guidelines. Couldn't find enough reliable sources for verification. I also couldn't find any notable book reviews, despite the claims the article makes.[32] Wafulz 13:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search for "On A Hill They Call Capital" review and all I could find was this, which isn't a review, but contains two excerpts from purported reviews... Odd that those reviews cited can't be found elsewhere. "Matt Carson" review didn't turn up much either, other than an Amazon link to buy the book. I would lean toward Delete if other sources, or at least the reviews that supposedly exist, can't be found. Leebo ^T/C 13:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article was also rejected by articles for creation because it only provided Amazon as a source.-Wafulz 13:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It might be too early to keep this page. The reviews were early reviews which publishers request for the purpose of placing them on the book jacket but typically don't appear in the publication until the book is released and it's technically only available for pre-orders on amazon.com - the book release date is sometime this Fall. I guess i'd recommend removing the page until the reviews are published this Fall. Ron20186 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.161.53.95 (talk • contribs) 13:56, August 2, 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Actually, my two cents here, I'd recommend keeping the page and here's why; While it is true that most of Carson's reviews won't appear in print until mid-September they are real and Joel Garreau of The Washington Post and of The Garreau Group "Garreau.com" can be contacted to verify the legitimacy of the book and the review. I will gather the contact information for Jeff Tietz of the Rolling Stone who's also reviewed the book among others. But, other than that Carson is kind of a cult personality, and while his celebrity status nationwide is slowly growing he's most certainly a celebrity in his home state of Virginia - other than being a successful author he's the founder of one of the largest privately held web development firms in the country, SiteWhirks, and appeared in the Men of Rappahannock County calendar which gained national media attention "article here" and is known as a celebrity as evidence by this article when he guest bartended to help Habitat for Humanity "article here". I am currently also in the process of gathering articles from his time at WVU where he became an icon for preserving the rights of partiers and his articles in one of the largest school papers in the country were syndicated, this part is slightly time consuming as the Internet wasn't well established while he was in school there and as such online archives are unavailable. I will be posting here over the next few days as I gather more documentation to support my 'two cents.' I am Carson's publicist if you're wondering where such a supportive voice comes from. Erika Hammond, Amp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.161.53.95 (talk • contribs) 14:40, August 2, 2007 (UTC)

Note that the above 2 comments are from the same user. Leebo ^T/C 14:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the reviews won't be made available until the fall, then wait until the fall. We cannot print material unless it is freely verifiable by anyone at anytime. The verifiability policy states "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." If he's on the up-and-coming, that's great, but we should really wait until the print sources are out. Also, it's generally a bad idea to write articles about subjects where you have a conflict of interest.-Wafulz 15:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If the article's jumped the gun, it's a good idea to shoot it - and a bad idea to have your publicist contribute to it. Sidatio 16:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No preemptive articles should be encouraged. 6thAvenue 16:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - right now, I see very minimal notability for this author; his first novel appears to have been self-published, and I can't really find much information about the next one. If it's reviewed, and picks up some steam when it's released, then maybe it might bring some notability; for now, it's a little bit on the WP:CRYSTAL side to have this article. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:49, 2 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. Please take any Transwiki discussions to the appropriate talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of collective nouns by subject I-Z[edit]

List of collective noun definitions. Without sources. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki those that can be sourced to Wiktionary. Delete the rest. Will ^(talk) 13:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary- that's what it is there for Lurker (said · done) 16:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's just this sort of thing that makes Wikipedia interesting and unique. I know that WP:INTERESTING will get me flamed, but I just don't see why this needs to be deleted. Its encyclopedic value is obvious to me. It also has a history going back to 2002; a lot of people have read this and edited it over the years. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm a little undecided as to where this should go. I don't think there's any argument that the information in this page is something we want to keep in the system (be it Wikipedia or Wiktionary); The question is where. My intuition seems to say this is more dictionary-worthy material, but I'm not sure if Wiktionary's format takes lists like this. If not, the list might as well stay here until Wiktionary can accommodate the information in this format. --Brad Beattie (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a annotated list of closely-related words, otherwise known as a "glossary", as permitted by the stand-alone list guideline. It certianly can be copied to Wikitionary, but should not be deleted from here. Also, this should be kept per the WP:CONSENSUS of hundreds of editors who have contributed to all of the collective nouns lists since 2001, most of whom are not being heard from in these discussions. DHowell 03:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per DHowell. Mathmo ^Talk 23:14, 7 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. Please take any Transwiki discussions to the appropriate talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of collective nouns by subject A-H[edit]

List of collective noun definitions. Without sources. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki those that can be sourced to Wiktionary. Delete the rest. Will ^(talk) 13:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary- that's what it is there for Lurker (said · done) 16:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary Harlowraman 23:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki as explained above, WP is not a dictionnary.--JForget 01:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of collective nouns by subject I-Z. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep until there is a better place. Wiktionary does not accept these lists. DGG (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a annotated list of closely-related words, otherwise known as a "glossary", as permitted by the stand-alone list guideline. Strong keep if Wiktionary does not accept such lists, which would prove that it does not fail WP:NOT#DICT. Also, this should be kept per the WP:CONSENSUS of hundreds of editors who have contributed to all of the collective nouns lists since 2001, most of whom are not being heard from in these discussions. DHowell 03:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per DHowell. Mathmo ^Talk 23:15, 7 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. Please take any Transwiki discussions to the appropriate talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of collective nouns by subject[edit]

Redundant disambiguation page. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki those that can be sourced to Wiktionary. Delete the rest. Will ^(talk) 13:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary- that's what it is there for Lurker (said · done) 16:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of collective nouns by subject I-Z. This one has a history going back to 2001. It's just an index page now, but there is probably some way of incorporating it into a useful organizational structure. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an annotated list of closely-related words, otherwise known as a "glossary", as permitted by the stand-alone list guideline. Strong keep if Wiktionary does not accept such lists, which would prove that it does not fail WP:NOT#DICT. Also, this should be kept per the WP:CONSENSUS of hundreds of editors who have contributed to all of the collective nouns lists since 2001, most of whom are not being heard from in these discussions. DHowell 03:27, 7 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. Please take any Transwiki discussions to the appropriate talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of collective nouns for reptiles and amphibians[edit]

List of collective noun definitions. Lacking sources. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki those that can be sourced to Wiktionary. Delete the rest. Will ^(talk) 13:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of collective nouns by subject I-Z. First human edit was in 2003. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps the nom hasn't noticed, but wiktionary does not include such lists, just individual terms. And Exaltation of Larks is the source for notabiity of the topic--it includes living things in general, including these animals Lists are being nom. without much concern foir what they contain or their purpose, using only the most general of arguments. DGG (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an annotated list of closely-related words, otherwise known as a "glossary", as permitted by the stand-alone list guideline. Strong keep if Wiktionary does not accept such lists, which would prove that it does not fail WP:NOT#DICT. Also, this should be kept per the WP:CONSENSUS of hundreds of editors who have contributed to all of the collective nouns lists since 2001, most of whom are not being heard from in these discussions. DHowell 03:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep YOu got to love a page called List of collective nouns for reptiles and amphibians!!!
Strong Keep per DHowell. Mathmo ^Talk 23:18, 7 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. Please take any Transwiki discussions to the appropriate talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of collective nouns for fish, invertebrates, and plants[edit]

List of collective noun definitions. Without sources. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki those that can be sourced to Wiktionary. Delete the rest. Will ^(talk) 13:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary- that's what it is there for Lurker (said · done) 17:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of collective nouns by subject I-Z. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps the nom hasn't noticed, but wiktionary does not include such lists, just individual terms. And Exaltation of Larks is the source for notabiity of the topic--it includes living things in general. Lists are being nom. without much concern foir what they contain or their purpose, using only the most general of arguments. DGG (talk) 08:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an annotated list of closely-related words, otherwise known as a "glossary", as permitted by the stand-alone list guideline. Strong keep if Wiktionary does not accept such lists, which would prove that it does not fail WP:NOT#DICT. Also, this should be kept per the WP:CONSENSUS of hundreds of editors who have contributed to all of the collective nouns lists since 2001, most of whom are not being heard from in these discussions. DHowell 03:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per DHowell. Mathmo ^Talk 23:18, 7 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. Please take any Transwiki discussions to the appropriate talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of collective nouns for non-human mammals[edit]

List of collective noun definitions. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki those that can be sourced to Wiktionary. Delete the rest. Will ^(talk) 13:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, agree that this is what Wiktionary is for. Circeus 13:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary- that's what it is there for Lurker (said · done) 17:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of collective nouns by subject I-Z. These are all sourced, too. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Having it in Wikipedia keeps these related subjects together. — Val42 15:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the book Exaltation of Larks listed below deals not just with birds but with collective names for animals in general, and is a source for the notability of the topic, and, probably for each individual item--for which there will be other sources also. As mentioned, wiktionary does not contain lists of this sort. DGG (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an annotated list of closely-related words, otherwise known as a "glossary", as permitted by the stand-alone list guideline. Strong keep if Wiktionary does not accept such lists, which would prove that it does not fail WP:NOT#DICT. Also, this should be kept per the WP:CONSENSUS of hundreds of editors who have contributed to all of the collective nouns lists since 2001, most of whom are not being heard from in these discussions. DHowell 03:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per DHowell. Mathmo ^Talk 23:17, 7 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. Please take any Transwiki discussions to the appropriate talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of collective nouns by collective term[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Links to pages of lists of collective nouns. No real need for disambiguation here. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. Will ^(talk) 13:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary- that's what it is there for Lurker (said · done) 17:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of collective nouns by subject I-Z. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps the nom hasn;t notice, but wiktionary does not include such lists, just individual terms. DGG (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an annotated list of closely-related words, otherwise known as a "glossary", as permitted by the stand-alone list guideline. Strong keep if Wiktionary does not accept such lists, which would prove that it does not fail WP:NOT#DICT. Also, this should be kept per the WP:CONSENSUS of hundreds of editors who have contributed to all of the collective nouns lists since 2001, most of whom are not being heard from in these discussions. DHowell 03:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per DHowell. Mathmo ^Talk 23:15, 7 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, huge amount of sourcing available, i.e. [33],[34], and [35] which is sourced against Webster's/OED. Appears to conform with WP:SAL.ELIMINATORJR 23:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of collective nouns for birds[edit]

List of collective noun definitions. Without sources. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki those that can be sourced to Wiktionary. Delete the rest. Will ^(talk) 13:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary- that's what it is there for Lurker (said · done) 17:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article but delete everything that doesn't have a source. This article is better suited to an encyclopedia than a dictionary (in a dictionary, what would you look up to find this entry??). It's a valid list - it's just unsourced. I'm guessing 75% of this stuff could be sourced, and it's no great loss to ditch the rest. --Hyperbole 07:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it all. The intro says that the book An Exaltation of Larks is a source -- I do not know if it is the source for all of them, but it is a start. We do not just blindly delete because sources are not immediately available or present. I also do not agree with transwiki-ing. My experience there is limited, but I have never seen a list of this sort there. They prefer to post every word individually, which would defeat the purpose of the list. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book mentioned is a general discussion of exactly this topic and is quite sufficient for notability of the topic of the whole. It probably is the source for them all, but these are editing details--theeare many other sources DGG (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an annotated list of closely-related words, otherwise known as a "glossary", as permitted by the stand-alone list guideline. Strong keep if Wiktionary does not accept such lists, which would prove that it does not fail WP:NOT#DICT. Also, this should be kept per the WP:CONSENSUS of hundreds of editors who have contributed to all of the collective nouns lists since 2001, most of whom are not being heard from in these discussions. DHowell 03:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per DHowell. Mathmo ^Talk 23:18, 7 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. Please take any Transwiki discussions to the appropriate talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of collective nouns by collective term A-K[edit]

List of collective noun definitions. Without sources. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be a combined AfD with the other half, but is there a reason other than being unsourced to delete this? Does it violate some part of our guidelines for lists? I suppose I'd like to see some sourced prose at the beginning to place the usage of such words into a greater context, but I'm interested in hearing what other policy reasons there are for deleting. Leebo ^T/C 13:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response It violates Wikipedia is not a dictionary. So, delete Tomj 13:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm unfamiliar with the status of word lists, but I was sure I knew of at least some word lists, as well as phrase lists. I'm not bringing up WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but I suppose I'll look at such lists differently in the future. Leebo ^T/C 13:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki those that can be sourced to Wiktionary. Delete the rest. Will ^(talk) 13:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary- that's what it is there for Lurker (said · done) 17:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverified and probably unverifiable. I used to work at Oxford University Press and they have a big department that tracks down sources and verifies this sort of thing. The results of this endeavour are commonly known as dictionaries. WP is not a dictionary and this list is not up to dictionary standards and probably never could be. andy 22:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of collective nouns by subject I-Z. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep until there is a better place. Wiktionary does not accept these lists. That printed books include this is no reason WP shouldnt. Other encyclopedia cover this too. DGG (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete WP is not a dictionary or a list of words Corpx 20:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an annotated list of closely-related words, otherwise known as a "glossary", as permitted by the stand-alone list guideline. Strong keep if Wiktionary does not accept such lists, which would prove that it does not fail WP:NOT#DICT. Also, this should be kept per the WP:CONSENSUS of hundreds of editors who have contributed to all of the collective nouns lists since 2001, most of whom are not being heard from in these discussions. DHowell 03:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per DHowell. Mathmo ^Talk 23:16, 7 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. Please take any Transwiki discussions to the appropriate talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of collective nouns by collective term L-Z[edit]

A list of collective noun definitions, without sources. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki those that can be sourced to Wiktionary. Delete the rest. Will ^(talk) 13:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary- that's what it is there for Lurker (said · done) 17:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki as explained in other Afd and above.--JForget 01:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of collective nouns by subject I-Z. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep until there is a better place. Wiktionary does not accept these lists. DGG (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an annotated list of closely-related words, otherwise known as a "glossary", as permitted by the stand-alone list guideline. Strong keep if Wiktionary does not accept such lists, which would prove that it does not fail WP:NOT#DICT. Also, this should be kept per the WP:CONSENSUS of hundreds of editors who have contributed to all of the collective nouns lists since 2001, most of whom are not being heard from in these discussions. DHowell 03:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per DHowell. Mathmo ^Talk 23:17, 7 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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blackle.com[edit]

The only thing clear about this search engine is that it's profitable for the creator. Data already in the article appear to show that the energy saving is an illusion. These facts suggest that blackle.com will not be around for the long haul, and is thus not encyclopedic. Only one newspaper article. The other sources don't refer to blackle.com itself, or are not independent of the creator. EdJohnston 12:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, please! I was recently asked a question about a similar search engine (specifically, about whether it actually saved any energy, and I found the article to be quite helpful. I think there are bound to be people who want to find out if this sort of claim is true. Perhaps that makes an article more suitable for Snopes than for Wikipedia, but it's still useful. Elfbabe 23:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the original poster from ecoIron, and I'm following the debate closely. There are several issues here, but a distinction should be made between whether (a) Blackle is suitable for everyone as a power saving measure and (b) Blackle is sutiable for everyone with a CRT monitor as a power saving measure. The latter is definitely true - no one disputes that a black screen is lower wattage than white on a CRT monitor - but the former is still open for debate. Personally, I think it is also true.

I don't know exactly how many hits Blackle is getting but it's a lot, hundreds of thousands a day. It's true it is a money making venture; it seems obvious that it's a cash cow that will be here forever. Note there are also many other sites just like it.

For sources, I don't exactly know what is required - it's been in the WSJ, Grist, Treehugger (now part of Discovery Communications), Inhabitat, ecoGeek, PC advisor, InfoWeek. Blackle gets 830,00 hits in Google, 'Black Google' gets about 350,000. MyTigers 8:59, 2 August 2007 (EST)

Articles that come up for deletion debate are discussed based on the Wikipedia deletion criteria here; the inherent merits (or otherwise) of an article subject are irrelevant. Google hits are often cited on these pages too - all they really prove though is that something exists, somewhere. By itself, a G-hit count can't establish notability, which follows policy laid out here. Hope this helps ;) EyeSerene^TALK 14:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment above post restored (deleted by MyTigers, diff here)- please do not remove comments from an AfD debate! Thanks EyeSerene^TALK 18:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was editing and the entry got clobbered sorry MyTigers 18:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No probs ;) Incidentally, now multiple, reliable sources are turning up for this article, I'll go with a keep on this one (providing they are written into the article to clearly establish notability). EyeSerene^TALK 18:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being profitable for the creator is not grounds for creation. (get rid of the article on the creator some call God perhaps??). The article has a referenced claim of an 18-88% saving in electricity and this is not an illusion. There are many other newspaper articles that could be added. Not having sources that reference directly to blackle.com is not a reason to dismiss a source. There is only one source that is linked to the creator. Alan Liefting 14:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only possible claim to notability this subject has is the Sydney Morning Herald article ([36]), but this reads like an article on a trivial topic and only lends the subject temporary 'notability' at best. WP:N#Notability is not temporary. The link to headmedia.com is not really a reference, it's just a site that happens to link to the subject's website. The blogspot reference is a blog, and therefore does not meet the requirements of WP:V. The other two references do not mention the subject website. —gorgan_almighty 13:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC) I have changed my views to Weak Keep, see below. —gorgan_almighty 14:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Google hits aside, most of them seem to point to blogs - even the WSJ write-up is on their blog. It's a novel concept, but novelty doesn't equal notability. Sidatio 13:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source per gorgan_almighty's fantastic research. Good job, Gorgon. :-) Sidatio 15:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete: Even if the actual power saving be a myth in this case, it might inspire people to actually find measures to save electricity. Atleast the aim of this site is not a myth. Other website publishers might find ways even for LCDs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.177.212.225 (talk • contribs)

Inspiring people to save electricity is not a reason to have an article on Wikipedia. Alan Liefting 14:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have updated the article with data to show that the power saving could be substantial. over a million [37] [38] google hits, 37 google news items at present (and being the talk of random people here in New Zealand??!!) must be in its favour. Is it the new internet phenomenon? See List of Internet phenomena. Give it a chance and it may outstrip some in this list perhaps. Alan Liefting 14:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tentative delete~~. Right now there is only one reliable source that is actually about the subject in question. It would require a few more sources to meet reliability and notability standards.-Wafulz 14:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meh.-Wafulz 13:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Roll into Parent: Blackle is the biggest site that uses the 'black web' concept, it's not the only one. I propose moving the info into a parent site to clear up the numerous misconceptions around the +/- of surfing a black web - saves energy, usability, hard on the eyes, equipment used, etc. Fact is, surfing a black web on a CRT monitor saves energy, no question about it, and there are a lot of CRTs still out there. These are important points and should be explained encyclopedically. MyTigers 10:08, 2 August 2007 (EST)

What parent article are you referring to? —gorgan_almighty 14:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The one that doesn't exist yet. But, if we went this route, I would suggest both 'Blackle' and 'Black Google' point to it. MyTigers 10:48, 2 August 2007 (EST)

Delete No notability. Merge Per MyTiger's sources below. Possibly a black web article could be used per MyTigers, but I doubt there would be much in the way of WP:RS, considering like has been said, it's mostly blogs. That or put it on Google's article. There's just nothing about it that makes itself noteworthy for an article. --L--- 14:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here are some links for 'black web':

Web Page Readability:

http://hubel.sfasu.edu/research/web_read_lvs.html

http://hubel.sfasu.edu/research/AHNCUR.html

Monitor Penetration Rates By Country:

http://www.displaysearch.com/press/?id=781

MyTigers 10:36, 2 August 2007 (EST)

Weak Keep, on the strength of several reliable news articles giving significant coverage on the website (as required by WP:N):

The article desperately needs to be edited for NPOV, and should probably be cut down to a stub, but it is notable enough for inclusion per WP:N.

—gorgan_almighty 14:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - at least rename to Blackle search, as per google search. Onnaghar (Speak.work?) 14:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per Gorgan's sources, our best way of determining notability. Whether the site is profitable for its creators is irrelevant to the discussion. — brighterorange (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if sources are the issue, here are more sources:

MyTigers 18:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came across The Telegraph reference when I was making my list above, but it can't be included as it only gives Blackle a passing mention. It does not "address the subject directly in detail" as required by WP:N. —gorgan_almighty 18:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, how many sources are necessary? Its up to 870,000 hits on google. MyTigers 19:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits are irrelevant, but we've got enough sources here. Let's get the article cleaned up and properly sourced. (FYI: the Knoxville N-S and PC Advisor links go to blogs.) Sidatio 19:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those two articles call themselves blogs, but they may still be admissible under WP:V Note-5, I'm not sure. I do, however, doubt the reliability of The Sun (UK) reference. It's a notable publication, but that doesn't make it reliable, and that article doesn't sound very reliable to me (for example the author of the article is "ONLINE REPORTER"). We also need to find something reliable that refutes Blackle's claims of powersaving. The powersaving claims are obviously dubious, and it wouldn't be an unbiased article unless we could point to references that say so. —gorgan_almighty 20:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As much as it seems a little silly, it does seem notable. If more people wanted to roll it into a more general article that might be ok too, but I'm not sure there is anyone who really wants to do all that work... as evidenced by the general lack of quality of the Blackle article.Sewebster 20:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not only has third-party publications written about Blackle, the Wikipedia article about Blackle has even been linked to by a Norwegian newspaper. I don't remember which. Punkmorten 22:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the article is in pretty bad shape at the moment, but there are many sources out there. –sebi 08:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I also think a parent entry should be created. Much of the discussion and criticism is not specific to Blackle.com only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.12.119.58 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 4 August 2007
Roll into parent Remove the text relating to generic black web and you are not left with much - therefore should be merged up into a 'Black Web' article.• nancy • 16:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm the one who started this article , n i don't know why this article should be deleted! When i heard about Blackle I searched Wikipedia just to realize that the page was deleted! I had to search several pages of the web just to find out what all the huge fuss was about Blackle. So i thought that i'd just create a Wiki as a one stop option for others interested about Blackle. Isn't that what Wiki is supposed to be? To just have all the answers u r looking for in just 1 webpage. This single criterion should be enough to NOT DELETE this page. I further wish if we could relocate it to Blackle once that page has been unlocked. Mac v 18:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still think it should be Merged with a parent page called 'Color Schemes and Usability' or something like that; 'Blackle', 'Blackle.com', and Black Google' should redirect to this page. Also, can someone remove the deletion notice and unprotect the Blackle page, texasandroid was the original protector. Finally, can all critics review their criticism and comment if they have been incorporated into the article appropriately. MyTigers 18:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given the media coverage, Blackle still deserves it's own article (per WP:N). Even if you created an article called 'Color Schemes and Usability', that would still be true. I did a massive clean-up on Friday evening, but most of my changes were lost when my computer crashed. I'm going to re-implement them now. —gorgan_almighty 09:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Color Schemes and Usability would not be an approp artilce name for Blackle since the object of the site is electricity reduction as an environmental measure. -- Alan Liefting talk 08:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --PEAR (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I heard about Blackle from a friend and came here to learn more about it. If not for the wikipedia entry I may not have learned that Blackle's energy saving properties might be overhyped. I agree that the article needs improvement, but certainly not deletion. --Mr. Trustegious 22:56, 7 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. Concerns remain that this list is too broad compared to more focused options. That said, if any users or WikiProjects want to adopt this list to work on more clearly defined alternatives, or to use as a watchlist for Special:Recentchangeslinked, I'll be happy to undelete it in user or project space. — TKD::Talk 06:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of environmental protection and restoration topics[edit]

The list is too long to be useful, it extends well beyond the boundaries of the article title making it of little use, the article title gives two quite separate areas, and the category system suffices for what this list does. Alan Liefting 11:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These List of ... topics articles are leftover from early days and are essentially article requests/categories. And I like lists. --Dhartung | Talk 12:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wavelength created this list well after the categorisation system was in place. Alan Liefting 13:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to Category then Delete. Probably [[Category:Environmental protection and restoration articles]]. —gorgan_almighty 13:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, it's not a very good idea. Only deserves Delete. —gorgan_almighty 16:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such a category would be like the current list - essentially two disparate areas of knowledge that do not belong together. There is already suitable categories such as Category:Environment and all of its sub-categories. Alan Liefting 13:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to play... Guess That Cruft! I'm going to name 3 seemingly-random things, see if you can guess the common thread between them. Ready? Firehose. Cycleways in Wales, list of zoos in India. Time's up! Answer: they're all part of this unfocused everything-and-the-kitchen-sink list! The grand prize tonight is a shiny new 2007 deletion, complete with air conditioning and California emissions. Goodnight folks! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see your deletion and raise you a kitchen sink. --Evb-wiki 15:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points about the items that don't belong. So remove them. I can see how they got in on an overmechanical approach to finding the topics to list. Since you've suggested a way to improve the article, can we close as a keep and edit? DGG (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the list is kept the terms in the article title must be defined and it should be split into two separate articles of environmental protection and environmental restoration (whatever they may mean). The list must then be kept to articles that are relevant rather than attempting to list anything remotely connected with the topics. -- Alan Liefting talk 01:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the things which protect the natural environment also restore it, and vice versa (or, in negative terms, they prevent and cure environmental problems), and that is why I listed them together. It is similar to listing together things which protect and restore human health (or, in negative terms, things which prevent and cure human health problems). -- Wavelength 14:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Environmental protection and restoration" is a rather vague and all encompassing topic. That is why the list has a series of disparate articles. A list MUST be a clearly defined topic in order to be of any use. The Category:Environment is set up to be the top level category for articles relating to environmental protection. -- Alan Liefting talk 10:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, we have some editing questions to discuss. but not here. Having kept it, we'll edit it.DGG (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep navigational tool, not something meant to be read as an article Mandsford 16:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are also a navigational tool and in this case a better alternative. -- Alan Liefting talk 10:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, annotations, especially giving the country and alternative names make it superior to a category. These areas are not "entirely separate", they overlap so much that separate lists would be largely identical. Needs to be trimmed, that also doesn't require deletion. Kappa 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree that the the two topics are not entirely separate. A better alternative to a trimmed list would be an article called Environmental protection and restoration that would include relevant and notable points. A great deal of what is on this list is covered at List of environmental organizations, List of zoos, List of environmental sustainability topics, List of environmental issues etc and the extensive categories under Category:Environment. -- Alan Liefting talk 10:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. —Kappa 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa and Mandsford, as a navigation & research tool. Bearian 18:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is essentially an index page, or a site map. Replace with category for any list that's this broad Corpx 20:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People who like categories can use categories, and people who like lists can use lists, and people who like both can use both. For a subject as important as the natural environment, even ten different ways of organizing topics are not too many. -- Wavelength 21:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A list is only useful if it is organised and reflects the list name. The article name in this case is vague and the list is only organised alphabetically rather than by topic. There are numerous lists that are topic specific within Category:Environment. -- Alan Liefting talk 02:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is better handled by specific wikiproject pages, rather than as something purporting to be encyclopedic content in mainspace. Carlossuarez46 21:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A possible wikiproject is Wikipedia:Wikiproject Environment. -- Alan Liefting talk 02:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kappa and Mandsford, as a navigation & research tool. Mathmo ^Talk 22:54, 7 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PSPP[edit]

The project has not been updated in two years. In its current state, it is a non-functional, pointless replacement to SPSS, only being able to run two statistical tests. There are plenty of programs floating around that can run a t-test and ANOVA (which it can only run as an one-way analysis). The only claim to fame for this page is that it is a part of the GNU project. dr.alf 11:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. Onnaghar (Speak.work?) 14:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rewrite - It's not true that it hasn't been updated for 2 years. See [39]. Neither is the claim that it "only supports 2 statistical tests" accurate. It also supports linear regression, binomial tests and chi-square tests. Even if the above claims were accurate, it wouldn't be a reason for deletion, unless you also delete thousand other software pages, (such as Windows 95). Further, the claim that it is "non-functional" is also without foundation. The user list achives show a small but significant portion of users. Footoomsch 08:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hypothesis testing is an important aspect of statistical analysis, but the size of the catalogue of statistical testing commands is by no means the only ledger by which a tool should be judged. One also should consider how it helps in visualisation of data, manipulation of data and the speed with which it does these things. On the last two aspects at least, PSPP beats many other packages, hands down (SPSS included). Dontdoit 01:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Footoomsch and Dontdoit. It is notable, can be sourced easily, is part of a larger project, and is different from the other articles. Bearian 18:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it isnt pointless when you think that its free and spss costs thousands of dollars Carmen56 04:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless WP:ORG can be shown to be satisfied. What PSPP can and cannot do, or how it compares to SPSS, is not the point of a deletion discussion. Whether we can write a NPOV, verifiable article with reliable sources is. — TKD::Talk 06:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ORG is irrelevant to this discussion, which is about a computer program, not an organisation. I don't think that anyone has ever claimed that the current article is POV, unverifyable or unreliable. Dontdoit 02:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both the title and shortcut of WP:ORG are misleading, but the guideline does cover products and services. "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if..." and WP:ORG#Recommendations for products and services. — TKD::Talk 04:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I can only find linux package descriptions, project organization pages, and "man"-ual pages. I can find no third party recognition or establishment of this subject's notability. Sancho 16:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails to meet notability standards per above, and nobody has shown that there is a clear availability of sources that establish notability. — Deckill er 17:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 23:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gmod Network[edit]

Promotional, removed several times by me from Gmod. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 11:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, borderline speedy as spam. Advertising tone and nn "product" to boot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Fails WP:NPedro | Chat 13:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original spam Onnaghar (Speak.work?) 14:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Section Edited, Advertisment speak removed. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.210.153 (talk • contribs)
Delete. Might qualify for G11 speedy if it hadn't already been nominated for AfD. EdJohnston 05:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 23:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queens: The Musical[edit]

About an avant-garde and revolutionary piece of theatre, written by Marty Pilkiewicz (a student). After a detailed plot summary and much other fascinating material, the article ends on a bathetic note: The play was awarded a disappointingly low mark for the students' [sic] Practical Module (56) which is widely attributed to Dr Grant's personal antipathy towards the play as well as the snobbishness of the external examiners who preferred more conservative and abstract theatre. My sympathies, but I'm not convinced that the play is notable. This was prodded, since which time the original author did not remove the prod notice but did amend the article in small ways; I took this to imply a desire to retain the article, removed the prod, and, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, leave its fate in your hands. Hoary 10:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article to be taken from this place and Deleted until dead. It fails the old favourite of Verifiability, with only a few Google references to it's name, but as it appears to be a drama student's examination piece it strikes me as fairly one-sided, blog-esque and, ultimately, non-notable. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 11:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to the charges of violating WP:NOT, WP:ATT, and others, I find this article guilty on all counts. Delete EyeSerene^TALK 13:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and purge with fire: Come to think of it, to the above reasons, we could quite readily add that Wikipedia is not for plays made up in school one day. This is also the sole activity of the creator (thus probable WP:COI), and the recreation of an article AfD'd a month ago. RGTraynor 13:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable and not notable. 6thAvenue 16:39, 2 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 Snowball delete, and re-direct to Unilever. Acalamari 23:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wisk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Contested prod. Unidentified vandal with a mention in a local community newspaper, doesn't meet notability guidelines. Seems to be written by a friend or the vandal himself (mentions 'close sources', etc) Darksun 10:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly unremarkable. Delete. -- Hoary 11:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One local news report does not equal multiple independent secondary sources. Iain99 11:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Full of WP:OR, lack of verifiable sources, fails WP:BIO. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 12:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly unnotable. And why isn't this an article on the laundry detergent? --Dhartung | Talk 12:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per no assertation of notability. Common vandalism is a common minor crime, hardly worth an encylopedia article. What's next, an article on everybody with a DUI? Litterers? Jaywalkers? Anyway, after deletion redirect to Unilever, makers of the laundry detergent. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Completely non-notable. Agree with post delete redirect to Unilever. --Onorem♠Dil 12:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete NN article about a very minor news item, created by an WP:SPA. No thanks. EyeSerene^TALK 13:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then delete the WP:SPA responsible: I see the fellow doesn't lack for ambition; first he vandalizes his neighborhood with his self-referential garbage, and now he or his cohort is vandalizing Wikipedia. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:BIO and comes close to failing WP:BULLSHIT as well. RGTraynor 13:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Onnaghar (Speak.work?) 14:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect to Unilever, manufacturers of the Wisk brand of laundry detergent.[40]. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy ~~delete~~burn per A7. How did this ever escape new page patrol? MartinDK 16:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to Unilever Will ^(talk) 17:27, 2 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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 21:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article is a memorial to those Coalition soldiers killed in Iraq, 2006. Wikipedia is explicitly not a memorial. It has no encyclopaedic content other than a big long list of names and ranks.

It's also a pretty much word for word copy and paste of the monthly lists presented by CNN ([41] and so on), plus a copy and paste of the names (here).

The article was nominated for deletion back in January, when the debate was closed as "no consensus", despite the debate being pretty clearly in favour of deletion. It was closed as "no consensus" to allow for transwikification (is that the word?); it's now been 7 months and that still hasn't happened. Delete, definitely fails WP:NOT, possibly WP:COPYVIO. Neil ╦ 10:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a memorial.--Victor falk 11:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let's leave this to icasualties.org and the news outlets. I see no problem, however, with a list of casualty figures or even important attacks/battles. --Dhartung | Talk 12:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq as that is a well referenced encyclopedic article, whereas this one is Original research. —gorgan_almighty 13:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holy shit. That is one great big list of external links. Frankly, that should be deleted, as well. Recommend against redirection. Neil ╦ 13:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That other article has survived AfD without problems. See the closing admins closing notes here. —gorgan_almighty 14:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Forces aren't killed, soldiers are. Clarityfiend 13:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Add "bad title" to this article's list of demeanours. Neil ╦ 13:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a memorial. Although I'm sure someone will recreate it as soon as we do.. --L--- 14:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - OR Onnaghar (Speak.work?) 14:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic list. Per L's comments, someone should watch this lest it be recreated. Nyttend 19:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not memorial and is full of nn people with no articles.--JForget 01:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I changed my mind after I saw we have an article List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq that month by month list is no more enyclopedic than this article is, so may as well keep them both, I don't see a list of reported vietcong killed, even though such lists do indeed exist Bleh999 19:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --L-- 19:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not relevant here, because the two articles are mutually related, so much so that they could even be in the same article (causalities of the war in Iraq, also 'othercrapexists' is a guideline not a policy, we can use common sense to decide 'do we have a list on the causalities of one side of the war and not the other? Bleh999 20:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's very relevant, that's the entire point. Just because one thing has an article doesn't mean it should, and it doesn't mean a similar article should --L-- 20:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So if one side of a conflict kills the other we should only have a list of the causalities of one side? That's what you are telling me, and that doesn't seem logical not neutral as is required by wikipedia, and like I said, othercrapexists is not a policy, not sure if you even read it before you quoted it here. Bleh999 21:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't care about the other article. Please make some kind of case for keeping this one, based in our policies, if you can. I don't think you will be able to. Neil ╦ 12:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I noted you quoted not a memorial, but I don't see how this article is a memorial as defined on WP:NOT, it doesn't provide any information about the soldiers personal lives, and this isn't a copyvio either as simple data can't be copyrighted, and it was released by the United States government at the source, so it would be Public Domain anyway. Bleh999 22:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a similar article was up for debate yesterday I think. Onnaghar (speak.work) 20:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that is a valid reason for deletion unless it involved the conflict in Iraq Bleh999 20:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Just because people are becoming bored with stories about the war in Iraq is no reason to delete this list. Even the media have stopped taking notice. Forget the "Wikipedia is not a memorial" excuse either, because this database is more than simply a memorial. This is an ongoing project for an ongoing event that is, for the most part, no longer given much attention in the news. In one table, it summarizes not only who was killed, but where in Iraq the firefights were on any particular day, how a person died (roadside bomb, friendly fire, combat), whether they were an officer or a non-comm, etc. Nobody forces you to read this article, just as nobody forces you to go over to Iraq. Kids, be thankful that you get to sit in your air conditioned bedroom with your computer, "fighting" over a little Wikipedia article. Mandsford 16:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No valid reasons given for keeping this article. Neil ╦ 12:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact this list should be expanded, maybe merged into a complete list of Coalition forces killed in Iraq, just like the one of purported insurgent dead, we on wikipedia must report both sides of a conflict or none at all, just as we do with other wars and conflicts. Bleh999 19:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and a good idea. Every thing that sounds like it might be a list has been nom, but some of them are clearly more like articles, including this--not that it matters, for it would be good either way and appropriate for WP. DGG (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Don't make bold sweeping statements without backing them up. Neil ╦ 12:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly a a topic which "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject;" CNN, for instance, and thousands of news reports. I also note that the nominator says "It has no encyclopaedic content other than a big long list of names and ranks"; considering that this article consists nearly entirely of "a big long list of names and ranks" (with a couple of external links for sourcing), then this is basically an admission that this entire article is encyclopedic. Also, note that the original AfD closure said that if this article is transwiki'd, it should be renominated to see if there is consensus to delete. The fact that no transwiki has taken place means nothing has changed since the original nomination, so there is no reason to delete. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL says "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." The subject of this article, "Coalition forces killed in Iraq" is notable. Individual articles about otherwise non-notable individuals who were killed in Iraq would violate WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, but this article does not. Furthermore, this is not a copyright violation, as mere lists of facts such as this do not have sufficient creative authorship to be eligible for copyright. DHowell 02:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has no encyclopaedic content. Neil ╦ 12:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is actually very useful reference information, for people writing on this topic, and quite an interesting project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs)
WP:USEFUL. Neil ╦ 12:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per DHowell, DGG, and Mandsford. Mathmo ^Talk 23:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DHowell. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DHowell. – Dreadstar † 17:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DHowell. --SkyWalker 17:32, 8 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 speedily deleted as hoax (as well as a bunch of other self-admitted hoax articles). Neil ╦ 11:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister of Halia[edit]

We do not need articles to describe, what a Prime Minister of a certain area usually does. ~Iceshark7 10:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Especially when there's no such country as Halia. Delete. Neil ╦ 10:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this yet more "microstate" nitwittery or something? I suggest speedy deletion. -- Hoary 10:57, 2 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 speedily deleted as hoax. Neil ╦ 11:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister of New Toulouse[edit]

Same reason as above. ~Iceshark7 10:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's Delhi. There's New Delhi. There's Toulouse. There isn't New Toulouse, and even if there were it wouldn't have a prime minister. Too silly, and worth speedy deletion. -- Hoary 10:59, 2 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. Carlossuarez46 21:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaldean Assyrians[edit]

This is part of a series of article recently created by EliasAlucard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), including Syriac Assyrians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Some users have expressed the concern that this article reflects the views of politicised group and denies the views of others. The article name itslef expresses this view. Some of the material can be rewritten and included in more appropriate articles, but this article is clearly biased. — Gareth Hughes 22:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article, was first of all, not created by me. It was created by Dbachmann.[42] I moved the article into the more proper name Chaldean Assyrians, just to conform to Wiki standard in naming of ethnic groups, like for instance, Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, etcetera. I then created Nestorian Assyrians and Syriac Assyrians, because those are other ethnic Assyrians groups, divided between different Churches. Garzo above, claims that I'm trying to deny the view of others. That is of course, needless to say, a blatant lie from Garzo's side, and he knows it. I did include in the article that many Chaldeans don't consider themselves Assyrians, right here I do not however, wish to include propaganda, that cannot be backed up with academic sources. Garzo, wants to cite opinions as if they were facts. I have cited sources in all three articles, from academic scholars, claiming that they're all Assyrians. These articles, should not be treated any differently, than Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, etcetera. Deleting these articles, on very loose grounds, would be discrimination. The only reason why Garzo wants this article deleted, is because he disagrees with me; this is not about the article lacking notability. He even threatened me on the talk page with this ridiculous infantile threat Here's the choice: work with others and have influence, or stand alone and have none. [43] The Chaldean Assyrians are the majority of all Assyrians; that alone is a reason to have this article kept. A famous Chaldean Assyrian, for instance, is Rosie Malek-Yonan. If you can prove that they are anything other than Assyrians, fine, do it. If not, don't complain. Also, there is exactly nothing biased with this article. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:10 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep. This is at best a ((merge)) debate (to Chaldean Catholic Church, since the group is defined by adherents to that Church). The article is direcly taken from ((catholic)), so its notability should be beyond dispute. dab (𒁳) 10:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple independent sources. Afd is not a ((cleanup)) tag Skomorokh ^incite 10:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skomorokh. WP:NPOV arguments are not a valid argument for deletion, but for cleanup. Under that argument, a cleanup or neutrality tag is most appropriate. Notability established by third party sources. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 12:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A minority group large enough to have a group identity is, well, large enough to have a group identity. Are there any customary deletion grounds the nom would like to cite beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Ravenswing 13:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the most this requires is a cleanup tag. Careful with the accusations though EliasAlucard - discourtesy should not be met with the same, even when provoked ;) EyeSerene^TALK 13:43, 2 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 Nicolette—information has been merged. — Deckill er 17:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early Records[edit]

Delete Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. Henryjimdix 18:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per A7 or G11, take you pick - lacks assertion of notability and is pretty much spam.Merge as section of Nicolette - not enough here to justify an article on it's own, but the good work done by Eliz81 makes me reconsider my comments. Pedro | Chat 10:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep 1. Nicolette, the founder of the record label, is a notable artist. 2. Albums released by this label have been widely reviewed, including at Allmusic. 3. The quote about the label is not promotional spam, but from a quote during a third party interview, which I have now cited in the article. At worst, the article merits a merge and redirect to Nicolette. This is a case for cleanup not deletion. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 12:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete As far as I can determine from the official site, a record label that's been around for 8 years and in that time has released 3 albums and 3 singles, all of them from one artist who also happens to be the label's owner/founder. I love their sunny and colourful web design though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She may/may not be notable, but that doesn't mean every business venture she is connected with is. Pharmboy 16:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - label itself is unremarkable, but worth mentioning in the main article -- Whpq 00:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — TKD::Talk 06:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hobart Whitley[edit]

Reading this article, it seems that this man certainly deserves his own article. - Anyone who is the "Father of Hollywood" sounds interesting to me - all the web searches I did for "Hobart Johnstone Whitley" and "Hobart Whitley" show nothing at all of use.Possibly good sources refer to Whitley Heights, but have copied Wikipedia's page on it. So I think this is a hoax. Either that or I'm missing something Moglex 18:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment searches in Google and Google news archives confirm that this was a real person who was involved in land development as early as the 1880s involving what is now Hollywood (example here: excerpt from 1980s book about Hollywood). Looking through the citations and the talk page of the article, it looks like the real problem is that this page was created with reference to a biography of the man by one of his descendants, claiming that he is the Father of Hollywood. Can anyone with LexisNexis knowhow and/or Hollywood history expertise verify these claims of notability? Was Whitley just a land developer, or really the Father of Hollywood? Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 13:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. There seems to be lots of information on this guy out there. Amazon is selling a book about him [44]. BeneathLosAngeles.com has a small article on him (which will feature in an upcoming book) and even has what appears to be a photograph of a plaque devoted to him [45]. Google Books Search finds a book that clearly mentions his role [46]. The article needs improvement and citation (the references I just mentioned would help there), but it's clearly not a hoax. —gorgan_almighty 13:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Onnaghar (Speak.work?) 14:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gorgan Almighty.Callelinea 18:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but there's something very promotional going on. I've posted it to WP:COI/N#Whitley. His wife Margaret Virginia Whitley may be notable, but I doubt Gaelyn Whitley Keith is. Gordonofcartoon 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and Keep per Gorgan. THF 15:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Clean it up and check for COI. Bearian 18:18, 6 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 in rewritten, disambiguation form. — TKD::Talk 04:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khinchin's theorem[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Khinchin's theorem

There is no such thing as Khinchin's theorem. The trivial property of cdf mentioned in the article has been known long before Khinchin and is not related to Khinchin in any way (Igny 01:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there is a "Khinchin theorem" [47] (still better, there exists at least one [48]), but it's just not this one. Tizio 10:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As Tizio correctly points out, there are several theorems that some authors have referred to as "Khinchin's theorem". Notice that the Springerlink above actually refers to two theorems: Khinchin's theorem on the factorization of probability distributions, and Khinchin's theorem on Diophantine approximations. Tizio's second link points to a result commonly known as the strong law of large numbers.

The point is that this particular result (about the inverse of a cdf) is not generally known as "Khinchin's theorem", and to include it in Wikipedia under this title is just wrong. DavidCBryant 11:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Is this a theorem or a definition? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reading this, do you have any idea about what Khinchin's theorem is supposed to accomplish? Neither do I. Mandsford 16:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However that only means that this article needs to be written better. This does not mean that article be deleted. Shabda 14:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the triviality that any continuous distribution can be made uniform by a change of variable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Khinchin's theorem is mentioned on Khinchin's constant page. Shabda 14:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a completely different theorem; that theorem is the statement in the lead of the article, about the geometric mean of the coefficients of continued fractions. If it were not for the next discovery, we could consider a redirect there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this any way related to [49] Shabda 14:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. They at least both deal with function theory, but they are not at all related. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep: We need some more expert input here, I think. I'm in favor of keeping it until it is proven that this is a hoax, non-notable or else. Hope you understand my position; I don't like mistakes in AfDs --Neigel von Teighen 14:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A substub, about a dubious object, strongly ambiguous with four real theorems, counting Tizio's. If there is ever any evidence (as now there is not) that anybody has ever called this Khinchin's theorem, we can create a better one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm... MathWorld doesn't give anything related to this. And normally, if a theorem isn't there, then it is likely to be non-notable. But it seems that "Khinchin" can be also spelt "Khintchine". --Neigel von Teighen 09:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - - That's the French method of transliterating Russian; a quite normal problem, and Weisstein should have allowed for it. If this shows up on Mathworld or anywhere as "Khintchine's theorem", I will be surprised; but we should then normalize and disambiguate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am considering to withdraw this AFD. I am going to put this article into my todo list, eventually I will rewrite it (taking into account the comments from you, thank you). How can I withdraw the Afd? (Igny 21:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep, but needs to be renamed to whatever is its standard name. Wrong title is not a good reason for deletion. Note to those who say that "it was known long before Khinchin": most mathematical theorems are not named after their discovered ("Stigler's law of eponymy"). I suspect that this result is related to Khinchin's work on metric properties of continuous fractions, but I do not believe that authoritative sources support the name given (as a side note, when I stumbled across this article, it was using a completely unconventional spelling of Khinchin's name). Concerning triviality: yes, to a person with background in mathematical probability the proof may appear banal, although the statement itself is interesting. In fact, the same can be said about Fermat's little theorem or even Cayley's theorem, yet no one would argue that they are not important! Arcfrk 23:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep disambig version. Original article is too trivial to merit the name of a theorem. --Salix alba (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep disambig version. Mathmo ^Talk 23:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep disambig version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Hardy (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 Snowball keep, really obvious consensus to keep here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sessions[edit]

Keep Not liking the cited, verifiable and accurate contents of a Wiki entry is not grounds for deletion. Further, this is a well known local politician. Doing a search on Google News ;Micheal Sessions" turns up 86 entries for this person, many of them related to past criminal charges and a recall. A search of "Michael Sessions" on Google turns up 16,600 hits, most of them the party in question. By any stretch of the imagination, this person is in the public eye, is newsworthy, and deserves the entry. They have been on the David Letterman show, the Today show, CNN and countless other television shows. BTW, two other teenage mayors, of smaller towns, also have wiki entries, and they have far far less publicity then this person. Please reference MayorMarion Barry's Wiki entry as well, as he has had his share of problems, yet still has a wiki Kirksmonkey 03:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no negative bias in this article, only (AFAIK) factual reporting. It's not that easy to figure out what the real story is, because Faecak keeps deleting sections, but there're no grounds for deletion. --Nucleusboy 13:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm against deleting this article. Everything is accurate and as best I can determine, fair. There has been a continuing problem of vandelism on this page (3 deletion rule) since information was posted about the trouble this party got into. I see this AfD as a transparent continuation of this. 69.95.183.200 03:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator failed to provide a rationale for deletion. Typically such nominations are speedy closed. I am concerned about the tone of the article and the amount (and scale) of negative material per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and I have placed a ((BLPC)) check tag for an administrator to look at the article's compliance with biographies of living persons policy. Please do not remove this notice. --Dhartung | Talk 10:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: No rationale for deletion given, and subject blows right past WP:V with flying colors; I can't imagine any AfD the article could not pass on the merits. RGTraynor 13:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - why is this debate still open? Jauerback 15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So with user opinion against an AfD, now a BLPC? Dhartung, if you would spend a few minutes looking at the citations, you'd understand the scale of the comments, and the 'negative tone' you speak of are direct quotes from newspaper articles. Frankly, I can't see someone being charged and plea bargaining to a crime as not having a negative tone! It is what it is, and not every entry in a Wiki can be about Butterflies and Bunny Rabbits. Sometimes people in elected public office do dumb and stupid things, get caught and it becomes newsworthy and part of person. As I mentioned to you before, with an active AfD, I think a BLPC is premature, and frankly from what I have read, a subset of a AfD (with some exceptions, yet this person being an elected public figure, with over 16,000 google hits, they do not apply). 64.179.49.62
- They are completely separate with different purposes. An AFD decides whether an article should exist, primarily under notability guidelines. All articles that exist on Wikipedia, however, must conform to WP:NPOV and especially WP:BLP. The notice you're concerned about does nothing but reiterate a core policy of this encyclopedia. A BLP check simply ensures that individual statements, added together do not violate policy. In effect every editor should perform a BLP check on every article they encounter at all times. If you are not prepared to work under our policies, I suggest you reconsider your involvement in this project. --Dhartung | Talk 19:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm certain I am not as well versed as you in the ways of the Wiki, but based on your comment on the articles discussion page "I make no judgement because I know too little about the subject" was why I asked you to look at the citations and newspaper stories, instead of judging them because they looked negative (which frankly, they are, yet they are fact). If anything, instead of alerting the admin, perhaps you could add to the article to balance it out relative to the criminal charges and plea deal. Asking for an article or portions of article to be deleted simply because you do not like them is not grounds for either a AfD or BLP. In any case, you've got your BLP, hopefully the admin will see the same thing most everyone here does. 64.179.49.62
Keep, notabable and verifiable. why is it up for AfD? Callelinea 18:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious snowball situation here. All I can add is to take heed to the warning tag on the article and make sure it conforms to NPOV, etc etc. 23skidoo 18:56, 2 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. --Core desat 06:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interplaza Shoptown[edit]

Fails WP:CORP due to lack of sources; listing after expert review (see talk page). The article has previously survived PROD. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 09:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - for multiple reasons. Jauerback 13:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- article has no real sources or context. Mall is obviously not notable. --Boricuaeddie 18:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:, perhaps somebody who knows spanish could comment on this? Doing a search returns a lot of spanish results. Plus also there would be multiple variations of the name to search under.... Mathmo ^Talk 20:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those references can be used to verify or expand the article. --Boricuaeddie 18:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per B. Wolterding. Vegaswikian 01:50, 7 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. Carlossuarez46 22:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copa América 2011[edit]

This article is totally a crystal ball article because 2011 venue still not decided Aleen f1 09:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there isn't any verifiable info about it yet. Recreate when a venue is chosen or the venue selection process and bids begin. Number 5 7 09:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Eventually the article will be recreated, but for now I'd delete because based on the amount of information on the other pages there isn't much more to say than who is playing and where they're from. Articles like 2022 Winter Olympics exist because there are decisions already made about it. ALTON .ıl 10:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - someone definitely jumped the gun on this one. They've created a framework for a future event, one which will remain largely empty and certainly speculative for another two to three years. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at least we need something about venues. Punkmorten 11:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough info to presently support an article. Possibly redirect to Copa América for now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without venue is not possible to keep. Carlosguitar 22:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Do not create a useless redirect. Bearian 18:43, 6 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. --Core desat 06:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Rohan[edit]

Non-notable minor league player, per WP:BASEBALL. Truest blue 06:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 06:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reason. --Truest blue 06:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bench him, until he sets foot on a major league diamond in a major league game.Ravenmasterq 07:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Many minor league players are included on wikipedia and the guidelines state that an athlete is notable if they have "played in a fully professional league" of which minor league baseball certainly is. It's not like Wiki is short on server space. Spanneraol 14:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Quoting from WP:BASEBALL (emphasis added): "Any player who plays in the top professional league in their country is notable. This includes Major League Baseball in North America and Nippon Professional Baseball in Japan, among others. Most minor league players are not considered notable, but some players are as determined by WP:BIO" I find your second point very perplexing. If Wiki isn't short on server space what is the point of the AFD debates? --Truest blue 16:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: I consider players in the top levels of the minors to be notable.. they have fans.. there are articles about them.. I would think people would want to find information on the top prospects in their minor league systems.. These are professional athletes with fan bases.. just cause you don't find them notable doesn't mean other people don't. Spanneraol 16:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply: According to WP:BASEBALL "Most minor league players are not considered notable." What you are proposing, that "players in the top levels of the minors [should] be notable" is a direct violaton of the aformentioned standard.--Truest blue 17:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply: So does WP:BASEBALL trump WP:BIO which says that athletes are notable if they compete in a "fully professional league" and even mentions that competing in the "highest levels" of amateur sports is enough for notability? Seems to be a conflict between the two pages. Spanneraol
        Reply: I don't see a contradiction. WP:BIO refers to all biographies. It gives only a general idea of notability concerning baseball. WP:BASEBALL, which disusses the notability standard exclusively for baseball, gives a more detailed explanation of the WP:BIO standard. (Also, baseball is not an amateur sport.) --Truest blue 17:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Reply College baseball is an amateur sport. And Minor League Baseball is certainly a "fully professional league." Spanneraol 17:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Reply Jimmy Rohan never played college baseball. Besides, as stated earlier, the editors at list of baseball-related deletions follow the more specific WP:BASEBALL which excludes most minor leaguers.
        Comment If we are only to allow "Any player who plays in the top professional league in their country", why do you not nominate all the Negro League players for deletion? Most of them never played in the top professional league of their country. 69.68.238.142 20:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment As long as we are being literal about the guidelines, let's delete Yurendell DeCaster as he has never played in the top professional league of his country (Netherland Antilles) and he has never done anything particularly notable in the majors. Let's write articles for all our Little League managers since the guidelines clearly state that "Baseball executives, coaches, and managers are also notable" without clarifying which executives, coaches, and managers. The truth is, the baseball guidelines are written with so many loopholes and so vaguely and in direct conflict with the Bio guidelines (as noted above) that you are going to continue getting these disputes until the guidelines are rewritten by someone who actually knows what they are doing. 69.68.238.142 20:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment One last thing. What's truly odd about this whole discussion is that the person who nominated the article for deletion, Truest blue, contributed content after the nomination. If the article is so worthless as to be despoiling Wikipedia, why are you adding to it? 69.68.238.142 21:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply. 1) Negro League players are an obvious exception. Players in that league could have played in Major League Baseball if not for the rasicm prevalent at that time. 2) Yurendell DeCaster played in the Majors. Once a player gets onto a 25 man roster he is considered notable even if he subsequently gets demoted. 3) I don't think that it is "odd" that I edited a page that I nominated for deletion. Firstly, I don't know if the result will be to delete. Secondly, while it in Wikipedia, why shouldn't the article be the best possible?--Truest blue 23:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply So you are saying that even though WP:BIO says he is notable, WP:BASEBALL does not? So minor league players in other sports, like say players on the NBA Development League teams are eligible but not baseball players? This player was signed by a Major League Baseball team and is a professional athlete. The Baseball guidelines should be changed if they are as restrictive as you suggest. Spanneraol 23:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Reply 1) Some of the Negro League players certainly could have played in the majors, but to claim they were all major league level players is ludicrous and involves just as much speculation as claiming a minor leaguer of today has what it takes to make it to the majors some day. And nowhere on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball page does it say anything about there being an exception for Negro League players. Which is exactly my point of how vague and incomplete the guidelines are. 2) Yurendell DeCaster played in the Majors as you say, but the Major Leagues are not the top professional league of his country. They are the top professional league of the United States and Canada. To abide strictly by the guidelines in one instance and make exceptions on another, you might as well not have guidelines at all. Kinston eagle 00:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the "top 100 prospects" line seems like WP:CRYSTAL. Either he is or he isn't, and we need more than one trivial source anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 17:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The beacons of Amon Delete are lit! Jacksonville calls for aid! and Rohan will answer! LOTR joke aside, delete per WP:BASEBALL until he goes major league. Will ^(talk) 17:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to have any particularly notable achievements as a minor league player (records set, awards won, etc.). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:09, 3 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. Note, however, that, per WP:RSEX, Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources, so citations for this list would be a good idea in general; per WP:V and WP:BLP, they would be required for challenged material or contentious material about living people. — TKD::Talk 05:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainers by nickname[edit]

Requesting deletion based on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_sportspeople_by_nickname due to BLP concerns Corpx 06:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query. Could you be a bit more specific about these "BLP concerns"? In a quick scan of the list, nothing horrendous leaped out at me. Deor 14:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not have to be horrendous. None of these are cited. Corpx 19:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we don't do precedents... the article should have stricter standards for citing sources though. --W.marsh 02:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These are trivial to cite, by the way, I've done 3 in like minutes of work. Much more satisfying than trying to sweep content under the rug. --W.marsh 02:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The majority of these nicknames are mentioned in the WP articles for the individuals, and I think that's where the sources should be cited. (If they were cited in this list, the citations would obviously double the length of the article.) Indeed, many of them, such as "Bing" and "Bix", are present in article titles. The list is merely a handy reverse directory—and, please, don't jump in with a reference to WP:NOT#DIR because I used the word—of the bynames. Any unsourceable ones can be summarily deleted. Deor 02:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 3 for a review of an article deletion that the nom cited as the only rationale for this AfD. Deor 04:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Wmarsh and Deor. Mandsford 16:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, but remove the nicknames of couples. This is not a gossip rag.Bearian 18:26, 6 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. --Core desat 06:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desolation's Angels[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Desolation's Angels

What is this? Seems like a non-notable story, in any case I couldn't find info on the 'Net. Primary author removed csd : [50] Kl4m 06:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

That's odd that you couldn't find anything on Desolation's Angels on the 'Net. I just did a Google search and they came back as the number one entry on that search engine. That should be reason enough not to delete this page.User:HaarFager 2.10 a.m., 2 August 2007

Addendum: I just found out why this page is slated for deletion and I'm no sock puppet or whatever that is. True, I'm a fairly new user, within the last year or so, but I still don't know exactly what I'm doing at times. The help files can be confusing at times, so please bear with me. I'm trying to learn this format.User:HaarFager 2.16 a.m., 2 August 2007

I'm the author of this page and I only have one question. I don't see any difference between this Desolation's Angels page and the page you have on Star Trek. They are both about futuristic science fiction stories. Here's my question: Is the Star Trek page slated for deletion next? And, if not, why not?PaulLatimer 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't see any difference between this Desolation's Angels page and the page you have on Star Trek".....apart from the fact that the page on Star Trek has dozens of references to third-party articles published on the subject and lists at least 15 reference books which have been published on the subject, thereby clearly establishing its notability, whereas the Desolation's Angels page has nothing anywhere in it to indicate that anyone other than the creators even knows it exists..... ChrisTheDude 08:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:V and mainly WP:N; i can't find anything anywhere else about this, other than a handful of identical Google hits. Also, the author might want to watch out for hot WP:WAX. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 08:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, or redirect to Desolation Angels. Tizio 10:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A directed Google search turns up a threadbare 15 hits [51], few referring to the subject, quite aside from the article being pushed by a pair of WP:SPAs. Ravenswing 13:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Original Research. Fails WP:N. —gorgan_almighty 13:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I'm reading, this particular page is thought to be a "single-purpose account." Doesn't the fact that I already edited your page on "Butterfly" by uploading a picture of a "Common Buckeye" and changing the lesser quality image you had there conclude that that is a purpose in and of itself? How can my account be considered "single-purpose" then, by the definition you use? Just a thought. It looks like my page is going to bite the big one, but I just wanted to let you know I'm not a one-trick pony.PaulLatimer 16:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're glad to hear that. In general, though, an editing pattern of 72 edits related to the creation of one article and three for everything else suggested a particular tendency. Your ongoing contributions elsewhere in Wikipedia are certainly welcome. Ravenswing 17:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to join this conversation for just a short moment. I will simply say my piece and leave. I am the creator of Desolation's Angels. I am not here to beg for it to be salvaged, quite the opposite actually. I ask you to delete it before the five day period. You are all correct. It does not belong in your Encyclopedia. The only reason it was put here was because I enjoyed Wiki so much I thought: "You know, I would like to see what I have spent my life creating in there." I apologize because I did not realize the myriad rules. I should have read them before suggesting the idea. It is not notable to you, it is only notable to those who create it, and those who hear and enjoy it. So please, let us end the debate on this today and let the page die. We will meet again when we are notable to you. Until then I wish you all the very best. -Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momega (talk • contribs) 09:40, 3 August 2007

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

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

The result was redirected to relevant article. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Milosevic. Non-admin close by Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 03:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nemanja Jovanovic[edit]

Hoax by same creator as David Milosevic below. Claim of winning Olympic gold medal for Bosnia in 4x200m relay, but apparently the US team won that particular event. The primary hit on google is for Nemanja Jovanović a redirect to that article would also be OK. Carlossuarez46 05:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the text (e.g. "rivalry with fellow Americans" ... seems unlikely for a Serbian Canadian) copied from Ryan Lochte. The redirect seems fine -- most English Wikipedia users can't type that ć anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 06:15, 2 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.. CitiCat^♫ 14:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fever Tree[edit]

Band doesn't appear to be notable. They calim to be, opening for lots of big acts, but searching them on Google for their name or their name + music or +africa/+music turns up nil. So no coverage, and not much notability. Delete. Freedomeagle 05:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They pass WP:MUSIC Criteria for musicians and ensembles: #2, with 3 charted albums and 1 charted single, #5 with 4 releases on Uni Records. Needs sources. dissolve ^talk 08:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like someone pasted a bio of a band of the same name at the top of the article. Reverted. dissolve ^talk 08:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete There is no site-wide consensus that all malls are inherently notable (unlike countries and towns, for which there is such a consensus), and several indications of a contrary consensus. Neither the article nor the the discussion indicate any particular reasonwhy this specific mall is any more notable than any other mall. The cited references show only that this mall exists, they say nothing about it. This is not what WP:N means by "significant coverage" or "more than trivial" discussion. (Google news searches reveal no sources, either). The statement "one of the first super centers in NZ" might be a reason for notability, but it is neither sourced nor even included in the article. If WP:CSD#A7 applied to malls, this would fit. However, it is possible that a valid article could be created on this subject. There is no bar to creating a well-sourced article, and i am willing to userfy this article if anyone asks for it. DES ^(talk) 15:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manukau Supa Centre[edit]

Non-exceptional shopping center with no claim to notability CitiCat^♫ 05:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this was one of the first super centers in NZ. Mathmo ^Talk 06:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This article is clearly only just a starting out stub (thus no need to be too harsh on it!), so I did a quick search round and added multiple external references. I invite all other voters to do the same. Mathmo ^Talk 06:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does any of this explain why it's notable? CitiCat^♫ 16:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, by definition it is notable because it has been noted. Mathmo ^Talk 20:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete fails WP:N and WP:CORP. Jauerback 14:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. Mathmo ^Talk 20:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete random shopping center. No explanation of what a Supa center is, just a brand? - SimonLyall 21:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Mathmo.-gadfium 05:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Article has now been converted to a well-structured stub, and someone who has access to either BOMA or their local affiliate database, Factiva, or LexisNexis can happily come along and conduct some significant improvment to it to confirm its notability. Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to harp on this, but before someone confirms its notability, can someone at least claim what its notability is? So far no one has said it's anything more than a medium to large shopping center. Gadfium said keep "per Mathmo", who said "it's notable because it's been noted" CitiCat^♫ 17:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is not being a large shopping center enough for notability? What next, an article on a country being deleted because being a large country is not enough for notability? To quote from what I've said elsewhere: "Commonly I see this, that people believe notable means the subject has to be unusual/unique. Not so, to directly quote from the start of WP:N: " The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity"". It has been deemed worthy to notice, by being noticed by other than themselves. QED." And also additionally another quote from what I've quoted elsewhere: "All malls should have articles here because they are the local landmarks of our times, often replacing Main Street or town squares. They have as much influence on towns as highways, schools, or stadiums. They are substantial economic enterprises and raise major issues involving land use, taxation, and globalization. Too many people love to talk, read or write about them for us to play silly games and try to exclude them. This may be hard for people to believe, but in the real world, they are far more important than the latest Virtual community, Pokemon card, or webcomic." Mathmo ^Talk 02:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're still missing the point, the next sentence in WP:N states "A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right." Can you point out any notability guideline that the article's subject meets? By the way, another wikipedia article states "Because there are 46,990 shopping malls and centers in the U.S. . . . , this list is restricted to notable shopping malls. CitiCat^♫ 03:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines do not exist for every possible subject. They are merely finer details that fall under the broad principles of WP:N. And it is no surprise the other article says only notable malls, this means only ones that have wikipedia articles or ones that you can reasonably expect could have one. Mathmo ^Talk 21:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A number of editors created a proposed guideline WP:MALL exactly to help decide what makes a mall notable, but there was not a consensus to adopt it so it is labelled "rejected." Edison 20:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources exist to prove notability, and the article has a clear claim to importance, as one of the first super centres in the country. Rebecca 03:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete ~~Smaller than the limit for a regional with only 79% of the minimum Gross leasable area.~~ (edited to add: The latest (2004 ICSC definitions of regional and superregional apply only to U.S. malls.) Only 2 references, with both of them from the management of the business, which is not independent as required by WP:N. Perhaps more refs can be found offline in print sources to substantiate its claimed historical importance. Edison 20:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Saying that it is a regional mall without meeting the generally accepted size for a regional mall is not an assertion of notability. Fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:CORP. Vegaswikian 01:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all cited references contain only directory-style information. This is not the level of coverage required by WP:CORP or WP:N.Ga rr ie 22:45, 7 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 (CSD G3). Dballer16 has been indef blocked, Nemanja Jovanovic has been redirected to a pertinent article. — Caknuck 06:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Milosevic[edit]

Was tagged for speedy, but no criteria apply: Possible hoax, the links don't support the content, according to sports illustrated, the Sacto Kings didn't draft 14th overall in the 2006 draft, but drafted 19th and in any event didn't draft Milosevic. [52] A google search produced a few David Milosevics but none a NBA player, but given google's and various web page author's less than perfect use of the diacritcs, some very small doubt remains. Carlossuarez46 05:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super strong speedy delete. No doubt here, this is a nearly word for word copy of Predrag Stojaković. This page is obvious vandalism. Original author is also pulling similar shenanigans with Nemanja Jovanovic. Recommend a speedy deletion, and an block. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is also nominated for deletion. Carlossuarez46 05:45, 2 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 A good example of the kind of situation where google cannot be the main method of research. DES ^(talk) 15:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dietrich Man[edit]

Non notable person. ~ Wikihermit 04:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a historical bishop he would be notable, but the article would need references to support that. Agathoclea 06:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references are provided. I couldn't find any [53]. Tizio 10:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... the notability of 14th century bishops might be a good example of something that shouldn't be evaluated by just a Google search. While I wouldn't say all historical bishops are automatically notable, relying on google alone for information (teh internets being a relatively recent development) is probably a poor idea. --JayHenry 14:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that I am not referring to notability. I am referring to verifiability. I said "unless reference are provided"; turn it around and it will be "if references are provided, keep". Tizio 14:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, a fair point. I just meant that google isn't a good place to search for references on this. --JayHenry 15:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agathoclea said "As a historical bishop he would be notable". I fully agree with that. Notability should not under discussion here. Tizio 14:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strangely I could find several references. What about this one? [54] I added it to the article. He'll be in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie as well I would imagine. Nick mallory 13:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That establishes that Dietrich II was bishop of Havelberg. What about the fact that his name was Dietrich Man? What about the rest of the article? Tizio 13:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Has the original author been contacted? Last time I checked he created a number of articles on that theme-complex, which with a bit of coaching could get us the sources. What strikes me as odd though is that those articles appear on enwiki and not first on dewiki. Agathoclea 16:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be true, at least it is consistent with what dewiki says at de:Liste der Bischöfe von Havelberg. I'll try to find some more sources so we can keep this. Kusma (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The story is that of the de:Wunderblutkirche (Bad Wilsnack), and the links there confirm part of the story. I would like to see some better sources, but now I believe the article to be verifiable with some extra research (got some snippets from Google Books but nothing really citeworthy). Unfortunately he is not in ADB (I tried to search for all bishops called Dietrich). Kusma (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found a reference via Google books: [55] (sorry for the long link, check page 58, in German). Kusma (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found a Dietrich von Man here:
"Felix ESCHER, Art. Dietrich von Man (OPraem) († 1385). 1370-1385 Bischof von Havelberg, in: Erwin GATZ (Hg.), Clemens BRODKORB (Mitarb.), Die Bischöfe des Heiligen Römischen Reiches 1198 bis 1448. Ein biographisches Lexikon, Berlin 2001, 1, S. 236"
--Boson 19:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's him. The "von" is in parentheses in my source, though. We should get some sources that cover the first paragraph and tell us something about the family (all I found so far is only about his time as bishop). Kusma (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Verifiability is possible. Bearian 18:48, 6 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. --Core desat 06:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Pachivas[edit]

Lots of reasons - I think non-notable self promotion. It was tagged for notability before, then for copyright violation which isn't being resolved.Peter Rehse 04:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 04:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I tagged for the copy vio, it's either that, or self promotion either way shouldn't be here. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there's a copyvio the article should be deleted, but Pachivas was the head of Shuri-ryu until his death in 2000, which is a major karate style with an international breadth, so he is notable. If someone rewrote the article in a non-promotional tone, I think it could be kept. Note also that several other top Shuri-ryu practitioners also have newly created articles - most are notable people, but have overly promotional articles. Bradford44 14:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio is that it's basicly the same (pre edit version) as the article linked @ the bottom, others might have same desease --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio - there's no question its a copyvio. -- Whpq 00:10, 5 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. DES ^(talk) 14:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boardwalk Chapel[edit]

Non notable church/location. ~ Wikihermit 04:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, several decades of history in a touristy location could lead to notability, but we would need better sources than the Presbyterian newspaper. --Dhartung | Talk 12:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Wildwood, New Jersey. Vegaswikian 01:57, 7 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, ELIMINATORJR 23:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficient newspaper and book sources available. Zagalejo 23:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This church seems to be a locally notable landmark on the Wildwood boardwalk. I've done some cleanup of the article and I added a reference to the Washington Post. I also found online video of the boardwalk preaching at http://video.aol.com/video-detail/id/3159879986 and brief tourist blurbs such as http://blog.nj.com/shorepicks/2007/05/shore_attractions.html --orlady 05:01, 9 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, asserts no notability. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 04:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Beliefs of Another World[edit]

Non notable book ~ Wikihermit 04:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- non-notable book. No media coverage or anything to even prove its existence. --Boricuaeddie 21:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article does not assert notability.--Jersey Devil 21:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any evidence of reviews or anything else that may indicate some notability. -- Whpq 00:12, 5 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. --Core desat 06:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films about capital punishment[edit]

The criteria for inclusion is "containing" as well as "about" making this another indiscriminate "about" list. Bulldog123 04:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just like Bulldog says, the "containing" part is what makes this list have no real encyclopedic value. An article with this title could exist if there are enough film that qualify under "about" CitiCat^♫ 04:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, change criteria to "about" with the edit button, remove films "containing" in the same way. Kappa 05:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I considered going that way, but as there's no actual info on any of the movies in this list, it would probably be easier to just start with a blank slate than to go over every entry. CitiCat^♫ 16:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles that can be improved by editing should not be deleted; deletion should be reserved for cases where the topic itself could not be included in an encyclopedia.RandomCritic 06:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. Kappa 05:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another indiscriminate, messy list without encyclopedic value. RGTraynor 13:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RGT above. Eusebeus 15:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not in favor of many of the lists that go to AFD, but this one seems to be of narrow enough criteria with potential to be of use to researchers. As noted, can be improved; doesn't have to be deleted. 23skidoo 18:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Legitimate topic for a list. Would like to see redlinks filled in, or citations provided for their addition. Recurring dreams 22:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers from the same malady of nearly every "film about": how much about the film must be (and if the criteria listed in the article is to be taken, not much), and what WP:RSes tell us it's at least that much. So herein we group every film where someone walks the plank or faces capital punishment, like Peter Pan or Pirates of the Carribean, with films depicting the Passion. Seems indiscriminate. On that latter point, the execution of Jesus probably forms a huge (sub-)genre by itself. Carlossuarez46 21:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a directory of loosely associated topics, many of these film aren't even about capital punishment, they just happen to feature it as part of the storyline. Little encyclopedic use. Crazysuit 01:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete While I like the concept, this list suffers from the usual problem in any list of "____ about ____" which is that someone wants to include everything. Thus, The Dirty Dozen (about condemned prisoners recruited for a mission) is in here; a film about the hanging judge, Roy Bean; My Cousin Vinny (Joe Pesci defending someone from death penalty); In Cold Blood (killers get the death penalty), The Passion of the Christ (yes, my hero gets the cross),

etc. Truth be told , there are quite a few great films that truly are ABOUT capital punishment, in that they contribute to the debate... the film adaptation of Melville's Billy Budd, The Green Mile, 12 Angry Men, etc. The table listing the year it came out and the director doesn't improve anything. When you include the cubic zirconia, you can't see the diamonds. Mandsford 17:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of Mandsford's good argument for keeping and editing. Once we start deleting every article that has nonnotable content instead of the editing out the non-notable content, there wont be much of WP left. I think i could probably find at least 2 items of NN content in about half the clearly notable articles, including almost every bio of a pop culture figure & a lot of the sports people and the writers. We could remove them all, and start WP all over again from scratch. DGG (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Indiscriminate list with a mostly trivial connection. Saikokira 20:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --PEAR (talk) 15:17, 5 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of religious leaders with Jewish background[edit]

Highly arbitrary and unusual list. Jesus of Nazareth in the same list as Edith Stein? Should we split these lists into every possible ethnic division? What is "background"? A father? A mother? A convert? No discernable criteria or point. Bulldog123 04:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Yeshivish 06:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Yeshivish 06:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whoa, this list is fascinating. Given academic and popular interest in matters of conversion, schisms, heresy and new religious movements NRM, I find it noteworthy (not arbitrary) when a person moves from one religious background or presumed affiliation, to become davka a recognized leader in another religion. For this list, I would add the medieval, anti-Jewish polemicists like Abner of Burgos and NRM leaders like Andrew Cohen. Also, what about more notable converts to Islam? On the other hand, I would raise two questions:

Since the list means "religious" = "not rabbinic Judaism" then shouldn't the list Note or Title clarify this as a List for "leaders of religions other than Judaism" with Jewish background?
Do we want to delimit the list by timeframe? If we don't exclude the first generation(s) of Christianity, then we'd have to add the apostles and many other early Christians. Well, I suppose if there's a quick bio tag line for each entry, then it won't overwhelm the data. Please ask for the approx bio dates to the entries.

Granted, Jewish readers may be troubled to see the list include, say, Jews for Jesus leaders. But are articles to be deleted based on making people feel uncomfortable? If somebody would point me to the WP criteria to be cited for deletion, then I would find it easier to cast my vote. Thanks. HG | Talk 11:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this silly list, it's overdue. IZAK 12:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please state criteria and how it applies to the article. "Silly" is not helpful here. HG | Talk 13:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. —gorgan_almighty 14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HG: Firstly it's a list not an "article" and there is nothing "fascinating" about it. Secondly, take a look, does it make sense that "Mary, mother of Jesus" (listed here as "Miriam") or that Mary Magdalene (listed here as "Miriam of Magdala) "a follower and, perhaps, friend of Jesus" are termed "religious leaders"? And of "Jewish" background? Just how "Jewish" was their "background"? (As an aside, the double usage of "Miriam" here is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NEO.) Thirdly, you then have a hodge-podge of people, mostly Karaites and Christians who are totally disconnected from normative Judaism, so what does that say about their "Jewish backround/s"? Fourthly, as the nominator has correctly pointed out, this list does NOT state what criteria it uses. Is it the same as those on Who is a Jew? and does it include Judaism as a religion or being Jewish as an ethnicity -- one, some, all or none? Finally, based on the inherent errors of organization and simple logic, this list easily violates WP:NONSENSE in its incorrect collection of names and its inherently flawed presentation. IZAK 14:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Izak -- thanks for your numbered response. #2: If specific entries do not belong on the list, e.g. not a leader, that does not disqualify the list itself. #3: Jews disconnecting from the norm and started or led other religions -- that is not a hodge-podge, I'd say, but rather a cultural process of significant interest in religious studies departments. #4: I agree that the criteria need to be clarified. See my comment, above. Still, clarification is quite feasible and not grounds for deleting the list.

Izak: I agree that the inclusion criteria is not well defined. My suggestion of convert to category below would probably use somewhat different criteria to what the list's author had in mind, but it's much better defined so will fix the problem raised by #4, your only valid point. —gorgan_almighty 16:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge to Religious conversion, splitting the list to put each person under the appropriate sub-heading. All these people appear to be notable, so there's no problems there. —gorgan_almighty 14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Changed my opinion, see below. —gorgan_almighty 15:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But this doesn't deal with Jewish identity and, more importantly, the list presumably deals not merely with routine converts, but people who sought out and/or were given leadership roles. HG | Talk 14:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to Category [[Category:Converts from Judaism]]. Seems to go hand-in-hand with categories like [[Category:Converts to Anglicanism]]. Converting lists to categories is normally a very awkward task, but this list is short so it wouldn't take long. —gorgan_almighty 15:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gorgan: Your sugggestions are not new and have been discussed and indeed there have been such categories or lists that were eventually deleted due to their controversial or offensive nature as well as how to really determine what the definitive status of a Jew who renounces his faith is according to Jewish law, I seem to recall, (this goes back some years, so a search for the old discussions/votes would be required.) At any rate, we don't need the new category you mention here because we could simply attach the list of names on this list to the Jewish heretics article since they are mostly all excellent examples of such heresy according to classical Judaism. IZAK 18:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Izak, your counter-proposal to list as heretics won't work. (1) Many such people have never been called heretics by reliable sources, so to do so would be original research. (2) If you are saying, I'll list them as heretics but I won't list them as former Jews, you will sound naughtily prejudicial and POV. Tsk. :) HG | Talk 19:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to these people as heretics is biased and POV. Whereas the phrase "Converts from Judaism" is NPOV. It is completely neutral of bias as it is simply sticking to the cold hard facts. As for the argument that the categories existed but were deleted, WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus can change. I say convert the list to acategory and see what happens. I may do that anyway, since it doesn't need AfD approval. —gorgan_almighty 20:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the main question one must always ask in an AFD is "has there been notable coverage on this issue". The answer is no. There has been no newspaper articles, journals, or books published about which leaders are Jewish (not necessarily Jews but Jew-ish). Jon513 16:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's absurd. Most/all of these people are historical characters and the fact that they were once Jews, then became religious leaders is well documented throughout history. Do you really want to argue that there's no reliable secondary sources stating that Jesus Christ was once a Jew? They all have their own Wikipedia articles, which cite these facts, so there's no need to duplicate the citations. I agree that this list isn't the best way to present the information, and the criteria for inclusion isn't well defined / well thought out, but converting it to a category as above would fix that. —gorgan_almighty 16:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but the Jew-ish-ness of many, maybe all these leaders is a factor in much scholarly and popular analysis. Karaites? Frank, Shabtai Tzvi? Edith Stein? Jesus? Catholic clergy? Notability is not the issue.HG | Talk 16:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

let me explain. There is scholarly research if an individual is Jewish. But there is no real concern about what percentage of leaders are Jewish. Or what do Jewish leaders have in common. Or how do Jewish leaders compare to their gentile counterparts. In other words has there been any sources that view "Jewish Leaders" as a significant group in any real way. Jon513 10:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good to clarify. Yes, there is certainly research on how Jewish leaders compare to gentiles. (Eg, early Jewish-origin vs Pagan Christians, medieval clerics). Yes, I think there is some analysis of what various sets of Jewish leaders have in common. So, yes I think maybe studies look at "Jewish leaders" as a group, though academics alway focus on little sets not encyclopedic swaths. No, not percentages, though that's a red herring and not generated by the list anyway. Granted, I concede that I'm now aware of sources that already list this entire group . However, Wikipedia policies don't demand that we work off an existing list. In fact, without having to involve any original research, this list would put together in one place some data that I think would make wikipedia useful. Many such wikipedia lists are like this, that's my impression. Thanks. HG | Talk 11:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Jewishness and the religious leadership of these people are connected in so many different ways that the list is hopelessly POV--and also very incomplete. DGG (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG -- incompleteness of a list is not grounds for deleting, only for improving the list. The fact that people are connected in diverse ways... doesn't that enrich the value of the list? Jewish scientists are also connected as biologists or South Africans. Jewish-background religious leaders may be connected as Catholic clerics, as heretics, as NRM leaders, etc. We can do subheadings, which only improves and strengthens the list. HG | Talk 11:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the list is talking not about Religious figures with a Jewish background, but about non-Jewish religious figures with a Jewish background, or those Jews who became religious figures in another religion. But almost all of this is POV and controverted, and in different ways. Every Christian figure in the Gospels --and in the NT generally except those Gentile who Paul converted--had a Jewish background, and many early Christians subsequently. And except for the ones who may have considered themselves as primarily Jews, and that is a matter of considerable and obvious controversy, and the listing of Jesus/Yeshua indicates this, because the name Yeshua would be regarded by almost all Jews as very much a small minority POV. There is no need to get into this here, and the list cannot avoid doing so. Whether the Karaites are jews is avery different questions, and by no means a settled one. So the connections are so different and so disputable t hat the list is not a good idea. Leave these matters to the articles on the individual people and groups. There is no way to do this list. DGG (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the list concerns a notable set of people, sharing a common characteristic that is noteworthy -- admittedly controversial, even offensive -- in both scholarship, religious circles and popular culture. Jon513 raises notability but I hope he will modify his vote based on discussion above. Others have mainly focused on the criteria as vague or POV. However, terms like "religious" "leader" and "Jewish" are not vague. Yes, "Jewish" is always a controversial identity, but we deal with that all over wikipedia. We've got some good ways to clarify Jewish. More importantly, each leader is notable, so their Jewish background can be dealt with (if nec, on a case by case basis) in their main article. I think there is an underlying concern here that the list will help publicize people who many of us find objectionable, e.g. heretics, anti-Semites, "traitors to Judaism" and proselytizers. I concede that the list will include unsavory characters, but I am convinced that this list can work with feasible criteria and exceed notability requirements. HG | Talk 11:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not changed my mind. The list lumps together different groups in a haphazard manner. If it was a List of Karaites (about a third of the list is Karaites) that would make sense. The rest of the list is early Christian figures (a List of early Christian figures - would be fine) and random Christian leaders with Jewish backgrounds and then a few who don't really have anything to do with anything. Lumping them altogether doesn't shed light on any topic or even make much sense. It seems like a list of rejects (those who did not quite make the criteria) from List of rabbis and is therefore a borderline POV fork. Jon513 12:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon513, thanks for taking time to respond. While you did not address our different assessments of notability, your comment is very helpful in clarifying the POV objections. A WP:POV fork is a violation of neutrality. (1) One way to detect POV forking is thru the history of edits on the main article. But it would be a somewhat odd to establish POV forking from a list. If entries don't qualify for a list, they may qualify for another list. You yourself give a plausible example (List of Karaites). Whether to put them into a more broadly defined list may be a questionable editorial judgment, but it doesn't strike me as a POV fork. (2) Second way to detect a POV fork is by the POV bias in the Article Name. E.g., a fork would be "List of people claimed to be Rabbis." Besides, a remedy for POV forking is to ensure an NPOV title, as here. I've heard assertions that the Title is vague, the criteria hard to apply, the list will be too full of early Christians (DGG); however, the Title (Article Name) seems overtly neutral in language and hence scope. Arguably, one may infer that the List Title was chosen to avoid even the appearance of a POV fork, which demonstrates respect for our policies. Can you find sources to support the claim that "Jewish background" wording reflects a one-sided point of view? Thanks! HG | Talk 13:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. From POV fork guideline:"Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism. Instead, assert the application of NPOV policy — regardless of any POV reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in an NPOV-consistent manner." HG | Talk 14:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put my objection another way: if there was a List of Karaites and a List of early Christian figures and someone created this article and redirect it to this list, would anyone support such an action? Why is the world are two vaguely related groups in the same list. It just make much more sense for them to be separate. Jon513 08:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon513, it seems like you have identified two subheadings or sublists for this List. Both of the subheadings or lists you name would satisfy neutrality. So does the overall article. Thank you. HG | Talk 21:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO NO NO. This article is as stupid as combining List of African athletes, List of African birds, and List of African countries into List of African things and have athletes, birds and countries as subheadings! List just doesn't make sense. There is value in separate lists for separate significant groups. There is no value in a List of 'List of Rabbis' rejects that lumps completely different people together in a haphazard WP:OR way. Jon513 15:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Stein is not a reject from a rabbis list. 'Stupid' is not a counter-argument to NPOV or WP:N.HG | Talk 16:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Stein has as little to do with Aaron ben Moses ben Asher as two people can get! Yet they are lump together in the same list as if they are both part of some group. Is there anything to learn from comparing and contracting them?! Granted there is some relationship between them (a religious leader with Jewish background) but the fact that these two people are on the same list show how meaningless the list is. That is what I mean by stupid. Jon513 19:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like a good article --PEAR (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a POV list based on OR. --MPerel 19:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per HG. Disputes over the qualifications for inclusion can be settled appropriately on the article's talk page. --xDanielx^Talk 04:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per trivial intersection Corpx 20:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ambiguous and hence OR & POV. What is a "Jewish background" anway? Even if we can figure out who is a Jew, what does "background" mean? A parent, a grandparent, someone who'd qualify as Jewish under the Nuremburg laws, a convert? Do not categorize as some have proposed because these religious leaders aren't all ex-Jewish (by religion) so "converts" is a misnomer. Carlossuarez46 22:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to agree with Carlos here. The article's concept and title seems to be a license for vagueness and disputes over definitions. -- ChrisO 00:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal to vagueness and NOR concern. I understand that we "can improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination." Accordingly, I have provided a concrete definition, mainly to demonstrate that reliable sources can define these terms. "Jewish background" is defined here to include people who, regardless of their later status in life, had been verifiably considered or self-identified as a Jew or as a "Person of Jewish Background" (PJB), as defined by the National Jewish Population Survey 2000-01, United Jewish Communities (UJC), 2003. Jew is used here in its broad meaning to include people from non-rabbinic Jewish movements (e.g., Hellenistic and Karaite Jews), secular and non-practicing Jews. Further refinement of the specific definition can be done in editing. HG | Talk 02:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the fear of "disputes over definitions" (ChrisO) -- yes, it is clear that this could be a controverial article, hey, it's already gotten an AfD. But the name and topic are well-defined, neutral so as not to prejudice the outcome of such WP disputes, so fear of internal WP disputes is not sufficient grounds for deletion here. Regards. HG | Talk 04:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per HG and xDanielx^Talk. Mathmo ^Talk 22:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, plus per nom's point about criteria for entry. Number 5 7 09:21, 9 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: Speedily deleted - blatant spam. - Mike Rosoft 12:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inchies[edit]

Special:Log shows article was deleted Feb 11, 2007 by User:CambridgeBayWeather "Prod: No concrete proof of notability. Spam." I tried to speedy it, but it was rejected since it may have become notable in the past 7 months and a consensus is now required. Google returned nothing but blogs and Flickr images. It appears to be a non-notable art form. The page was created by a WP:SPA. I am falling back on the original deletion: "No concrete proof of notability. Spam." --Old Hoss 04:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As nothing but spam. If it's notable, someone can write a real article about it. CitiCat^♫ 04:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. CSD#G4. ~ Wikihermit 04:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per repost, so tagged. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 05:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - G4 doesn't apply to prods (and this was one). Delete per spam, in that case. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 05:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I took off the speedy tag under CSD G4 because the prior deletion had been an expired prod and G4 requires deletion by Afd. After this is deleted, we'll have that ammo needed to comply with CSD. I also thought spam but usually spam about something notable is fixable, so we're back to notability again. Carlossuarez46 05:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 05:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Dynasty Online[edit]

contested deletion tag, would be likely contested prod as well. author claims that the game is notable and provides some weblinks on the talk page, but those don't appear to be mainstream or reliable sources, but I'm not an online gamer, so maybe these are their bibles. Carlossuarez46 04:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, no apparent reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It does say it has won an award, but not much else. However, I am slightly biased towards keeping any software articles we can, so.. --L--- 14:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the award claim is uncited, and hardly sounds like a notable award anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an award from the "Beijing Municipal Bureau of Press and Publication" is unconvincing as anything significant. No other press that can be found to verify. -- Whpq 00:16, 5 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 04:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Keynes in popular culture[edit]

Again, a collection of bad WP:TRIVIA Bulldog123 04:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TRIVIA and unreferenced. ~ Wikihermit 04:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA. Oysterguitarist 06:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as perhaps the worst of these sorts of articles it has been my displeasure to encounter. Otto4711 12:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hived it off from the original Milton Keynes article as being substantially non-notable and clogging up a long article. It has no redeeming merit. --Concrete Cowboy 12:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Original Research. —gorgan_almighty 14:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
pointless comment when I first saw this, I thought it was about Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes in popular culture. Can you imagine? --JayHenry 14:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's Milton Keynes. Milton Keynes. What's next, Skelmersdale in popular culture? Will ^(talk) 17:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Casperonline 20:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial listcruft. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as explained in various AFD's related to IPC, unsourced, listcruft, trivia-filled.--JForget 01:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need not double our number of articles by creating an X in popular culture from each X. Carlossuarez46 21:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Okay, so it's Jolly Old Levittown. Put it back in the main article and leave it there. Mandsford 17:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, even I'm not defending this one. AndyJones 17:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AndyJones. Bearian 18:34, 6 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, CSD G7, author requested deletion. Sean William @ 13:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hernagram[edit]

unproven pet theory, original research; prod contested, moving to afd NeilN 04:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Vonones 04:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, 2 ghits. No notability. CitiCat^♫ 04:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced OR (also, incidentally, total nonsense). Gandalf61 16:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've restored the page after addition of personal commentary and subsequent blanking. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not help to make it better? What do you want to see more of? I hope this message is in the correct place. Danny1000 03:13, 3 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. --Core desat 06:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firearm errors in media[edit]

WP:NOT#IINFO and extreme WP:OR and tons of bad trivia Bulldog123 03:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This article is garbage, totally unreferenced and is beyond fixing. --Chuck Sirloin 04:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Nice article, maybe the author can find a website for it somewhere. CitiCat^♫ 04:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep I think that it has some ok info and can be salvaged, but I won't raise a fuss if it got the axe. Movie trivia is a plague on firearms article and I loath it. But if there must be something, this article is marginally acceptable I guess. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to vote above, I'll add that I oppose merging in the strongest possible way. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. This article is interesting in that it provides information an average reader may be lead to assume (because of movies, etc.) but is otherwise false. I'd prefer it to be a little more referenced, and possibly merged into the subjects it refers to; a possibility I would consider is to move it to a project space and leave it there until someone decides to perform such a multiple merge. Tizio 11:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See WP:INTERESTING
- Please s/interesting/encyclopedic/g in my comment. That is: "if a person argues for why an article is WP:INTERESTING, and the arguments for interesting are also reasonable arguments for encyclopedic, it is wrong to summarily dismiss that argument just because WP:INTERESTING is a section in this essay". Tizio 14:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to WikiBooks, if that project will accept. --Dhartung | Talk 12:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge each bullet-point into the article about that firearm. Citations will have to be found of course. If this is unfeasible, then delete. —gorgan_almighty 14:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a good, accurate essay. But it is also quite unsourced and mostly WP:OR, and as such doesn't qualify to be a Wikipedia article. RGTraynor 14:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RGTraynor. Also, Wikipedia is not a provider of public service information regardless of how interesting, important or useful it may be. MartinDK 15:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic WP:OR. Eusebeus 16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one could probably be fixed with some additional sources (it's got 8 so far). I wouldn't be surprised if articles of this type show up from time to time in gun magazines. There are a lot of misconceptions about guns and, worse, about gun safety, created almost entirely by Hollywood. This is an excellent article about the differences between a reality few are familiar with, and well-known fantasy that is taught on film. Ignorance, in this case, is not bliss. Mandsford 17:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - agree with gorgan almighty above --Philip Laurence 01:48, 5 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. Sandstein 21:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Farms Of Springfield[edit]

Delete was tagged for deletion; creator removed the tag. Unsourced article about a planned amusement park. "The location of this park is either questionable, or just not being released to the public. No webpage or website of any kind has been found about the park." and some speculation about why nothing is known and what types of rides it may have. WP:CRYSTAL seems to apply here, even if some sourcing could be found. Carlossuarez46 04:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speculation about speculation. Urgh. EyeSerene^TALK 13:58, 2 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 04:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references to polyamory[edit]

Another bad, brief In Popular Culture article composed completely of trivia. Bulldog123 03:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless list. Propaniac 15:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More WP:NOT IPC. Eusebeus 16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incomplete to the point of utter uselessness. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, 181 articles to review and this is just #135 -- Author is afraid to explain "polyamory" which is, essentially, a word for the enjoyment of an orgy. Of all the words that would have a lot of synonyms (group sex, etc), this is it. Not useful to anyone. Mandsford 23:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See polyamory (which is, in fact, linked in the first sentence of this article). There are good reasons to delete this list of references, but this is not one of them. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete on the one hand I think these generally notable, but there so far are not enough to justify a separate article. DGG (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. If every single mention of polyamorous relationships in popular culture was mentioned, it wouldn't be able to fit in one article. Spellcast 17:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice against re-creation with sourced material. — TKD::Talk 05:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial Video Systems[edit]

Delete nn business, fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 03:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nothing special about them either --L--- 14:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A Google news search indicates they are written about. The articles are behind pay-to-view walls so unable confirm contents, but the lead-ins for several appear to have the company as the primary subject of the article. -- Whpq 00:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert, obviously written by someone in the company --Radiant 199--- 00:29, 5 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. Carlossuarez46 22:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank da Vinci[edit]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. Does not have the necessary significant credits in significant projects required. Otto4711 03:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a minor actor. Shalom ^Hello 03:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor actor not notable. Oysterguitarist 06:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Trekcruft. His "recurring role" probably largely consisted of saying "Yes, sir" if he had any lines at all. --Dhartung | Talk 06:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough. 345th 20:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Oh, I've heard of him, but he's not notable. Dhartung, he had more lines than that, and he did a yeoman job. :-) But it still doesn't add up to much. Bearian 18:33, 6 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 - article deleted by Jimfbleak. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Grove Oak Aged Rum[edit]

These articles are virtually identical. They cite no sources, seem to be original research, and may constitute advertising. Also, very little assertion of notability.

Here's the other article that I'm nominating:

-- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 03:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam, I don't even need to look at the additional reasons CitiCat^♫ 05:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete spam, I've tagged them. They look like they could be copyvios too. Hut 8.5 13:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as obvious advertising, but without prejudice to an article about the distillery, whose exact name we fail to learn from these two ads. Generally, individual products belong in articles about the manufacturer unless there's enough to be said to fork them. But as a maker of distilled spirits, it's likely to have received a fair body of independent commentary. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:43, 2 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. --Core desat 06:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Fesi II[edit]

Vanity article for a non-notable local political candidate. Speedy tag was removed without explanation by an anon IP which has made no other edits. --Finngall ^talk 03:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as nominator. --Finngall ^talk 03:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 03:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom local office candidate, nn. Carlossuarez46 03:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made the adjustments to be strictly factual and not influential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.151.169.82 (talk • contribs)

Comment This IP (no other edits beyond that one and this one, BTW) did indeed do a good job of excising POV statements. --Finngall ^talk 14:03, 2 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fariha al-Jerrahi[edit]

Not notable and no references given. Pharaoh of the Wizards 03:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research unless third-party sources are cited. Also, not written with a neutral point-of-view.-- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 03:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.137.101.146.10 10:44, 2 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, ELIMINATORJR 23:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no verifiable non-trivial sources for the information provided. Leads me to conclude this is OR. Bigdaddy1981 00:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like the sources consist of the sect's website. Cap'n Walker 20:40, 9 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. --Core desat 06:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Navarro[edit]

there is a dispute whether this is patent nonsense or a hoax, copied from Michal Papadopulos with a new title added, or a real player, if either of the first 2, it should be deleted. Carlossuarez46 03:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: To clarify: I requested speedy deletion for not asserting importance when the article looked like this: [56]. The creator of the article deleted the tag and added a duplicate of the infobox, intro and footer for Michal Papadopulos and changed Michal's name to Edward's throughout, though still linking to Michal's footballing stats for the first two external links. As you might guess, I suggest deleting this.--Slp1 03:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information re verifiability: there are no google hits for Edward Navarro and the Blaze of Glory series he was involved in, [57] nor for Edward Navarro and the German team Bayer Leverkusen where he supposedly plays.--Slp1 11:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC) [58][reply]

Gosh, what's the point of being on Wikipedia if you guys keep on deleting my articles? I'm trying to create an article about Edward Navarro! Keep!— Preceding unsigned comment added by MinisterofSweeden (talk • contribs)

Comment. If you need to test your article posts, perhaps you could use the sandbox. Also, you could use the Show Preview button before submitting an article or changes. That way, your article won't be posted until it is ready, and has only accurate info. Then it would be much less likely to be deleted.-- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 03:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No further edits have been made to this article. It seems that it is just nonsense.-- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 22:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The like to Mikes profile was a mistake. Sorry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MinisterofSweeden (talk • contribs)

Comment. The page still lacks any reliable sources. The myspace link seems to be nonsense.-- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 14:41, 6 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 04:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Park (Richmond, Virginia)[edit]

Virtually orphaned page; Yahoo! search came up zero; this is about a city park - not a city named "park" - whose main claim to fame was a tunnel running under it collapsed on a work train, allegedly.-Old Hoss 02:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The other option would be to merge to Richmond, Virginia if further details about the incident are found. Shalom ^Hello 03:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's plenty of information about the train incident at Church Hill Tunnel; this park allegedly is just what happened to be above the tunnel when it collapsed (and it seems that it has actually collapsed quite a lot). Propaniac 15:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with the possibility of adding a redirect to Church Hill in case anyone is looking for it. This article isn't providing a lot of context or background other than what's provided by Church Hill Tunnel. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aren't inhabited places considered notable? I've seen plenty of homeless people sleeping here.. but of course I have no sources to cite for that, so the merits of the topic for now will have to go with delete. spazure (contribs) 09:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bearian 18:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 23:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aarex India[edit]

WP:COI has been created by the company staff and this is there only edit.Not notable and no references. Pharaoh of the Wizards 02:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - also fails WP:CORP. Jauerback 02:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jauerback. Also non-notable and not easily sourcable with reliable cites. Bearian 18:40, 6 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 04:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of sunniest places in the world[edit]

Delete originally tagged speedy because the source was inaccurate, which is not a speedy criteria. I question the source, which I cannot access, but also whether a fully and propertly sourced list is encyclopedic, given the "sunniness" is susceptible to differing interpretations: is a minute of sunshine just before dusk = a minute at midday or said another way is the same time at the equator > than outside the tropics, and how cloud obscured must things be to no longer be "sunny". Carlossuarez46 02:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. List will be very hard to maintain -- how sunny is "sunniest"? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is there a List of darkest places in the world article too? God, I hope when I hit 'Save Page' that that link shows up in red. Jauerback 02:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whew. Jauerback 02:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Harlowraman 03:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete (no pun intended). "Sunniest" is undefinable, and the source is lame. Shalom ^Hello 03:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sunniness, or rather, average amount of cloud cover per year, is certainly definable and quantifiable. Unfortunately the article doesn't do much to define it.RandomCritic 06:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hard to maintain list and how do determin what goes on the list? Oysterguitarist 06:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete weakly and without prejudice to recreation. Sunniest is easily definable as noted by RandomCritic, and meteorological records are sourceable in principle and probably notable, but the article as it stands does a pretty poor job on both accounts and my quick attempt to Google better sources brings up no lists, but apparently Yuma, Arizona is the sunniest place, so the list is probably inaccurate. [59] Iain99 09:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: all weather stations record hours of sunshine, so there is presumably an agreed standard for what counts as sunshine. The old fashioned way was to use a lens which focussed the sun's light on a piece of cardboard - if the cardboard got burned, it was defined as sunny. Not sure if there's a more mofern way nowadays. The topic is perfectly encyclopaedic, the problem is just that the current article is such a mess. Iain99 09:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Precludes a just as worthless category, I presume. ALTON .ıl 10:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This, my fellow Wikipedians, is classic listcruft. It is true that the number of sunshine hours, as defined by international standards, is being recorded on most weather stations but do we really want List of places that recieve the most hours of standardized sunshine hours per year? I doubt it. MartinDK 15:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely pointless article. 345th 20:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak move to List of places with the most hours of sunlight?!?!
Delete Why's Perth #1, and Yuma #2? Who made the list? What's the criteria, least rainfall? Fewest overcast days? Everyone greets you with a big smile and they all have great tans? A list of places that receive the most hours of standardized sunshine hours (???) would be of geographical interest, as with places with the most rainfall, but this is pretty worthless. Mandsford 23:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Travelchannelcruft. BUT how about List of places where the sun does not shine?--WaltCip 15:23, 6 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. — TKD::Talk 04:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetualite[edit]

Nonnotable religion variant. The only source is internal and impossible to verify from the outside. The author, User:Jonathan329 and his IP address, seems to suffer from conflict of interest. Shalom ^Hello 02:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as nonsense & non-notable school ritual. Renata 00:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Seems heavy on OR, light on notability. Seattlenow 03:46, 8 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 09:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Mudambi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article made it through AFD before, because people felt it met WP:PROF, but it was a very weak article. Well, since this article's first AFD closed on August 16th, 2007, not much has changed. However, if you look at the article's creator and primary contributor, you will see that this article is a clear WP:COI violation. I'm also willing to bet that 155.247.29.45 is also Ram Mudambi, since there are no other contributions other than this article. I don't see this article ever improving, because no one cares about it, but Ram Mudambi himself. There is not a single link to the article, other than the first AFD discussion, this one, a COI page, and the creator's talk page. There are no sources, so therefore it fails WP:V as well. Jauerback 02:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is not enought reliable source material independent of Ram Mudambi to write a Wikipedia article on Ram Mudambi. Mudambi seems to have written some material, but that information is not independent of Mudambi. Mudambi seems to have made some findings in 1998 that others have found of interest. But that is not enough information to build an article on. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 04:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Temple is a research university--though not of the very highest rank, and I wouldn't automatically think full professors there notable. He holds a named research fellowship, but its hard to tell the significance of that. Of the 50 papers mentioned, 36 are in Web of Science, top ones being cited 25, 13, 12, 10 times. Six books are listed on his web page, not mentioned here specifically, so I've added them. they are widely held, but its hardly an esoteric field. (I havent looked for reviews) There are two with major publishers, both as coeditor. I dont know the citation standards in the field. I resolve the balance by deciding that the Business School at Temple is smarter than WP at judging these things, but it is possible that just the reverse is true. The editors who accept his publications are independent of him, so i dont worry about that. DGG (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 04:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG reasoning.Callelinea 05:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First of all, I want to express that I completely respect DGG and his opinions. I know he focuses on establishing notability to university professors. So, a Week Keep from him almost feels like a Delete from almost anyone else when it comes to a professor. With a weak claim to notability, and all the other problems with this article, I still feel very strong on deletion. Jauerback 14:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the information I found could support either view; I gave the data, but I am very uncomfortable with suggestions that people should follow my views rather than their own. Perhaps the best way of wording it is that I generally feel on all topics that if in doubt, we should keep. But that's just my 2cents. DGG (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep nominator wants the article improved, not deleted. WP:V and COI are reasons for improvement more than deletion, afd is not a means for improving articles, it is for deleting articles. passes wp:prof--Buridan 11:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, I want it deleted. If I wanted it improved, I would have improved it. Jauerback 15:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

then why didn't your provide a reason beyond things that can be improved? --Buridan 18:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it can't be improved. As I said in the nomination, he's not notable. He fails WP:N and WP:PROF. Jauerback 18:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

passed wp:prof as far as i can see. to what extent do you argue that he is not-notable? as i can easily see the notable part.--Buridan 20:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Full named professor, with over 50 peer-reviewed publications and six textbooks, several of which are with high-quality publishers, seems to meet WP:PROF. The conflict of interest issue need not be a problem if the subject is notable and the article is factual and referenced. Espresso Addict 17:04, 7 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, podcasts aren't really WP:RS, and there isn't much more in sourcing. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finger jousting[edit]

Weaselwordy and unreferenced fingercruft? Prod removed by obvious SPA User:Lord of the Joust. External links references [60]. Media section shows one RS, a local newspaper in Georgia. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 02:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There's a few other sources that are borderline, but there's also a podcast by BBC Radio 4 on the subject, which pushes me over the fence. It needs to address its tone and add those sources, but that should be enough. Independent editors should give it a shot to avoid COI. Sidatio 03:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic - that's the first time I've ever heard the term "fingercruft". I'm sad to think that I may never hear it again. Sidatio 03:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seem to be some sources out there. Cleanup might help the article. [[Guest9999 03:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Strong delete per nom. Also of interest is the fact that the "president" of this so called federation also refers to himself as Lord of the Joust. Call me paranoid but I'm pretty sure that the creator, Lord of the Joust and the president of this federation are in fact the same person. Only sources are the "federation" website and a link to YouTube. Sorry, I'm not buying it. MartinDK 16:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, there are actual news sources, the most reliable being the aforementioned podcast by the BBC. Agreed about Lord of the Joust, though - if there's an article to be had, it should be edited independently to avoid COI. Sidatio 16:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly weak keep. Much to my surprise, a quick Google indicates that this is likely to be sourceable, though I haven't dug in to see how much real info there might be. Wooty, you deserve an award for funniest usage of the "-cruft" suffix. :) Pinball22 17:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea - already done. :-) Sidatio 17:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! :) Pinball22 18:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hello, I am the person alluded to in the article, The Lord of the Joust. I did not originally create this Wikipedia entry. Someone else did and not even by my requestion. I waited a long time for one to appear on here. However, I've done some very slight changes to the webpage such as when some hooligans added allusions to pokey in the entry and some other minor details. The sport, though currently small, is growing in popularity. We have been on NBC affiliate, BBC, and other television network programs. We were on The N9NE on Yahoo. We've been in multiple newspapers and are recognized as an obscure sport governing body. I understand that Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased—a very important trait of this site—encyclopedic source, so I haven't added much. I did add some references that are verifiable to the bottom of the entry. Someone definitely should undertake the task of cleaning up the mangled unorganized cruft (yes, a great word) of an entry. Thank you for your time. Lord of the Joust 19:15, 4 August 2007 (EST) — Lord of the Joust (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong delete - Barely article that is completely being used for spam to market barely emerged phenomenon. WP:NFT. In fact, a search on google reveals that it's not going to be able to be sourced. It fails WP:NOTE - multiple non-trivial media sources. The Evil Spartan 15:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong comment Whilst the article needs work, there is the BBC source [61] which could be used in a cut down version. Guest9999 02:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong reply - multiple non-trivial sources I believe is the criterion for notability inclusion. This page has at best, a few non-trivial sources. I'm not at all under the belief that just because a phenomenon is mentioned once by the BBC that it deserves an article. This subject is so barely notable, and is clearly using this Wikipedia entry as a vehicle for self-promotion. The Evil Spartan 16:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, normal comment? A few = more than one. More than one = multiple. Also, I fail to see how a search on Google reveals concretely that there will never be another source on the article ever again. Care to expound? Sidatio 17:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normal response - where did I ever say there would never be any more sources on the article again? I said that at the moment, it's non-notable, and one or two sources on google scantly passes WP:NOTE, if at all.

And, btw, the second definition, according to of multiple is manifold, which defines as various in kind or quality; many in number; numerous; multiplied; complicated; diverse. I hardly think two online articles qualifies as many in number, numberous, complicated, and diverse. So, the fact is, that the word multiple is certainly up for interpretation; however, if we go by the raw definition more than one, then having two sources automatically qualifies every subject for notability on Wikipedia. And I don't think that interpretation is correct. The Evil Spartan 17:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My fault - I misread what you said about your Google search there. As far as your interpretation of "multiple" goes, you're right - it is indeed subject to debate. I've voted for keeps based on two notable sources before, though, and will more than likely continue to do so, especially if one of those sources is an institution as reliable as the BBC. Not that I care about finger-jousting so much; I just ended up on this because of the fantastic use of the word "fingercruft". I don't, however, think the article is as self-promoting as you seem to think it is. If the article does stick around (and if it does, it'll be by no consensus), I'd be interested to see what it looked like after sourcing. Since we have those sources, though, deletion's probably premature. But again, sorry about the misinterpretation. :-) Sidatio 17:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I for one welcome our new finger fighting overlords. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 19:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sidatio, WP:HEY. Bearian 21:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, crap. Does that put me on the hook to expand this thing? Sidatio 21:53, 9 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 03:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punmanteau[edit]

Article seems to be a neologism. I found no google hits on "Punmanteau." Moonriddengirl 02:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax/joke. -WarthogDemon 02:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if real, it fails dicdef. ALTON .ıl 10:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as joax). Unreferenced neologism. ◄Zahakiel ► 18:58, 2 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. There were not many people commenting here, and I considered relisting. But thsoe who did commetn dis so at soem length, and the different positions were reasonably well explored. I doubt that relistign would significantly cahnge the result. DES ^(talk) 13:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Clark[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Yet another non-notable survivor of 9/11 who has a page and shouldn't. Titanium Dragon 01:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clark was involved with the escape of Stanley Praimnath, and allegedly helped rescue him from his office. This makes Clark a little more notable than just someone who survived the attack. The Praimnath story received international coverage and continues to receive some coverage largely because of Praimnath's faith. So the notability of this particular story should be considered. --Dhartung | Talk 02:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Saving someone else's life definetly doesn't make you notable. This only recieved basic coverage because of the event it happened during. I can cite examples of hundred's of times lives have been saved, none would even be concidered for inclusion on wikipedia. -- Jimmi Hugh 03:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though involved in honourable actions during event, still non-notable, can find nothing about him unrelated to event anywhere. -- Jimmi Hugh 03:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Why are we ignoring the multiple independent and reliable sources at the bottom of the page? It seems to me that this meets our policies just fine. — brighterorange (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator explained his motives here:
"Just surviving a terrorist attack does NOT make you notable, nor does suriviving a school shooting or anything else. Or dying in one, for that matter. Pages of such people have been deleted time and again. There are appaently a whole group of such pages, and I'm going through and nominating all such pages which need to be deleted."
I know we are supposed to assume good faith, but the nominator sounds like he or she has one big POV to push.
In other cases, when a nominator who felt there was a class of articles which should all be deleted would nominate one representative article for deletion, while stating that they wanted it to be considered a test case. Geo Swan 04:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it's okay for us to have POVs about what Wikipedia's policies and standards and to express those on project pages; NPOV applies to articles. But the existence of reliable sources remains our best yardstick for measuring notability. This guy has at least two very extensive articles in major reliable sources written about his ordeal. If we are going to be objective about our notability standards this should be plenty. — brighterorange (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you have put your finger on what I think is one of the wikipedia's biggest weaknesses.
I agree that it is natural -- desirable -- for wikipedians to have opinions on the wikipedia's policies and how they should evolve. But, it seems to me that the ((afd)) and other deletion fora have proven disastrously ineffective places to look for any real discussion of these issues. In my experience it is extremely rare for anyone to change their mind, or even show any appearance that they considered changing their minds.
What we really need are fora where people arrive with an open mind, and can openly read and consider weaknesses. in their favoured view of the wikipedia's policies and future growth.
In this particular case, I think it would be far better for our nominator to compose a reasoned essay explaining the reasoning behind their strongly held view that survivors don't merit coverage in the wikipedia, even if they are at the center of a notable event, and there are extensive reliable authoritative sources to support an article that complies with WP:NPOV. Nominator hasn't even tried to offer a reasoned argument -- merely implied that it is obvious Clark and Prainmath don't merit coverage. Geo Swan 16:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People who survive attacks are not notable for any number of reasons, but the real reason is that, really, they just aren't notable. Or, rather, surviving a terrorist attack or a shooting does not in and of itself make you any more notable than dying in it; this is well-established Wikipedia policy. Survivors and the dead of shootings, "tragedies", natural disasters, ect. do not get articles and do not warrant articles for dying or living in such ways. They get coverage after the disaster, but within a couple of years completely fade from existance and never are mentioned again. This is not notability; it is temporary sensationalism that is not meaningful in the long term, and simply leads to junk articles that look stupid. If all an article really has to say is "this guy survived X", then the article shouldn't exist at all as the -event-, not the person, is what is notable, and needless to say there are a bunch of articles about 9/11 on Wikipedia which already cover the meaningful information in this and many other "survivor of" articles.

This policy has been long-established on Wikipedia, and after every major event a bunch of articles are made, then deleted for non-notable people; see, for instance, the slew of articles about non-notable people made then deleted after the Virginia Tech shootings. This article is very similar to those articles in being unimportant and not really meriting its own article; Clark is not notable, 9/11 is what was notable about it and the rest is just junk. If there have been multiple documentaries made about Stanley Praimnath, then I suggest that we take this information and move it into his article, as he seems to be much more notable, and Clark is just the guy who was there with him, and to source the article properly from -multiple sources-. Part of the reason I went through and nominated a bunch of these pages for deletion (and I shall nominate more after this batch is through) is because they simply don't have sources which establish notability; they're just basically memorial pages or interviews from within a year of the events. If you want to show that these people -are- important, more recent sources should also be used, as if no one has really done anything with them in years, it probably means that they weren't ever important to begin with.

These pages are worthless clutter, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. It is supposed to be about notable things, and random survivors of events are simply not notable. This guy does not seem important, ultimately, and many of the other random survivor pages much less so. This article reads like something from some 9/11 related memorial or propaganda site, not something that belongs in an encyclopedia. If you are not going to be an important part of the historical record in any meaningful way, then you don't warrant a Wikipedia article. These survivors aren't going to be, and while Stanley may because of all the attention paid to him by gullible Christians, he may not; however, I think I've been convinced of his notability for now. But this guy just seems to be "the guy with Stanley", rather than "Brian Clark", as far as notability is concerned, which indicates to me that he should, as someone else suggested, be put into his friends' article rather than having one of his own.

If anything, it seems to me that you've been a bit suckered into the 9/11 premise. 9/11 is a major source of propaganda, but a lot of it really isn't all that important, and this is one of those things. Titanium Dragon 12:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You write above:

"...this is well-established Wikipedia policy"
"This policy has been long-established on Wikipedia,"
Okay, fine, then cite that policy; cite the specific passage(s) you claim applies here.
After spending a little time googling "Brian Clark" and 911 it seems clear that you either didn't bother checking what has been published about him yourself -- unless you were aware of how extensive his record was, and chose not to disclose it. His testimony before the 911 Commission is widely quoted. Surely that makes an article about him highly defensible?
Nothing prevented you from doing your own search, prior to nominating articles for deletion. If you didn't do any research on your own, because you "don't have time" then let me ask you to consider that this means that you don't have time to nominate articles for ((afd)).
This doesn't mean you have to walk away with your ocncern unsatisfied. Nothing prevents you from leaving a civil note, registering your concern, on an article's talk page.
I strongly urge you to reconsider your plan to nominate other articles for deletion, if you are not prepared to conduct your own research first.

I am going to close by reminding you that WP:BIO is not a wikipedia policy. The authors of WP:BIO clearly state this in the introductory paragraphs. WP:BIO is a guideline. Whatever authority it possesses it inherits from WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER. My contributions on articles that touch on controversial topics have made the very serious weaknesses of using notability as a benchmark for judging the merits of an article very plain to me. What a person considers "notable" is very highly dependent on the POV of the person making the judgement. I am not suggesting bad faith here. It just seems "natural", "obvious" to some wikipedians that some persons, events, or topics are NN, because they have accepted some questionable press release at face value, or they hold some unexamined misconceptions. For this reason, for controversial topics at least, I think the use of WP:BIO should be deprecated, and the merits of controversial articles should be judged on how well they comply with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER. Geo Swan 16:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm leaning toward merging with Stanley Praimnath. The latter really has become notable as a survivor, whereas Clark really hasn't e.g. taking any survivors' organization leadership role. --Dhartung | Talk 17:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe Clark took time off to lead the survivor's group at his firm, Eurobrokers. Geo Swan 16:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Clark is a Canadian citizen, and has been extensively interviewed on Canadian TV, both shortly after the attack, and on anniversaries of the attacks. As I said in the Stanley Prainmath ((afd)) these two aren't mere survivors. They discovered an emergency stairway that was damaged, but still usable. With better communication the hundreds of other victims who were trapped above the impact levels would have had a chance at survival. I think this makes the experiences of the two highly notable. Geo Swan 16:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think he deserves his own separate article, although his story (and that of Stanley Praimnath and many other survivors) is interesting. Given the public's fascination with 9/11 and the potential of Wikipedia, I think that there should probably be some discussion about the category and the extent of the articles. Mandsford 23:36, 3 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 in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. Acalamari 23:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hip-hop barbershop[edit]

Non-notable music group. Could not find any relevant hits on Google when searching "Hip-hop barbershop" and supposed crew members. --Uthbrian (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - ugh. Jauerback 02:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7, hopelessly non-notable group. May even be a hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 23:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Ifa Karade[edit]

WP:COI has been created by someone close to the person or the person himself.It is there only edit.Has been unreferenced for more than 1 year(created August 2006) and lacks notabilty. Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced his subject is a bit esoteric, so the fact that his book ranks #48,145 in sales at Amazon.com probably isn't dispositive; however I'll assume that WP:BLP applies (as no mention of his passing is contained in the article), I would really like to see the article sourced to be kept. Carlossuarez46 06:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no assertion of even local notability is made, much less asserted. The religion this fellow supposedly is involved with may qualify as WP:FRINGE. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:59, 2 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 only dissenting views were from SPA's — Caknuck 04:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progeniq[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Contested speedy G11 (spam). The software seems to be nonnotable, and article history reveals a likely WP:COI, but the references section is not empty. Nonetheless, once the COI would be removed, there is no evidence that a neutral article would meet inclusion criteria. Shalom ^Hello 01:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a Biotechnology company in Singapore, and one of the more notable emerging startups from Singapore in awhile. The article is neutral enough, there are other company articles on FPGA technologies which are fairly neutral and acceptable as well, including CLC_bio, Mitrionics LK Wong 04:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC) — LK Wong (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. The links seem to be to white papers, i.e. self-published, so I don't see multiple sources of independent coverage. Further, I don't see any claims that meet WP:CORP. —C.Fred (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fred and also non-notable. Also users seem to be removing AfD tag so please be aware of this. - Shudde ^talk 05:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No deletion. The links are independent sources from Apple and AMD, and are not internally published. Please go through the references and check your claims. The references are also from notable companies in Wikipedia Apple and AMD, so it should meet the WP:CORP requirements. LK Wong 06:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The BioBoost white paper is published by Progeniq (note the copyright notice). The content at the Apple site is written by a Progeniq employee (note author Darran Nathan's email address). The AMD white paper is about acceleration technologies and does not mention Progeniq by name. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The AMD white paper is about acceleration technologies, and mentioned Progeniq by name on Page 8, and includes a low-res photo of the BioBoost. Article content talks about BioBoost exhibit at Apple WWDC, which looks correct. T Saunders 02:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, strongly. Inappropriate POV tone: yet another business claiming to be a "solution provider". Jargony to the point of unintelligibility, very vague, and free from context: they are "developing highly optimized software with multiple-fold speedups". Nothing here suggests that this is a biotechnology company. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No deletion - probably more bioinformatics than biotechnology. Solutions look real, Blast, Smith_waterman, Clustalw etc are legit bioinformatics algorithms and commonly used, from NPOV. Author should take more care to improve and elaborate on context. Overall its still understandable. T Saunders 14:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)— T Saunders (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete -- no reliable sources. The first is their own site, the second is a list of links, and the third has two trivial mentions, on pages 8 and 9 of an 11-page document. Appears to be a NN company. Bearian 13:26, 6 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 — Caknuck 03:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myers & Company, P.L.L.C.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Myers & Company, P.L.L.C.

Seem to be pure promotional. Notability unsure. -WarthogDemon 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to www.superlawyers.com they bestow the title "Superlawyers" to the top 5% of lawyers, seems impressive until you consider that California alone has 211,894 lawyers [62], would leave one with approxiately 10,000+ "Superlawyers" in that state. I could find no similar figures for Washington, but suffice to say that we probably don't need articles for all (perhaps 100,000) Superlawyers. As for "AV" rating from Martindale-Hubble, those run to the tens if not hundreds of thousands as well. And finally, top 40 in something in the state might constitute notability (weakly). But all of these wonderful things are awards given to Mr. Myers, not his firm, does a firm inherit notability from all of its employees? Another member of the firm was named as a "Rising Star" for several years from the same Superlawyers bestower, without needing to answer the question of how many years of being a rising star does one need to have actually risen, although they are limited to those age <40 or with <10 years of lawyering experience, there is no indication that "Rising Star" is above the rank of Superlawyer and therefore not some runners-up category to the top 5%. Carlossuarez46 04:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is PR spam. Both "rising star" and "superlawyer" designations are vanity listings, much like "Who's who", i.e., pay a fee and get listed for all to see. Aaak. --Evb-wiki 15:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Evb. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I think the reality of the profession is that a law firm does acquire notability from its principal members. In this case, I think neither he nor it are notable enough. DGG (talk) 01:29, 3 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 11:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pasquale Buzzelli[edit]

Yet another non-notable survivor of 9/11. He is not notable, and surviving a terrorist attack does not make you notable. Titanium Dragon 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Harlowraman 03:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bearian 18:20, 6 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 03:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scrog[edit]

neologism with no reliable sources Will ^(talk) 07:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Harlowraman 11:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. All 4 cites are unreliable. Bearian 00:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 01:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any term that doubles as a sex/pot term has to be made up, but seriously, this is not even worthy to put in Wiktionary, where, if it were a real term, would belong. 3 of the 4 links in this article do not even mention the word, and the one that does is a page that anyone can contribute to. Gorky malorki 02:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is this a hoax? Jauerback 03:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Little info on it. However, it's not a hoax or made up. The December 21, 2005 issue of the Pittsburgh City Paper (Volume 15; Issue 51; Page 47) Expletives Repleted; The OED talks the talk has an anonymous person who claims that 20 years prior, a woman reporter at his college newspaper mentioned "scrog" as a euphemism to mean "sexual intercourse." There is a band called "Scrog", which might be notable. There is scrog gin and a street called Long Tongue Scrog Lane. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 04:03, 2 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 11:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green hit[edit]

Neologism. Only sources UD. Will ^(talk) 07:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO - lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" Corpx 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 01:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism with no assertion of broad usage. --Stormie 04:06, 2 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. Punkmorten 11:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halfwich[edit]

Neologism. First source is to UD, second source is about folding sandwiches. Will ^(talk) 07:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, unverifiability per WP:V. "WP is not a dictionary." Bearian 00:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 01:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Bad case of neologism. Jauerback 03:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 03:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism, and the reference that isn't Urban Dictionary doesn't even mention the term! --Stormie 04:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 04:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceasar Borja, Jr[edit]

This guy isn't notable. Meeting with the president does not make you notable, nor do his political activities - if he was more important he might, but he seems to just be a random minor person who doesn't have any notability. Titanium Dragon 01:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - have you read Wikipedia:Notability, Titanium Dragon? It expressly states that Wikipedia:Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity" and deals with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This AfD nomination is not based on Wikipedia policy or guideline. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 04:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although his father might be worthy of an article. —Ian Spackman 14:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing the notability here. Another issue: one of the two references leads to a "missing page" link, at least on this browser, and the NY Times article requires a log-in to view the information. This makes ready veriability a problem also. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:38, 2 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 03:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meadowlands Shopping Plaza[edit]

No assertion of notability, and page has been speedy deleted twice already. Whilst many shopping-centre articles have survived AfD, many have also been deleted; so no clear precedent. Therefore throwing this out there to see what happens. Oli Filth 01:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete again. Jauerback 01:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hopeless vague sense here of deletion here, after all the nominator here is saying themself's: "throwing this out there to see what happens" (aka lets cross our fingers and hope it gets deleted) & "no clear precedent" & "many shopping-centre articles have survived AfD". Mathmo ^Talk 01:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - you're basing your "keep" on the nominator's choice of words? According to the last point of WP:N#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines, "For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for 5 days.", this is what AFD is for. Jauerback 02:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - You obviously have to take into account the nominator's arguments for deletion, thus naturally their wording is of very high importance. Also on another note I've spent a few seconds with google to find a couple of sources, I've now added these references into the article. They came from Dow Jones Newswires and The New Zealand Herald. These multiple independent and reliable references provide it with sufficient notability. (not to mention I'm sure more references exist if you just look for them) Mathmo ^Talk 03:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't believe an article(s) mentioning the sale or possible sale of the property has anything to do with it's notabilty. Jauerback 03:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes it does, because it means it was notable enough to be covered. This is straight forward definition kind of stuff. Mathmo ^Talk 06:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I chose this wording because, whilst I believe the article fails WP:CORP, and thus satisfies CSD, an admin previously removed the speedy-delete tag that I added, citing that articles about shopping centres "often survive AfD" (i.e. there's some vague sort of precedent). Thus I've put this article up for AfD, to see what the arguments are for keeping it. Hence, "to see what happens". It's not a case of "fingers crossed"; if there are decent arguments for its retention, I'll respect the consensus view. Oli Filth 07:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Itty-bitty neighborhood "convenience center, described in the article as "small." Parking for only 280 cars. Fails WP:ORG and WP:N, would fail WP:MALL the rejected guideline for shopping centers. Edison 02:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Edison. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 03:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Bduke 04:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You have absolutely no legitimate reason for deleting this page.Jameeserano 04:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure we do, it's called "not being notable". Delete. CitiCat^♫ 05:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not believe that even fora small area that this is significant. DGG (talk) 04:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The dominant tenant in this mall is a grocery store, which suggests that the mall is likely to be non-notable. --Metropolitan90 06:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt if previously deleted. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Centre is not notable enough and unsourced. Are all NZ shopping mall articles for deletion?--JForget 01:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly it does seem to be so...... which is drastically unfair, many are worthy of being saved. And this can be shown to be so if there was a chance given to put in the effort. But with so many many nominator, the time spent is spread very thinly. Would have been far far better if only one at a time had been nominated, then each could have had the discussion it deserves as to if it should be kept or not. Mathmo ^Talk 02:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that looks to be arbitrary somewhat for proposing all or most of one country's malls for deletion. Some are definitely notable see the one with the Auckland malls I've alerted Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers about this particular rash of AFDs.--JForget 02:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a "rash" of deletions. People seem to be forgetting that malls are not benign public institutions like a school or a library. They are solely commercial enterprises, which, without verification of notability, are spam articles that promote businesses that are not notable. Not all shopping centers are knee-jerk candidates for deletion just because of what they are. But articles about for-profit businesses without any verification or even assertion of notability are using Wikipedia as free advertising. This is unacceptable, to put it mildly. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have taken away the links to the smaller malls, but I say go and do the same thing to the stupid "NOT NOTABLE" dumb little malls in england that you seem more than happy to keep. But what more can we expect from POMS.
Delete notability is not asserted let alone established. Unclear how this BUSINESS comes close to meeting WP:CORP. From WP:CORP - while a company may be notable, not all it's franchise outlets are. We don't have articles on every McDonalds store so why should we have one on every Centro shopping complex?Ga rr ie 08:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big difference here, even the smallest shopping centers are much bigger than the largest McDonalds. Heck, I'll bet this shopping center even contains a McDonald's inside it! Obviously to do so it much bigger than a McDonalds. Mathmo ^Talk 21:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. A mall that sells for $11 million is clearly rather small and generally lacking notability, houses can cost more. No notability is established. Fails WP:CORP. If there is local interest, merge to the city article. Vegaswikian 02:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What next, you are going to tell me an $11 million dollar bicycle is not notable because a house is more expensive? You are comparing apples and oranges. Mathmo ^Talk 02:44, 7 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 articles will therefore be kept by default. DES ^(talk) 13:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Torch (band)[edit]

Band and albums do not appear to meet WP:BAND. -WarthogDemon 01:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Have apparently had stuff played on national TV, had albums in national charts, and played at notable festivals. Some sources might be good, though. Oli Filth 01:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Oli Filth. One of their albums has charted nationally, and they've got other small claims to notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Their notability to the non-Norwegian, English-speaking world makes them marginal for inclusion in the English Wikipedia. I think it's questionable whether #23 in Norway is "a charted hit" (per WP:BAND) rather than "a charted non-flop". Claims to notability are thinly sourced. Clconway 03:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reason 1There are several norwegian bands listed on the Norwegian Wikipedia who are just as known as Torch. The bands Stonegard, Animal Alpha and Amulet (band), for instance. ~~And those articles are so badly written, it looks like it´s been written by 2-year olds on crack. How someone could give a green light on those articles is beyond me.~~ I would gladly do a cleanup on them when the time comes. Reason 2 Torch are hugely influenced by music styles from English speaking countries. All their lyrics are written in English. Their homepage and myspace is written in English. It makes sense to write an English wikiarticle. ALTHOUGH: I could wait 1 year before I submit Torch a second time on the wikipedia. If nothing notable has happened by then, they´re probably not worthy for the Wiki and I will let it go. -Rakasta 19:40, 3 August 2007 (CEST)
Weak delete Rakasta's argument seems to sum it up: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, well yes it does and maybe we'll get around to evaluating those articles, too, someday. That a band has influences from English or sings in English or even puts its web presence in English does not make them notable, if they were Norwegians singing in Navajo that might be notable, but English alas doesn't make one so. Also, what one's influences are really doesn't make one notable, if many people are influenced by the same source it may make the source notable, for example: if I am influced by the Bible and Jesus, which most would concede are notable, I don't get instant notability at WP. Carlossuarez46 21:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per oli filth. Mathmo ^Talk 22:52, 7 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. — TKD::Talk 03:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Casseux[edit]

Minimal info not enought to ascertain notability Peter Rehse 01:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 01:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Savate, doesn't seem to be enough information about him to warrant a separate article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Savate, per Ten Pound Hammer. Jauerback 01:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect not enough info for a separate article, more info & would be fine as probably notable. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:14, 2 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 03:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sound assassin entertainment[edit]

Obvious WP:COI (author's only edit is to this article. Nonnotable per WP:BAND. Shalom ^Hello 01:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oli Filth 01:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. not notable Harlowraman 01:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also has a touch of WP:SPAM. Jauerback 01:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and as there is not much of even a stub there. Bearian 13:22, 6 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, copyvio (G12). Chaser - T 22:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wei-Yi Yang[edit]

Non-notable musician, fails WP:MUSIC. No references at all, can't be verified. Appears to be copied and pasted from another source, and is overly promotional in tone. Contested speedy. Realkyhick 01:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12 as copy vio of this page, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 03:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Helmsb 16:04, 2 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 — Caknuck 03:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S. J. Maas[edit]

Non-notable author. Only work published is a fanfic on fictionpress.com called Queen of Glass. Author has no reviews and article has no notable sources - currently reads like a vanity page. Sidatio 01:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable author, a story on a website is not grounds for an encyclopedia article. --Stormie 04:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a story on the web does not make them notable. Oysterguitarist 06:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources from which we could judge notability. EdJohnston 22:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also the currently-running deletion debate on Queen of Glass. EdJohnston 13:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unknown and is not even a guest at this year's World Fantasy Con in Saratoga Springs, New York [63]. She seems interesting, but is not notable, and does even appear to be working on getting to be notable. Bearian 18:57, 6 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 02:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Crossing Shopping Center[edit]

Non-notable shopping center in North Carolina. A listing of stores was removed from the article recently; however, it still fails WP:RS. Has been tagged as ((unreferenced)) since December 2006 with no improvement. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no assertion of notability, and WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Oli Filth 01:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 03:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oysterguitarist 05:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability is unasserted, much less verified. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:54, 2 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 02:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pennrose Mall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable shopping mall, fails WP:RS, also has some WP:OR in it. I haven't been to North Carolina, much less this mall, but it sounds like a small dying mall with nothing special about it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Survived a previous AfD with a vote of "no consensus". Most "keep" votes were along the lines of WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. About the only notable feature is its age. Oli Filth 01:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything notable about it. Oysterguitarist 02:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and not notable. Gorky malorki 02:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is this serving as the mall's web page, too? Jauerback 03:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources are provided, and a currently operating mall in the United States that doesn't have its own web site is likely to be non-notable. --Metropolitan90 06:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm going to quote an comment from the previous AfD, while I don't entirely agree with every detail it contains important truths: "All malls should have articles here because they are the local landmarks of our times, often replacing Main Street or town squares. They have as much influence on towns as highways, schools, or stadiums. They are substantial economic enterprises and raise major issues involving land use, taxation, and globalization. Too many people love to talk, read or write about them for us to play silly games and try to exclude them. This may be hard for people to believe, but in the real world, they are far more important than the latest Virtual community, Pokemon card, or webcomic." Mathmo ^Talk 21:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on verifiability. Ga rr ie 04:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. Vegaswikian 02:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 23:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Games n' Music Homebrew Compatibility List[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. Article is merely a how-to guide for Datel's Games 'n Music product. ~ Danelo 00:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 01:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a how to guide. Oysterguitarist 01:51, 2 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Praimnath[edit]

Fails WP:Bio. Surviving 9/11 certainly doesn't make you notable, and there's nothing else he has done. Article is poorly sourced and has a link to his home page for no apparent reason. He is not a notable person and should not have his own article. Please note that while his name has appeared in the media, it was trivial in mention, and he is not notable. Titanium Dragon 00:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. This article says he was the "only survivor from the impact zone". And the number of trivial media mentions is so high that you'd think that he's at least on the fringe. But still, he falls under the category of "famous for only one thing". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't the only survivor from the impact zone; there were 13 others, along with 4 other survivors from above the impact zone. And surviving a terrorist attack or natural disaster does not make you notable. Titanium Dragon 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest that, as the nominator, you have a special responsibility to make sure your comments here are accurate. In your nomination you described him as a mere 9/11 survivor. In this followup reply here you acknowledge that he is one of the limited number of survivors from the impact zone If you knew he was from a much more limited group why did you describe him merely as a 9/11 survivor?

Because it is, as they say, completely irrelevant. Surviving something doesn't make you notable. Even if he was the ONLY survivor, he wouldn't be notable because that doesn't make you notable. If he wrote a bunch of books about his survival, then he would be notable. But surviving alone doesn't matter at all - it is mentioned in the main article, where it belongs. He is not notable enough on his own to make an article for him. Titanium Dragon 22:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for trying to address the issues a little more fully. However, this is what my pure math friends back at University would call a "proof by assertion". You still aren't really saying why you don't accept that survivors like Clark and Prainmath are notable. When we have people about whom articles can be written, which comply with the wikipolicies of WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, why the heck should we make readers who want to find out about these people go to some other article? What best serves the reader who wants to find out about them is individual articles about them? My belief about the most desirable futuree direction of the wikipedia are at odds with yours. But I have tried to offer reasoned arguments for my position. I really wish you would try to do the same, instead of repeating "they just aren't notable". Geo Swan 14:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You state that 13 others survived the impact zone. That's interesting. Who are they? This is something people want to know. Our discussion here proves the need for this article, and articles about the other, most notable survivors and victims.

If you actually read other articles on 9/11, you'd know that this is in those articles, WHERE IT SHOULD BE. He doesn't deserve an article because he isn't notable, and it is already in the main 9/11 attacks article and/or the Survivors of 9/11 article (assuming that survives its AFD). Titanium Dragon 22:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting on those 13 other names. Geo Swan 14:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You state there were four other survivors from above the impact zone. That too is interesting. Who are they? My reading of this topic is that Prainmath was one of the four, not that there were four in addition to him. As above our discussion here proves the need for this article. Geo Swan 01:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't matter. Wikipedia is not a repository of lists. Surviving is not relevant because it doesn't make you notable unless you do something actually notable. If he has made a career out of it (something not obvious from this article at all) then -that- needs to be included, but if all he did was survive then it doesn't matter a whit. Titanium Dragon

I am still waiting on those four other names. Geo Swan 14:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - if he were the only survivor, then there might be some cause for this article. But he's not. Oli Filth 01:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, he is not the sole survivor. But given that almost 3,000 people died, and only four survived from above the impact zone, I think it would be fair to describe him as almost the sole survivor. 01:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  - Just surviving a terrorist attack does NOT make you notable, nor does suriviving a school shooting or anything else. Or dying in one, for that matter. Pages of such people have been deleted time and again. There are appaently a whole group of such pages, and I'm going through and nominating all such pages which need to be deleted. Titanium Dragon 01:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Geo Swan 01:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Prainmath and Clark weren't mere survivors. They were survivors who found a damaged but still usable stairway connecting those trapped above the impact to safety. Their survival demonstrates that, with better communication, the several hundred victims who thought they were trapped above the impact all had a chance at survival.
- I agree that the article could do with a couple of hours work, supplying it with better sources. I urge those voting to delete today to return in a couple of days, and see if they still think the article merits deletion.
Keep - You would think that surviving 9/11 would not make you notable. However, it is hard to explain why so many news agencies all over the world would write and continue to write about Stanley Praimnath, or why others would make movies and documentaries about him. "TV Ireland: Drama 9/11 The day the world changed." "Heroes Among Us, Miracles Around Us" (based on "Plucked from the Fire" by Stanley Praimnath). In any event, it doesn't really matter from Wikipedia's perspective. There is enough reliable source material from which to write a Wikipedia article that meets Wikipedia article standards policies. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 03:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are these notable? Do these have articles? Or are these random things that were produced that didn't get articles? There's a lot of memorial junk about 9/11, but not all of it is notable. Titanium Dragon 22:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep surviving from the 81st floor is notable. go read the articles and see why. But its not we who have to judge. The judgment is done my the public, mediated by the media. That's their job. ours is to recognize the fact and include what the world thinks notable. DGG (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BIO per notability. Between the Arizona news article and this CNN profile, there are at least two focused profiles of the subject in reputable news sources just from the first page of a google search of his name. In other words...multiple non-trivial secondary sources. Those articles are about the individual himself, not "survivors", and there it is. The article needs to be sourced, but the sources are obviously out there. -Markeer 13:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thing is, this is largely trivial. Why? Because he isn't part of the historic record. No one will know or care who he is in 20 years. He was simply a random guy who survived. If you read WP:Bio, and look at other things (such as WP:Pornstar) you'll realize that his mention is, in fact, trivial. The reason is that he isn't important. All he did was survive. He was mentioned and interviewed for surviving. That is, as far as I can tell, -it-. He has been interviewed a few times (but mostly, 2002, with the only other one outside of the year afterwards being a brief appearance in a 2005 film about important news events from the last 50 years, as a random guy in it regarding 9/11. This does not establish notability; huge numbers of people have been interviewed by the news or had their names appear in news articles, and most of them don't have Wikipedia aticles because they aren't notable. Porn actors who appear in multiple pornography works are not notable, so this guy definitely isn't as he is even less notable. Also, the age of the coverage seems to indicate he is not and never will be an imporant part of history. Titanium Dragon 22:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My pure math buddies would mock you for using "Proof by repetition". WP:NOT says "wikipedia is not a crystal ball". Your contention that he will be forgotten in twenty year is solely your unsupported personal opinion. You are entitled to hold it. But please stop representing it as an acknowledged fact.
  - Your notion that Clark and Praimnath were only mentioned in the MSM in 2001 and 2002, with "brief appearance in a 2005 film", is simply untrue. If you didn't realize this when you nominated them, you should realize it now.
  - You contention that all he did was survive is also highly debatable. Serious problems were revealed in the disaster planning at the WTC. Clark and Praimnath's experience was right at the center of it. They found an open stairwell, that, with better communication, could have allowed the hundreds of other WTC occupants, who were above the impact zone, a chance to survive. This is a very important point, and I can't understand why you keep failing to address it.
  - You keep asserting that thirteen other occupants survived the impact zone. I asked you for their names. I am still waiting. Geo Swan 14:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there were thirteen others, let's write the articles for them. that something will not bean important part of the historical record in irrelevant--WP is much broader than that--this may have been a criterion for such limited works as the EB. Anyway, I think they will--9/11 is likely to have books written about itindefinitely, and the names & accounts of the survivors will remain an important part of them. DGG (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a keep per sources, but I'm suggesting that Brian Clark be merged into Praimnath's article. He has very limited notability outside of the incident itself, unlike Praimnath (who has taken the incident and made a sort of career out of it). --Dhartung | Talk 17:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question? I can't really make a decision either way, as i don't seem to be able to find any record of the things Stanley Praimnath has done. Can someone present sone links to sources of notability or else add them to the article? -- Jimmi Hugh 22:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ten Pound Hammer. That will probably open the door for dozens and dozens of similar articles about 9/11 survivors.--JForget 01:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Praimnath is arguably the most famous of the WTC survivors, having been interviewed in magazines, profiled in books like "102 Minutes" and "9/11: The Untold Story", his experience recreated in documentaries. As such, he has a notability that most 9/11 survivors do not. Perhaps it's his memorable name, perhaps it's the fact that he saw the plane up close, perhaps it's his inspiring story of faith... but he's quite well known to students of 9/11 Mandsford 23:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep They made a documentary about him on BBC. Keep. JonathanKyle 23:45, 3 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 — Caknuck 03:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Green[edit]

Contested ((prod)). Hank Green and his brother John Green, a notable young adult author, have a video blog called Brotherhood 2.0 (that was featured on YouTube this week) and Hank has a blog called Ecogeek. As you can see, both have been deleted. This article is not a speedy candidate, but I do not believe it passes WP:V or WP:NOR. Most of the information is sourced to Hank's own blogs. The other "sources" are a link showing that he was a contributor to some sort to a book published by a magazine, and an article about authors with blogs, that has a brief mention of the fact that John and Hank have a vlog. Other than the indisputable fact that the vlog exists, the rest is OR or vandalism, and it's pretty hard to sort out which is which. JayHenry 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, and seems lacking in sources unrelated to the subject. Titanium Dragon 00:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete under A7 - no sources, non-notable, and most of it's vanity. Seems someone tried to do this in May, but an editor removed the SD tag. We'll see what happens this time. Sidatio 00:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD A7, not notable and no sources. Oysterguitarist 01:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not speedy It has a source, and claims its notable. Whether it is--that's another question. We can decide that here, so I removed the speedy so a case can be made. DGG (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now we know what happens. ;-)

I'm going to go with on the fence, leaning toward the green grass of deletion. On the one hand, we have his contributions to mental_floss. On the other hand, those seem to be his only notable contributions. As far as the book goes - it's a compilation of past mental_floss content from what I can tell, so it seems to count only towards his contributions to that magazine. To me, it looks kind of like a guy who's notably famous for just one thing. Sidatio 03:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not a speedy candidate. But please note that I can't determine if it's accurate that he's a contributing editor for mental_floss. He appears to have written for them three times. That's the problem I have with all the sources. Vague references that don't actually support their claims, and the rest just original research. --JayHenry 04:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he is not notable per WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 21:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete he IS notable per WP:BIO. Under "Entertainers":
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
BenL 05:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Prove it with reliable sources. That's the main problem facing this article. Sidatio 02:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that enough blog posts linking to his main (web) accomplishments (mainly Brotherhood 2.0 and ecogeek.org) qualify him as having a "large fan base" as do running a forum for fans with over 1850 registered users. In addition Brotherhood 2.0 holds 1st place for Best Video Blogger in the Blogger Choice Awards (http://www.bloggerschoiceawards.com/categories/31). I agree that there should be more sources cited. BenL 10:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment:Brotherhood 2.0's AfD notwithstanding, blog posts don't equal notability. Blogs aren't a reliable source per Wikipedia's verification guideline. Sidatio 11:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited automatically from a famous brother. Their Brotherhood 2.0 vlog is also up for deletion. Realkyhick 19:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See related deletion listing here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brotherhood 2.0 --JayHenry 19:21, 4 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Noor Mohammad[edit]

Does not meet notablity and not referenced at all .Article created in May 2007.possibly WP:COI also appears to be created by one of his family members it is there only edit and appears to be WP:OR Pharaoh of the Wizards 00:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Titanium Dragon 01:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The problem is that the article is unsourced, not notabilty. If the information given in the text is accurate, then notability criteria are met. --Soman 07:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is completely unverified, and as the content of the article stands, it violates WP:NOT#DIR as basically a genealogical entry. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, would probably change mind if reliable sources were found. Davewild 07:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete person of local power and interest, assuming that being a zamindar gives one power. Carlossuarez46 21:40, 3 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. Carlossuarez46 22:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Glass[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Queen of Glass

not notable, unreferenced, fancruft Smith Jones 00:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fanfic only published by FanFiction.Net. (Also fixed malformed nom.) cab 00:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Grand total of zero reliable, notable sources. Kinda reads like a really long advertisement or review as well - probably a result of the lack of sources. Sidatio 00:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junk. Titanium Dragon 01:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 01:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 01:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and lacks sources. Oysterguitarist 01:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough WP:RS material from which to source the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, story on a website, one of "over 900,000 original works" on FictionPress. Also delete Celaena Sardothien, an article about the protagonist of this story. --Stormie 04:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable for an encyclopedia. Mkdw ^talk 20:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. The closer of this AfD might also want to look at Celaena Sardothien, mentioned above though not nominated, as a possible G11 candidate, and give some thought to the page on the author S. J. Maas, now going through its own deletion debate. EdJohnston 22:47, 2 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 Withdrawn by nominator (NAC). Sidatio 11:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Solomon[edit]

Does not meet notability requirements; only one source, from 1997, and notability is not temporary. Ravenmasterq 00:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: From what I can tell, there are several notable links pertaining to Mr. Solomon, especially if you add "Motorola" to your search terms. It definitely needs expansion, especially since it's been here for so long, but there should be enough sources to make an article if someone would just get around to it. Sidatio 00:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem notable. The award he recieved also needs work, as it appears to be largely unsourced. Titanium Dragon 01:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 01:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: quite ridiculous nomination by ignorant person. The founder of the #1 EDA company cannot be nonnotable. `'Míkka 01:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think name calling will help the discussion at all. Perhaps you'd like to provide elaboration on the gentleman in question. Based on what I've found, he won an award, (which is a poorly sourced page on its own), and worked for some companies. If he's notable, make sure that his page is sourced.Ravenmasterq 01:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "worked for some companies": obviously you have problems with comprehension, and I will not discuss your militant ignorance further. `'Míkka 01:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Relax, Míkka. That junk's uncalled for, and I'm pretty sure you know that. It's just an article - don't take it personally. Sidatio 02:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nothing personal, just called a spade a spade. Solomon founded a company whose software make it possible for ravenmaster to idly chase ravens here. `'Míkka 02:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Regardless, there seems to be a consensus that the article is incomplete. Instead of unproductive namecalling, why not help flesh out and source the article? We can go over what's needed on the talk page for the article? :-) Sidatio 02:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since there is not enought WP:RS material independent of James Solomon from which to develop a Wikipedia article, the topic cannot comply with Wikipedia article standards policies. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[64][65]

[66][67]

He's actually fairly notable in his field - several chairmanships, the aforementioned award, and founder of numerous businesses. The sources are there - they just need to be added to an article that needs expansion, it seems. Sidatio 02:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. IEEE Fellow ("recognizes unusual distinction in the profession"), over 50 technical papers, founded two companies, and a Phil Kaufman Award winner seems pretty notable to me. Here the Valley's paper of record calls him an "icon". --Dhartung | Talk 02:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you find the full text of that article? It would be nice to have once we start building the article up.Ravenmasterq 02:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We might have to buy it if we wanted to use it to assist us. In the meanwhile, this might be useful. We should probably discuss the rest on the talk page. Sidatio 02:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Dhartung. There's already enough information for a short biographical entry that can be sourced to the Kaufman award bio. — brighterorange (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep now that the material has been found. it wasnt really obvious from the article by itself. DGG (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now that some good people have come out of the woodwork with sources and such, I am withdrawing this nomination...however one does that. I hope that everyone here who defended this article will assist in making it better.Ravenmasterq 05:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Call for speedy close as a withdrawn nom. I would do it myself, but I have already voted. --Dhartung | Talk 10:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh. I don't see a conflict, personally. I may be wrong, but that's nothing new! I'll close this one myself. Sidatio 11:28, 2 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 under CSD-A7: Unremarkable groups and no assertion of notability. ●DanMS • Talk 00:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Igloo[edit]

Appears to be a small, online social group that is not notable. I believe WP:NOT#MYSPACE applies. Article was already speedily deleted and was created over a redirect pointing to Mellon Arena. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 00:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete again. CSD A7, an unremarkable group of people. --Malcolmxl5 00:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I speedied it originally and I say speedy it again. howcheng {chat} 00:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Melt it.If it was killed once, it should be again. Why did it come back?Ravenmasterq 00:25, 2 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. Carlossuarez46 02:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC) For the record, on second thought, I also blocked recreation given the logs. Carlossuarez46 02:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celent[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by a WP:SPA with no other edits other than promotional edits for Celent. conflict of interest editing on the article is done almost exclusively by 208.255.69.34, an IP registered to Celent Inc. The WP:SPAM abuse of Wikipedia associated with this company has been excessive, with over 12 sock SPA spam accounts and IP's adding this sites URL, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jun#COI_citation_and_spam_additions_of_http:.2F.2Fspam.celent.com. Hu12 01:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Titanium Dragon 01:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. As G4. Ryanjunk 01:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Oli Filth 01:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per nom Harlowraman 01:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Oysterguitarist 01:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, apparent violation of WP:COI. Caknuck 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt no assertion of notability, and obviously a long-term spam magnet. Iain99 01:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt: This article was deleted three times in April under G11 (twice) and A7. It may not be advertising, but the company doesn't have much (if anything) going for notability. That spam log concerns me, too. I say salt it and let's be done with the matter. Sidatio 01:52, 2 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 01:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slave whipping blasphemy[edit]

Non-notable band, with one self-produced album. Was speedied as CSD A7, but the creator objected, crying political censorship, so I am throwing it to the wider community. He has provided some links at Talk:Slave whipping blasphemy to claim notability, however imho these are all forum posts and listings pages that do not actually demonstrate notability. Stormie 03:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages - the self-produced album and a demo by the band.

Delete all three. The irony of it being "black" metal notwithstanding, we aren't an advertising service. --Fire Star 火星 03:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Fails WP:BAND. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. not notable. Oysterguitarist 05:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:BAND. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice: "I" am more notable than these guys. There's nothing out there for any of the above-mentioned articles. Sidatio 17:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Mkdw ^talk 20:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly consult with the caster of a vote before you go passing judgment on what they've got to say. I'm sorry if you didn't get the joke, and I've changed the vote in the spirit of civility. Thanks in advance for your attention to the matter. Sidatio 21:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, most incidents labelled as vandalism do not require the consultation of that person when reverting their edits. If you want your comments to be taken seriously and left alone, then keep to something we can use. If you want to joke about something, I suggest the Uncyclopedia. AfD's have a very simple method of being used: Comment, Speedy Delete, Delete, Keep, Strong Keep or Delete. If someone leaves their vote as "Kill all with massive amounts of fire" that is vandalism, even if its a joke. "I am more notable than these guys. There's nothing out there for any of the above-mentioned articles" does not provide any means to a legitimate vote. AfD's are tasks that need to be done and making them complicated with votes we cannot consider does not help. If you're going to take the fact that I removed your comment so seriously, and then remove my comment, put a new one back, restore my comment, leave a complaint here, and post a message on my talk page -- then you should reconsider your own comments if you want to be taken seriously. Sarcasm and jokes are fine, but I have to say in this case there was almost no distinction between a whimsical joke in the middle of a vote and the most common vandalism we see here at AfD's. Thanks for your time. Mkdw ^talk 22:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. ~ João Do Rio 00:57, 3 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 WP:SNOW Delete Acalamari 23:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ownage dance[edit]

Not notable, "has yet to sweep the globe" lol Simeon87 11:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An easy one: the article itself even says it's non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above; not even trying. Ironically, i am performing the dance as i type this. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 12:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete per OR, NOT etc. Nothing much to discuss on this one. EyeSerene^TALK 12:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PBM lol. --Naha|^(talk) 14:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the dance has yet to sweep the globe, it's non-notable. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Sounds like something the editor just made up. -- GJD (Talk to me|Damage I've done) 18:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:NEO. Mkdw ^talk 20:15, 2 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. Sean William @ 15:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Luelf[edit]

Article appears to be a hoax; a Google search for Nicholas Luelf returned 5 hits, all related to someone who has published articles on farming and soil. Dsreyn 12:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under criteria G3 or G10. Length 3.5 inches? Obvious vandalism. Deli nk 14:45, 2 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 — Caknuck 03:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of answer songs[edit]

Loosely associated items, unsourced, can be seen as a hip-hop feud documentation Will ^(talk) 13:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced original research. Propaniac 15:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Some of this... some... can be merged back into Answer song. However, there aren't that many cases where both the statement and the response are well-known (i.e. blue-links), then nobody's paying attention to the "conversation". Classic example is Sweet Home Alabama as an answer to Southern Man. Joel Whitburn pointed out a handful of cases where an answer song made the Top 40 along with the original. Not really enough famous examples to be more than a section of an article. Mandsford 23:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a directory of loosely associated topics. Very trivial connection between the songs. Crazysuit 01:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge back to "answer song". The "further reading" section gives a clue as to how one could adress the OR concerns and "loosely associated" is an ill-defined term being arbitrarily applied. -MrFizyx 20:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a list of trivial information (WP:5) Corpx 20:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One can call anything one doesn't care about trivia. One does however find examples when one searches for "answer songs" in books, and scholarly writings (OK, you need to filter out the "question-and-answer-songs"). Are there sources available to demonstrate notability and provide a basis for this article? We shouldn't destroy content just because a few people have no use for it. -MrFizyx 21:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to author. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 01:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debunking 9/11 Debunking[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Debunking 9/11 Debunking

Non-notable; promotional Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to David Ray Griffin - isn't featured in any reliable sources and conflict of interest problem. Addhoc 15:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No coverage by reliable, third-party sources. Pablo Talk | Contributions 15:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete umm hmmm. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as an advertisement. Such books sometimes become notable later on; if that should happen, the article can always be recreated. Digwuren 17:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Mkdw ^talk 20:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Debunk. The "mainstream news sources" cited as having referred to this book are anything but - Ashland Daily Tidings has a circulation of around 3000 and is "one of Oregon's smallest-circulation dailies", for example. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how many levels of back and forth are encyclopedic? This is probably one too many. Carlossuarez46 21:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, currently called 9/11 truth movement. We don't need an ad for a book, unless it's well-recognized (as with Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment, the first great JFK conspiracy book). Mandsford 23:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN book, should be covered only in David Ray Griffin article.
Note: The article says the book "has been referred to by mainstream news sources such as Le Monde Diplomatique, Ashland Daily Tidings, Common Ground". In fact, those links are (1) an essay by Griffin in Le Monde Diplomatique, (2) a (good) article about Griffin visiting Southern Oregon University that does not mention the book and (3) an article in a far-from-mainstream alternative-politics magazine. Strike Three! This article has to go. Cheers, CWC 08:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all of WP:BK: The book has not been the subject (1) of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience; (2) has not won a major literary award; (3) has not been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country; (4) is not the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any country; and (5) book's author is not so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources. Fails all of these criteria. MortonDevonshire Yo · 20:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Tbeatty 22:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge merge into David Ray Griffin. --PEAR (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would this qualify for WP:DAFT?--orlady 17:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, no. The freaky title comes from the book, and the article only conveys the book's title. Digwuren 20:29, 5 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. Per Carlossuarez46's suggestion, I'd be willing to undelete this list in user or project space if anyone or any WikiProject wants this. — TKD::Talk 03:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of biodiversity topics[edit]

The Category:Biodiversity is more comprehensive than this list Alan Liefting 15:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete better as category, as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People who like categories can use categories, and people who like lists can use lists, and people who like both can use both. For a subject as important as the natural environment, even ten different ways of organizing topics are not too many. -- Wavelength 15:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, better as a list; I added everything I thought was appropriate from the category. Kappa 05:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrew Lenahan & replace with a category. Lists should be reserved for more items, where the number is set or does not fluctuate easily. Corpx 20:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there is a wikiproject that wants this, send it there; this is a grouping of what some people believe are related topics properly found at a Wikiproject but should not be masquerading as encyclopedic content (mainspace). Carlossuarez46 01:04, 7 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 g11, blatant advertising. NawlinWiki 18:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shopanonymously[edit]

Properly formatting AfD on behalf of Witchzilla; given reason was "Article is nothing but advertisement, I tagged earlier but article creator, un-did my tags." --Finngall ^talk 16:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as obvious and blatant spam. --Finngall ^talk 16:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12, copyvio from [68]. Hut 8.5 16:34, 2 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 01:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Dusing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/William Dusing

Reason Charbike 17:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reason added: fails to assert notability per WP:BIO. Gordonofcartoon 23:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to nominator. I fixed some garbled coding in your AfD. Also, you didn't give a reason for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. If the nominator does not provide a rationale for deletion within 24 hours, I will close this discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with your sentiment, but it's more useful to get the job done. So, delete as NN. He appears to be one of zillions of church ministers with no special notability. Gordonofcartoon 23:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no sources for any special notability. DGG (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above as NN. Bearian 19:02, 6 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 for two reasons. 1: This should be at WP:CFD instead. and 2: Didn't you see the header that says "This category is used for administration of the Wikipedia project. It is not part of the encyclopedia. It contains pages which are not articles, or lists articles by status, rather than content."? Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia humor[edit]

Category:Wikipedia humor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This category and all of its pages should be deleted. This is an encyclopedia and not a online joke book. Some people will not find these pages funny but they will find them annoying. Such jokes should go to uncyclopedia. What is the point of having pages in all formal encyclopedia and not a joke book, when these pages are only being used for jokes. Brave warrior 21:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and don't even bother taking to WP:CFD, where categories for discussion/deletion should go. This category is perfectly acceptable. (begin sarcasm) God forbid any of us should have fun once in a while. (end sarcasm) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per AfD consensus JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 10:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic punk[edit]

This article's history contains a bunch of redirects and tests; after I reverted a blanking, I tried to find something to do with the article, but after some research, I think I agree with the edit summary of the person who blanked the page: There is no such thing as this genre, because it is a made up term. Also there was no article at all, just a bunch of references. Note: Google gives lots of hits for "gothic punk"; however, most of them are about "gothic, punk" as two separate words Schutz 23:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete because the article contains no content. -Amatulic 00:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above as A1 (little or no context). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as explained above.--JForget 01:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy - a discussion is ongoing at the talk pages of the CSD world about whether filled in infoboxes are "content" or "context" sufficient to defeat speedy. That said, we're no longer in speedyland so there's insufficient there there for this to be kept. Carlossuarez46 21:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy (delete and) redirect to gothic rock, I don't see how "gothic punk" is possible since punk music is gothic rock's main stylistic origin, see the opening sentence of the article. If this is being used as a term enough for someone to put it in the search box, then it should redirect there. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 23:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Nope, just redirect to an earlier version. This is not an A1 speedy seeing as there are past revisions which do have context, and in any case, the infobox has enough content to form a sentence or two. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 10:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—There is an article on Gothic Punk in the German Wikipedia. Perhaps someone who reads German can see if there is anything relevantly encyclopedic that could be brought to the English Wikipedia...? --Paul Erik 06:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that article talks about the music played at the batcave club as gothic punk, which suggests that it's the same as deathrock. So maybe it should redirect there instead, the article history contained two redirects, one to gothic rock and one to deathrock. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 10:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "without debate"? Do you have any references to support how this is any different from goth/deathrock fashion? - Zeibura ^(Talk) 13:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's no there there. Bearian 18:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, so tagged. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 07:48, 5 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.