< August 30	September 1 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nom. (non-admin tidying up the loose ends) John Vandenberg 13:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goldstein (Tintin's doppelganger)[edit]

This character only appears as a one-off in early editions of a single Tintin adventure Land of Black Gold. He only features in one panel and does not actually play a major part. He would only be of interest to those who are into how Tintin's adventures were developed over the years. A more detailed account about this character can be found at the Minor characters in The Adventures of Tintin article. He is certainly not a major character of the sort of Captain Haddock or Professor Calculus who have their own. Marktreut 19:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of real world coverage for this fictional character Corpx 15:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor characters in The Adventures of Tintin, and if there is nothing to merge just redirect.--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. JIP | Talk 10:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ga Won Middle School[edit]

Fails WP:N. No references or external links, and a google search only brings up two hits (one of which is the creators user page). PC78 00:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- PC78 00:06, 1 September 2007

(UTC)

Delete. Completely non-notable. Frickeg 06:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 14:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - Lack of notability / noT directory 15:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete There are no indications that this school is notable in any way. Middle schools are often failing WP:NOTABILITY.--JForget 00:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 01:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball delete, nocontext list of nonsense. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starter Deck Syrus Truesdale[edit]

Non encyclopedic Cloveious 23:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless it was used as part of some famous match, WP:NN Burzmali 00:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can legitimately be speedied for having no context whatsoever. -- Roleplayer 01:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be somewhat related to Syrus Truesdale but exists as an uninformative list of nonsense. Helps no one and cannot be developed into anything that belongs in an encyclopedia. OfficeGirl 03:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No context, unreferenced and pointless.--JForget 00:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Hayday[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Minor local politician that fails notability criteria. He used to be the mayor of a town in Bucks. Previous afd nomination was closed early, after the individual in question (who appears to have created an article about himself) asked for the information to be userfied. It was then recreated, and the lengthy discussion on the talk page seems to have agreed that this was a borderline case, based on him possibly becoming more notable in the future. That does not appear to have happened. Delete Roleplayer 23:08, 31 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)).

Delete Absolutely nothing to distinguish him from ten thousand other local councillors; Mayor of High Wycombe is not equivalent to Mayor of New York City. And Delete for his brother in advance also, should the author be working on an article on him. (I would love to see more Tory councillors at metal gigs, though!) — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page for non-notable local politician. OfficeGirl 03:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was the mayor of a fairly sizeable city/town/urban area (118,229) and there are numerous and numerous articles of mayors of towns of similar size and even much lower.--JForget 00:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mayor is a mainly ceremonial post in many towns up and down the UK including this one. The holder of the title has no extra powers or scope for decision making than any other councillor and in most of the other articles I would expect the individual to be notable in other ways than just being the mayor. -- Roleplayer 08:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE HE IS WELL KNOWN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzyozzyolm (talk • contribs) 04:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC) — Ozzyozzyolm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Was the mayor of a fairly sizeable city/town/urban area (118,229) and there are numerous and numerous articles of mayors of towns of similar size and even much lower.--Carstairs123 05:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)— Carstairs123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong keep bad faith nomination, ban the user, not the article 86.146.214.146 11:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)— 86.146.214.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Treasure in Iraq[edit]

I've googled "Finding Treasure in Iraq" and the corresponding hangul name, and there's not a single hit between them, which seems a bit odd for "one of the most famous Korean comic book series". Since the article also has no references or external links, I can only conclude that this is a hoax. PC78 22:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- PC78 23:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless sources are found. Julius Sahara 04:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Frickeg 06:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 08:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Maxim_(talk) 13:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter newspapers and magazines[edit]

The article fails to meet the primary notability criteria - there are no independent secondary sources. There is also no real world content as described in WP:FICT. Pretty much all of the content appears to be original research so merging in it's current state probbaly wouldn't do anything good for the artilce it's merged into. Harry Potter and the the Harry Potter Universe are notable - these fictional publictions do not appear to be - notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate colection of information or a guide to the Harry Potter Universe and should not contain this potential fancruft. Guest9999 22:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Transwiki in universe information with no real world notability Corpx 00:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article not just listing but giving rather full information about the Daily Prophet and the other newspapers and magazines in HP. some of these are probably individually notable plot elements throughout the series, and might well be split off into articles by themselves. Combining them in this fashion is a sensible conservative move that should be encouraged. Given the amount of published reviews and other work on HP, this should be sourceable, though it has not yet been properly sourced. How this counts as indiscriminate escapes me, writing an article describing obvious plot elements is not OR, and this is no more a guide than any article about fiction. DGG (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the information in this article is notable enought to deserve its own. The Prophet and the Quibbler and others have been "notable" enough through out the entire series, however this article does need cleaning! **Ko2007** 21:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Things are not notable because they are an important part of a book series - even if that series is very popular WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:ILIKEIT. Topics are considered notable on Wikipedia if they have significant coverage by multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources. To quote WP:NN "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability." - no evidence of this has been presented - without this how can any claim of notability be justified? [[Guest9999 23:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Keep per DGG and Ko2007.--JForget 00:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Guest9999 is wrong in saying that Things are not notable because they are an important part of a book series . Patently false as evidenced by thousands of uncontested articles about objects in fictional universes. This seems to be part of a campaign to improperly redefine what is and is not an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article. older ≠ wiser 03:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the fact that there are a lot of articles that go against policy/guidelines mean that they should exist. If you disagree with the guidelines - which are decided by the consensus of the greater Wikipedia community - then you should challenge them on the policy/guideline pages not in an AfD discussion. [[Guest9999 05:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Reply Most guidelines are descriptive and not prescriptive. The fact that there are so many articles is a far better indication of consensus than the specific phrasing or interpretation of a guideline at a particular point in time. That many of these types of articles have survived AfDs is further evidence of what the real consensus of the community in contrast to the focussed wordsmithing of a handful of policy wonks. If the actual guidelines or, perhaps, your interpretation of the guidelines, is at odds with the acceptance by the community of certain types of article, that is a very good indicator that one or the other does not reflect the actual consensus of the community. older ≠ wiser 11:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how anyone could interpret WP:NN in a way that means that this article meets the guideline. No one has even mentioned a secondary source yet which is what the guideline is all about. There is always room for interpretation but if the definition of notability is:

having "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

and "the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability"

then I do not seen how it is possible to claim something is notable without even trying to suggest that such secondary sources exist or presenting any objective evidence. [[Guest9999 16:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

I don't see that anyone is claiming that the article meets the criteria of the guideline as it is currently written. But that guideline is only a guideline (and a very contentious one at that) NOT an absolute, inflexible rule. Invoking a flawed guideline as if it were clear-cut policy is not helpful. older ≠ wiser 17:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia is defined by the notability criteria several people in the debate have stated that the topic is notable. WP:NN is a big guideline - giving a clear objective way to decide whether a topic should be have an article in Wikipedia - and I don't think it should just be discarded in terms of this debate. The guidelines are formed by the consensus of the greater Wikipedia community and just because they are not absolute, it does not mean they should be ignored without a very good reason; I do not feel one has been given in this debate so far. [[Guest9999 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

I'll concede that WP:NN represents the opinions of some editors about what notability is. From its very inception it has been contentious and to my knowledge it has never ever had anything close to a general consensus supporting every detail in it. It is a guideline, which in wikipedia parlance means it is to be used judiciously in conjunction with WP:COMMONSENSE. I'm not saying it needs to be discarded, but it should never ever be interpreted as being the definitive word on what is or is not notable. It should instead be regarded as a starting point for discussions about notability. That particular guideline was NOT in fact "formed by the consensus of the greater Wikipedia community" but was the product of a relatively small group of narrowly focused editors. It is deeply problematic in many regards and constant appeals to it as if it were a definitive rule are not at all helpful. older ≠ wiser 01:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those who won't except well established guidelines such as WP:NN and WP:WAF what about WP:NOT#PLOT which is a policy which excludes articles like this due to the complete lack of real world content. Or WP:OR another policy which states "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources." - there is no evidence of any secondary sources and I would question whether the books themselves can be considered primary sources. There is also WP:5P - which states "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia" as a fundamental principle of Wikipedia - encyclopaedias are tertiary sources based upon secondary (and sometimes primary) sources; I do not think that this article falls within that catagorisation. [[Guest9999 15:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
...wha? Isn't the work itself the exact definition of a primary source? --Kizor 17:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Pottercruft. JIP | Talk 10:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no reliable secondary sources to attest to the notability of the newspapers and magazines as a separate element of the Harry Potter Universe. -- Whpq 16:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loving the term "Pottercruft". No secondary sources cited (or even available) - this is the kind of thing that belongs on a fan wiki. •97198 talk 10:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- you may also enjoy "CRUFTCRUFT" ... John Vandenberg 13:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to a Harry Potter wiki. Fails WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT (as almost all the elements of this article are plot-related, and also doesn't meet the standards set by WP:WAF. bwowen talk•contribs 11:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No one has established notability. Those interested should be transwikied or mentioned in the respective book/film articles. Judgesurreal777 17:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an appropriate arcticle. This information is important, but not important enough to deserve its own page. Cdlw93 05:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Harry Potter Universe. This article is very crufty, but SOME of the contents can be mentioned in the target article. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as DGG pointed out, there is academic coverage of these fictional newspapers, both because every element of this series is worth putting under the microscope in order to understand its success, and because people use successful popular culture elements as learning aids and to hang general discussion on. John Vandenberg 13:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of those articles are about other things and mention The Daily Prophet or The Quibbler. Mentioning something in a Law Review article does not mean that it has "academic coverage." Are there are any articles that are actually about these fictional papers and magazines? It needs to be the primary focus of academic material (not just mentioned in passing) in order to have "academic coverage." bwowen talk•contribs 14:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded and referenced the Daily Prophet section; let me know what you think. John Vandenberg 07:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing here to establish that this particular aspect of the Potter novels is in any way notable. Gatoclass 03:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Gnan garra 01:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chitauri[edit]

There is nothing here or in the first few pages of Google indicating that, except for a few of the followers of David Icke, the 'Chitauri' are anything other than a part of the Marvel universe, where they appear to be synonymous with Skrull topynate 22:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per norm, Google isn't considered to be a universally reliable indicator, particularly when are searching for a foreign term from a region that has only a marginal history of web publishing. If you used an Arabic language search engine to search for details of an 8 track cassette, you might might not be able to find evidence of its notability even if it went to number 1 in the US.- perfectblue 17:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of real world sources giving significant coverage to this term Corpx 00:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and cleanup: David Icke and his brand of reptio related conspiracy are notable and verifiable, despite being unscientific, therefore this page should be merged with either Icke's page or one of the pages regarding reptiods and alien conspiracies. They are the father page this is a child page. It might not be notable enough on it's own but the history and usage of the term still have a place on Wikipedia. If this page is deleted, please post a copy to my user page so that I may kull it for information relation to the term in popular culture/modern conspiracy myth. - perfectblue 07:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable term, and possibly made up. Article seems to be original research. --Gavin Collins 12:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a citation, so not all of it is WP:OR, as for being made up? So what? somebody made up the story of The Hook, too. Being fiction isn't a good reason for deletion. - perfectblue 17:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 13:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okaaaaaaay, It's probably a good time for me to mention that this is a foreign language term in a foreign language context and that google therefore probably isn't a good source of information (Google is only really any good at topics being covered in places on the up side of the digital divide). It's also probably a good time to mention that this is a cousin of a much more western and much more notable modern conspiracy/myth promoted by a man named David Icke who believes that giant lizards secretly rule the world. It's nuts, but its true (that he believes this, and that his ramblings are notable). Therefor at the very least this page should be clipped and merged with Icke's lizards. As it is, there is enough here for a stub entry. - perfectblue 20:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"except for a few of the followers of David Icke" - David Icke is notable as a loon, and so followers of his work. What you're saying is akin to "Babe Ruth is only relevant to baseball fans" - perfectblue 20:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant just what I said - even amongst Ickeites, it's hardly a well known term. We're talking Goldie Holt, not Babe Ruth. I favour a redirect to Skrull, as insofar as the word Chitauri is notable at all, it is in this context. I have seen statements that David Icke inadvertently gave the Skrull their original name, which cannot be strictly true, as they first appear in the 60s; he may have given rise to use of the word Chitauri in a modern series set in a parallel universe.

There is in any case no information that does not better belong either in another Icke article or in Skrull. topynate 18:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that that we should keep the skrull out of this debate; at most they are a distraction, and Proposing that a page be deleted simply because the term is more notablely used elsewhere simply isn't in line with current wiki policy. At most the Skrull issue should be dealt with through a disambiguation link. Chitauri (Comic book) would be my favored solution.

However, I still hold that Chitauri (as lizards) are a record worthy subsection of the wider conspiracy/modern myth about reptilian humanoids. While the term might not be as well known as Icke's other mutterings, and might have become deprecated, it forms part of the topics history and thus needs to be recored. If not here, then at Icke's page of one of the pages about Icke's books/beliefs. Keep as a stub or merge, but there are no real grounds for deletion. - perfectblue 08:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Notability and RS needed to be address given its been listed for 14+ days at afd something beyond a single news article attributed to LA Times(not dated) should have been forth coming. The nomination of a You tube show for a You tube award doesnt make notability. Gnan garra 01:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowmen hunters[edit]

Non-notable Youtube series. No claims of notability, no reliable sources of notability. Nothing at news.google.com. I gave up looking for reliable sources after the first five pages of Google. Nothing has changed since this was closed as a rather disputable no consensus back in March. First Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowmen hunters. Corvus cornix 22:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Just a youtube series, fails WP:NOTE. Cheers,Je t Lover 22:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of any notability outside youtube Corpx 00:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Previous discussion was dominated by WP:ILIKEIT votes and several editors who argued extensively that due to their nature, viral videos should be excluded from WP:V and WP:N. That bit of wikilawyering aside, all the same concerns are still there. These videos are on the edge of notability, no reliable sources (and two of the references in the article point to the same trivial mention). Most of my comments in the previous AfD have been taken care of (the article is a damn sight better then it was when the first AfD started), but I still think that 700k all time views is just a blip in the YouTube world, where even the most 100 most popular comedy clips have over 3 million views. I don't have anything against truly notable and widespread viral videos, but Wikipedia just isn't for whatever happens to tickle the fancy of folks trolling the front page of YouTube. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Granted that when I or the other main contributer to the article have updated it in the past few months we somehow missed that the original links were changed by the sources. The links are now fixed and some new content added. Please note that the creators of Snowmen Hunting were invited by the YouTube management to be the only representatives for all the comedians on YouTube to the YouTube Sales and Business Development conference. This in and of itself gives them some notability within the YouTube community.

As to Corvus_cornix's search on Google please note WP:GOOGLEHITS as a guide to why this may not be a reliable way to judge notability.

In answer to CosmicPenquin about the number of views I call your attention to the guideline of WP:NOTBIGENOUGH which points out that there is no arbatrary number that denotes notability. As you stated: "These videos are on the edge of notability". Where exactly is that edge and at what point does one cross over? Many of the top 100 videos that Mr. Penquin mentions are clips of professional comedians. Many of which may have an entry about them in WP. At what point in their carreer did these professionals become notable? I'm reluctent to try and put an exact date or number of people having seen them as a way to designate that they have arrived and are notable. steveoutdoorrec 23:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't believe that YouTube views or subscriptions or reviews should not be determining factors of the discussion (in much the same way that WP:GOOGLEHITS should not having direct bearing on what goes on here), but I bring it up because both the article and the previous AfD make YouTube popularity the primary reason to keep. This is never about popularity, its about reliable non-trivial references, which presumably those professional comedians have, and if they don't they should be deleted as well. I say that Snowmen Hunters are on the edge of notability, because you seem much better organized then most YouTube citizens and are obviously on your way up, but as it stands today, there is just too little that meets WP:N. These problems are not new - they were brought up before, and as is now, your arguments were not for the merits of the article, but rather the inadequacies of the guidelines. I can appreciate that, but they don't actually get you any closer to keeping this article from being nominated for deletion every other month or so. Believe me, I have tried to find something that adequately convinces me that this article belongs here, but I have come up short. Thats not to say that sources don't exist - its just that I have been unable to find them. Rather then question if the other editors are applying the guidelines fairly, perhaps you can help where Google falls short. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about Google was not about "how many" Google hits there were, but the quality of them. I couldn't find a single one which qualifies under reliable sources. Corvus cornix 16:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic: believe me I'm not here to pick fights with other editors about applying guidelines. I was just responding to a comment and trying to make sure we were all on the same page. Text is sometimes a poor medium to use in discussions as it's easy to read emotions in where none exist. But, as you just said that you "personally don't believe that YouTube views or subscriptions or reviews should not be determining factors of the discussion," (emphasis mine) it would seem that you are trying to apply a double standard by saying it's ok for you to ignore guidelines that you disagree with, but I should be held fast to those same nebulous guidelines. This series is notable by vertue of the over 2.5 million times the episodes have been viewed across the web (not just on YouTube) and the amount of on-line mentions from various sources. Notability is all about popularity, worthy of notice, and being memorable.

To try and clear up where Snowmen Hunters are talked about in print and on videos I've added a few more links in the article to mentions of the series on Digg.com and from the LA Times. I could have added more from the well known bloggers but didn't want to clutter the article with too many of the same type of mention. The show has been featured on CMT's Country Fried Videos and will be available via Comcast's Video On Demand service in the near future. I haven't added links to these as this information is about how, due to the popularity of the series, it is getting picked up by other media outlets. As more data comes in about how many times it is demanded by Comcast subscribers that information will be added to the article.

Corvus: I understand when you say you can't find a "reliable source" on Google because what you consider reliable for WP is not a criteria that Google uses. They rank pages by how many other websites link to a particular webpage. See: How does Google find and add sites to its index? My quick Google search yielded over 1.7 million hits. I had to go past the first 300 just to get beyond the many bloggers that have written about the series. In this age of the blog-o-sphere many notible web-based events and entertainment are not written about in the dying paper-based press that is rooted in the the 18th century. If you don't believe the print press is dying, just ask yourself why they are all going with digital editions? All of which I stated six months ago when the article was first put up for deletion. steveoutdoorrec 00:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you debate the guidelines, rather then the content of the article. I admit, its an effective strategy, since there are only so many times we can say, read WP:N and WP:RS without it getting tiresome. I guess you care more then I do, but only enough to get the article kept, but not enough to improve it until the next AfD comes along. My last word on the matter is that I suppose that the LA Times article is probably enough to convince the closing admin to keep, but I'm going to stick with a Weak Delete, because I just don't think this hits WP:N. I do want to point out that the same source is linked three different times under News Articles, and one other time as a reference in the article, and the LA Times article is linked twice, so if this is kept, the article should be tided up. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been tided up. It's not that I don't care enough to only improve it when challenged as you will notice that the article is continually updated as new episodes are added. I'd say it was that I have a very busy late spring and summer managing a wilderness park and don't get on-line as much as I do in the off season, so when I'm on I don't have time to go back and check for broken links on every site I have a hand in. Checking here and the two websites for snowshoe racing that I run for just this kind of thing is a priority in the fall. Thank you for helping improve the article. Going back to the original AfD, one of the reasons given was that noone could find mention of the creators or the series in IMDB. There is a new website for user-generated content at UGCDB steveoutdoorrec 10:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UGCDB does not appear to be a WP:RS because its primary method of listing is people adding themselves in [1]. Leuko 15:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Leuko: As stated on the UGCDB homepage "The information comes in part from the ugcDb community contributions as well as dedicated editors." This should sound familiar as "Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world." Anyone can add content to either, not just a person "adding themselves." I'm happy to report that the creators of Snowmen Hunters didn't add themselves to the database. The entry was made by the site editor after he did an interview with the creators of Snowmen Hunters steveoutdoorrec 00:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There is reference to the LA Times. Not to mention EVERY other person nominated in the Best Series category for the 2006 YouTube awards has an entry in Wikipedia. The removal is without merit. No need to single out these guys. ScottS —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottS (talk • contribs) 16:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that that LA Times article is not hosted on the LA Times website, but on a different website altogether? Corvus cornix 22:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article expired. It's not uncommon. It was linked here on Wikipedia through the LA Times for a while. ScottS

I repeat - I went to news.google.com to look for "Snowmen hunters", and came up with nothing. Nobody in the mass media appears to be interested in these guys. Corvus cornix 17:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody that is except the LA Times and the Chico News and Review. These publications have documented articles on the subject (see links in article), yet they do not come up on a Google search. Is it possible that Google has a way of ranking items found from a search that precludes some subjects from being listed? On the Google.News' FAQ page for How do you decide which stories appear on the Google News homepage?they state, "Our headlines are selected entirely by computer algorithms, based on factors like how often and where a story appears online. Google News has no human editors selecting stories or deciding which ones deserve top placement." I don't know about you but I don't find that machines know what news items I want to read. Google is not a credible source, in my opinion, to base decisions on what constitues news. As I've stated above, and in the original discussion, that in this day and age we have to take into account alternative sources for articles written on many subjects. Especially for web based entertainment. The print media is dying and with most of them being owned by the same people that control traditional media (TV and radio) there will be a dreath of stories about the new competition. The reporters and editor know who signs their paychecks. steveoutdoorrec 00:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 13:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One LA Times column doesn't impress me - notability means more than that. And Wikipedia doesn't change its rules for web based content. If the only coverage comes from some guy's blog, then it isn't notable. MarkBul 17:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you noticed that no blogs are or ever were listed as links for the article. So your point is moot. They are honored by YouTube by being asked to represent the comedians on the site. The show is picked by YouTube to be one of the top ten comedies in a contest in which they placed 8th. The show has at least two other YouTubers doing paradies. The Snowmen Liberation Front and the Snowmen Hunter- English Version. Some would say that all of these as well as the other links in the article point to some notarity steveoutdoorrec 02:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see what's wrong with sources like this one, among several others. Substantial coverage from reliable sources >> notability. 10:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XDanielx (talk • contribs)
- The New America Foundation has an agenda, I'm not sure anything on their site is particularly neutral. Corvus cornix 16:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably right, but I don't think the New America Foundation has any outstanding biases that would prevent the group from qualifying as reliable. And it was published by the Los Angeles Times. Seems fair enough - probably not exactly neutral, but I don't think there's anything remarkable here compared to other sources that are considered reliable. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think there's a mass media outlet that doesn't have an agenda. Whether you agree with it or not depends on your personal outlook and which side of the aisle you lean toward. This does not preclude them from being a credible source for items that are non-political in nature such as the entry under discussion. steveoutdoorrec 10:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The New America Foundation is not a "mass media outlet". Corvus cornix 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was refering to XDanielx and the way his wording implied that the LA Times was not exactly neutral. In my opinin no media outlet is, main stream or otherwise. But that's for another discussion on some other forum. steveoutdoorrec 22:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just a highly successful, press-garnering YouTube series. Chubbles 22:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Ridiculous, no refs, non-notable. If we had articles on every you-tube that got a passing mention in a newspaper.... NBeale 23:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the article? It certainly includes many assertions of notability beyond "a passing mention in a newspaper." — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Rlevse 23:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we nearly there yet equation[edit]

An in-joke from someone's personal website. no evidence of notability, neither in article, not in google `'Míkka 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on notability grounds. It's just a joke page from an academic's web space. — BillC ^talk 22:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add: further to Iain99's comments below, news articles like this are particularly common during the summer silly season, when genuine news is in short supply, and newspapers resort to frivolous filler articles. I have variously seen formulae for calculating the funniest joke, the ideal beach holiday and we now have the Are we nearly there yet? equation. You can see that all these stories date to the summer months. As Iain99 and MarkBul say, there is no lasting notability here beyond what papers print for a few days during a slack period.— BillC ^talk 00:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#SOAP. After reading this discussion again, it appears the mentions in the UK press were really just publicity for Škoda Auto.Keep and include sources mentioned by CarlosguitarDelete relies on a self-published source. Might even be speedily deleted because there is no assertion of importance. --Pixelface 22:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets notability. [2] [3] [4] Carlosguitar 22:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per sources found by carlosguitar. Delete unless sources reporting on the eqaution (or hoax or advertisment) over a broader timeframe can be found. Notability is not temporary [[Guest9999 15:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep per CarlosguitarMandsford 22:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After being cited in the British media above, it will never be heard from again. A one-off mention in the media is no different than any other news item - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. MarkBul 23:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete from keep I have re-evaluated, and I now conclude deleting is the best option. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am inclined to agree with MarkBul. This is a news story, the same story repeated in a few media outlets on and around 20-22 July. There is no evidence of long-term, historical notability here. --Malcolmxl5 23:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of a number of mathematically meaningless equations which appeared in the British media last year . Essentially they were a novel form of advertising - dreamed up by PR companies, who found academics to put their names to them to get them into the press and get publicity for their sponsors (Skoda in this case). For one analysis of the phenomenon, see [5]. As such, I don't think they're particularly encyclopaedic, nor do I think they meet notability guidelines, having got a little press for a day or two and then being rightly forgotten. (WP:NOT#NEWS). The phenomenon itself might have merit as an article, but I haven't see any sources describing it apart from Ben Goldacre's Guardian columns. Ergo, delete. Iain99 23:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into and article per Iain99 if one can be found, otherwise DeleteBurzmali 00:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR.--Sefringle^Talk 07:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article appears pretty ridiculous and meets WP:OR —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInfinityZero (talk • contribs) 15:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You can find lots of such math jokes on the internet, and that does not mean they are notable even if they have received a one-shot mention from a journalist looking for a fun news story. Agree with Iain99's analysis and MarkBul's point. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not notable. I agree with MarkBul, BillC, Iain99 and Sjakkalle's comments. Unlikelyheroine 11:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge→Bubba the Love Sponge --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba Radio Network[edit]

This article seems more a collection of random information than anything. It is hard to articulate precisely why this article doesn't seem to belong, but it just doesn't seem like it should be here. (I admit, I am completely unfamiliar with this particular subject, so I cannot determine how notable this really is.) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 19:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So because you don't know anything about Bubba and the Show, you feel it shouldn't belong. That's a real fair way of looking at things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.123.210 (talk) 22:09, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
I agree you cant expect a page to be built in a day and be 100% —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seman209 (talk • contribs) 23:25, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
The BRN is the brand of the BUBBA THE LOVE SPONGE SHOW, If Howard Stern, The Cowhead Show, Mancow, Opie and Anthony,and the Frosty, Heidi & Frank show are notable then so is THE Bubba Radio Network — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seman209 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 26 August 2007

Merge & Redirect into Bubba the Love Sponge and Howard 100 and Howard 101. Those two articles already cover the material in this one. The Bubba article was recently stubbed for policy violations[6], This article was created 3 days[7] after the other article was stubbed and protected, so this appears to be trying to get the same material in without going through protected page edits. See the guidelines on Biographies of Living Persons , Citations, Original Research and then Requests to edit a protected page to add material back to the Bubba article. Optigan13 17:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I was trying to put the same material in this new page, but please do not merge with Howard 100 and howard 101 If you do that you will make it look like Bubba is just some hack that has time on howards station, Bubba is his own show and should be shown as. All info is verifiable. seman209

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hu12 21:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect `'Míkka 21:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect (after pruning) into Bubba the Love Sponge. Only one of the third party sources seems to be clearly about the show; the others are about the man. The show does not seem to have sufficient notability as a stand-alone. --Moonriddengirl 21:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect This is an easy one - per Mikka. MarkBul 23:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've restructured and cleaned up some of the sources to the article.[8] The article as it stood at the time of the initial nomination is here. Although at this point I still think only the cast section is suitable to be merged, the rest can be recovered from the Bubba history, and then citations added later. Although the Clearing of cruelty in pig case, Sheriff, Marriage, and brooke skye lawsuit are all useful links for citations.Optigan13 07:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'delete JoshuaZ 23:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Hunt[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 21:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not possible to find reliable sources to meets notability. Carlosguitar 22:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Peter Fleet 02:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DOT.TUNES[edit]

Speedily deleted twice by me; after the a complaint from the creator I have decided to give it a chance. Promotional of an apparently non-notable software. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 21:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I just wanted to point out that the creator has sought advice through ((helpme)) for satisfying requirements for this article and been instructed on sourcing, neutrality & notability. I haven't formed an opinion yet on the AfD because of that, but I will note I have some doubts that notability can be established. As the page is, it's obviously unacceptable. --Moonriddengirl 21:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Maybe the author can improve the article, but I don't think notability is, or will be, met. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added a ref or two and fixed the formatting. No opinion regarding the keep-worthiness of the article. - TwoOars 22:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as references look like product placement. Article appears to be thinly disguised WP:SPAM. --Gavin Collins 12:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page has not been edited since August 31st, so I suppose it's safe to assume that the developer has taken it as far as he or she intends. While there does seem to be some claim to notability (its sources show it has been covered in PC World and Wired (the latter is posed as a blog, but note that it is a blog created by editorial staff)) several of the references are not WP:RS for the purpose (ZDNet does not refer to DOT.TUNES; Tipmonkeys looks like a blog). We're cautioned at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) not to create criteria that unfairly discriminate against smaller companies, which are less likely to attract major media attention but which may have equal notability (as opposed to fame) to the large companies. However, there's really no assertion in the article I can see to suggest encyclopedic inclusion is appropriate for this. --Moonriddengirl 12:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Fowler[edit]

A no-name political wannabe asserts notability by being a serial candidate but never actually winning any of the elections. Lots of statements made in article with no 3rd party references (I added citation needed tags). Has been speedied on 3 different occasions but keeps returning. Nomination based on: doesn't meet WP:BIO WebHamster 21:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Now that I've thoroughly scrubbed it, delete. --Isis 4563 21:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dlw22 05:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete didnt even win town council.DGG (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failed candidate.--JForget 00:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Australian Democrats Party Kingston South Australia candidate in Candidates of the Australian general election, 2007.--Mifren 23:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Sandstein. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EvThreads[edit]

The article is on a internet forum that has no notability, the article has previously been speedy deleted [9] --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Home front during World War II pending verification. Consensus is that the topic is encyclopedic, but that the current content fails WP:V and WP:NOR. Individual sourced passages may be merged from the history, and the article may be restored only if thoroughly sourced. Sandstein 06:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary life in Japan during WWII[edit]

A very long, great mish mash of information, that is all totally unreferenced. Borders on original research in places. If you read the talk page it was a questioned copyvio when it was first created almost two years ago but wasn't detected as such because the original was in Japanese, and it has been listed for cleanup ever since. I suggest deletion unless anyone has any better ideas. Roleplayer 21:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking verifiability. It's been tagged unsourced since June of 2006 and an unattended article in a WikiProject since August of 2006. "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long." Hmm. :) Ample time for repair. Barring sudden herculean achievement from some editor, I don't see how this one can be saved. Too bad. It's an interesting article, but it's not Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl 21:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on WP:V grounds. It might have been worth trying a WP:PROD. — BillC ^talk 22:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 22:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Obviously, this one needs to be sourced, but it's a worthwhile article, similar to United States home front during World War II and Home front during World War II. The content in the latter article for Japan is pretty meager at the moment, but it cites a number of books that could be reveiewed by the author: (1) Cohen, Jerome. Japan's Economy in War and Reconstruction. University of Minnesota Press, 1949. online version (2) Cook, Haruko Taya, and Theodore Cook. Japan at War: An Oral History 1992. (3) Dower, John. Japan in War and Peace 1993. (4) Duus Peter, Ramon H. Myers, and Mark R. Peattie. The Japanese Wartime Empire, 1931-1945. Princeton UP 1996. 375p. (5)

Havens, Thomas R. Valley of Darkness: The Japanese People and World War II. 1978. and (6) Havens, Thomas R. "Women and War in Japan, 1937-1945." American Historical Review 80 (1975): 913-934. online in JSTOR; If it can add some meat to the bones, keep it. Mandsford 00:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep and improve If an article needs help, then help it. Get over the 'delete' philosophy. This article is a good start; unfortunately, many articles in WP are not referenced/cited (yet). Hmains 01:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Smerge to Home front during World War II Japan's home life is a notable subject, as shown by the refs recently added as a list at the end of the article. But the article is full of doubtful or unreferenced claims that were there long before the recent addition of books about Japan's WW2 home life. It said and still says, without a reference, "In Hokkaido, the government decided to replace iron rail lines with wooden lines, for older trains with engines powered by soot recovered from other coal-burning engines." Railroads even in the 1850's had iron or iron clad rails. Locomotives require a huge amount of high heat value fuel to run. I have grave doubts that wood could support even "older" (but still late 19th century) locomotives or that "recycled soot" would fuel one. It also claims that matches were made with a head at each end, to save wood or something. We do not source articles by just listing books about the subject at the end of an article which was (per the talk page) apparently translated from different sources originally in Japanese. An article could now be written from the newly added sources, but it might differ quite a bit from the old one if statements had to be referenced with inline cites to satisfy WP:V. If deleted, or if redirected or merged, there should be no barrier to recreation from the refs added and from other reliable sources. The topic is notable, but the statements in the present article seem like a hoax magnet and a miscellaneous collection of supposed factoids of unknown origin. Edison 04:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The Japanese military history taskforce has worked wonders on other articles, and they could likely do so here. Letting them know rather than putting an article up for deletion would have been much more effect, IMHO. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to much OR, not enough proper use of sources. This is a fine subject but it would be better to start over. Eluchil404 02:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - sigh, I sympathize with user Eluchi that it would be better to just start over with this long and badly written article. However, it does contain some refs at the bottom of the page that maybe someone a little more competent could use to do a total rewrite from the ground up. There's nothing inherently wrong with the subject matter, just the treatment. But if neither of those are good enough reasons to keep it, then delete per Eluchi. Gatoclass 04:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 21:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of Persia[edit]

Unlike other Rome:Total War mods such as Europa Barborum, which have third party reviews, I cannot find any for this. It's been uploaded to a few places...but apart from the project's own site I can't find any third party sources. Frankly it reads like an ad. Gekedo 20:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, barring verification of notability. I haven't been able to find anything, either. --Moonriddengirl 21:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are found to give notability to this mod Corpx 23:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest Elementary[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable elementary school. Nothing that sets this school apart from numerous others that share this identical name all over the United States. No assertion of notability, merely a listing of staff and an annoying photo slide show of students. Realkyhick 18:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why do you want to delete it? i know there are a lot of other schools with the same name, but someof them are on wikipedia and not marked for deletion like mine! why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudebenz (talk • contribs) 19:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But Johnny's Mommy lets him do it is not a sufficient argument on Wikipedia. MarkBul 19:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability asserted. Eusebeus 19:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no attempt to assert notability and a quick google suggests that may be this is because there actually is none to assert. • nancy • 19:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Primary schools are not inherently notable, and no sources here indicate otherwise. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per all of above. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 20:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable per above. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 20:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious fail of WP:N. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:N. 3tmx 23:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i have a problem in general with the fact that so many schools that blatently fail WP:N have Wikipedia articles- is there not a specific policy regarding schools?? How many schools that have WP articles would ever make it into another encyclopedia?? School article IMO are usually created by people that have a connection with the subject and the articles are arguably advertising (then the creators want to add names of there teachers, school song, members of the football team etc) . There seems to be no consistency as to whether they are tagged or not. 3tmx 23:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Heres one i saw earlier today [[10]]. I don't know if its notable but I can't even be bothered to give it a notability tag because its just one among a million. Sorry for going off topic 3tmx 23:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There were efforts to create a subject-specific guideline WP:SCHOOL to help decide what counted for notability, but some editors feel that it is "instruction creep" to create a lot of different specific guidelines. WP:ORG is a general guideline which covers schools and says besides the primary criterion of WP:N that "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization." An example of one I found refs for and which survived AFD is North Shore Country Day School, which when nominated for AFD looked like [11] and which after adding references so it survived AFD looked like[12]. Of course not every school has such claims to notability, and most articles are just copied from the school's website. Edison 04:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a directory and this is a local neighborhood elementary school like a gazillion others across the world.--JForget 00:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same brain[edit]

Contested prod. Subject was probably WP:MADEUP in school one day. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 18:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nom - it appears to be a neologism if nothing else. No notability or sources provided. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a word for this, but it's basically "great minds think alike". Wikipedia is not for things made up in philosophy class one day. --Dhartung | Talk 20:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting kludge for a neologism, but it is also distinctively flavored as if it were made up in school some sunny day. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed it was probably WP:MADEUP in school one day, looks like neologism. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 20:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above 3tmx 22:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm reminded of that expression from a TV show, with the punch line being, "So which one of you is using it now?" Mandsford 00:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. JIP | Talk 10:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia After 1990[edit]

This one's an indiscriminate list of information waiting to happen if ever I saw one. How can we possibly have a list of everything that's happened in a major state in the past 17 years (and counting)? — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete merge and redirect. Don't be so negative, I'm sure it is within the remit and ambition of Wikipedia to attempt such a task. However with only three entries and the perfectly functional History of Georgia (U.S. state) available, this article is unneccessary for the time being.KTo288 18:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Czac (talk • contribs) 19:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant effort to existing article. Not a plausible search term, so redirect not warranted. --Dhartung | Talk 20:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually I think it is a valid search term, but a confusing one (its capitalisation not withstanding), I don't know why 1990 was chosen as a starting point in the history of the US Georgia, but when I saw the title I thought it was going to be about the former SSR of Georgia, as 1990 was the year it declared its independence (though actual independence came later). If redirection is in order, should be redirected to the disambiguation page History of Georgia.KTo288 10:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, speedy for ((db-content)) is remarkably tempting. There's not much here to begin with, and there's no connection or cohesion to it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why 1990??? History of Georgia already exists as pointed out above. No redirect. Would support speedy deletion. 3tmx 22:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why 1990? Why 1990? Because THREE very exciting things in the 17 years since then! And you thought Georgia was boring.... Mandsford 00:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They left out Bill Berry leaving REM and the launch of Diet Coke Plus - that makes five — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very arbitrary choice of year for this article's title and probably arbitrary events chosen too and anyways this may be duplication of the main history of Georgia USA article.--JForget 00:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - two events are already covered in History of Georgia (U.S. state), and the election of C. Jack Ellis is covered in Macon, Georgia. As an aside, History of Georgia (U.S. state) could probably be a much better article if it cited its references inline. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close - you nominated this two weeks ago and it was speedily closed. Renominating it again so soon is slightly disruptive - in any case this article is well-sourced and debating this is not necessary as the outcome is easy to guess. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Last nom was closed after just 1 keep and 1 delete vote. He may have founded wiki, but is he really notable? The founders of IMDb et al. don't have their own articles, so why this guy? Fails WP:BIO and the WP:N test. Bravedog 17:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elie D. Al-Chaer[edit]

This self promoting article should be considered a vanity article. Content is not a neutral point of view and is self-submitted. Wikipedia is not a directory. While importance is asserted, real importance is low and for the most part unfounded. Redgrip 17:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I would admit the article has undertones of neutrality and COI issues, it would appear that the subject is at least somewhat notable, as the references listed show, and a quick Google News search [13] . Being noted by Science News, being director of a U.S. University Medical facility, etc. I would suggest a re-write of the article aimed to remove any neutrality concerns, properly formatted references, and a helpful notice to the creator of the article about WP:COI. ^Ariel♥Gold 18:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Appears to be notable, remove the COI issues and clean up the POV. ~ Wikihermit 22:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 01:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neutrality is concerning as is obvious conflict of interest in self promotion. Noted in science news does not mean anything other than was in the news. Might be ok if written by unbiased 2nd party. Recommend deletion. ~ padyel 17:07, 4 September (UTC)
Delete Does not meet the notability guidelines for academics. --Crusio 08:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim of a discovery of a new spinal cord pathway that conveys visceral pain is actually more attributable to Mr. Al-Chaer's graduate thesis advisor William Willis. See Willis et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 96, Issue 14, pp. 7675-7679, 1999.--redgrip 09:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson vs. Buckle[edit]

Procedural nomination. This page was recently blanked by an anon on grounds of alleged libel, which I've reverted for the moment. It appears to me to be more than adequately sourced, but I don't know enough (i.e. anything) about the case to judge whether it's a) a BLP violation that should be speedied, b) a valid article but about a subject not notable enough to warrant keeping, that should be deleted via AfD, or c) a valid article which should remain (possibly under another title). So, sending it over here for someone to form an opinion. This is a procedural nom, so I abstain — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While there is precedence for having articles about lawsuits, (Roe v. Wade), at first glance, this article has some problems. First, and most evident, the article seems to be more about the event that led to the lawsuit, rather than the lawsuit itself. While valid sources are listed, with references from the NY Post, MSNBC, WCBStv, etc., it does seem that at least some of the references may be questionable in regards to WP:RS, as they appear to be blogs of some kind (The Gawker, fiercenyc.org). There seems to be significant news coverage of the event that led up to the lawsuit, [14] but it seems that many of the references in the article are relating to the event, rather than to the lawsuit itself. I would think that if care was taken to keep the article's focus on the lawsuit, and not have it shift to a non-neutral slant of the event itself that led to the lawsuit, then the article could remain. All that being said, my initial search didn't find any sources talking about the lawsuit itself (that are not already included in the article), except mentions on blogs, etc., that again mainly covered the event, not the suit. Also, I'd suggest the references be properly cited to add the title, etc, to help with readability and reference. ^Ariel♥Gold 18:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Due to the stricter enforcement under the WP:BLP1E rule and WP:COATRACK, some at AFD/DRV have advocated legal case names as WP:V-compliant names for articles that should not be biographies. If people have a problem with recounting the "causation" of the lawsuit in such articles, then my argument that these are not optimal names has some merit. I think that "Dwayne Buckle assault case" or some such name might be more appropriate, because it would encompass what people actually want to write an article about as well as what the sources for that article focus on. We can decide a name here or let the editors come up with one. Either that or we just go back to covering these within biographies, but I don't think that would go without controversy. --Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Dhartung about naming--we might as well use a more direct name. Normally it would be better not to have an (apparent) victim as the primary name, but when there are a group of alleged attackers, its the only practical way. There are sufficient sources for an article. That said, this is an extremely poor article, with selective sourcing and POV. The rewriting should be done with care for BLP with respect to everyone concerned. DGG (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I rewrote part of the Dwayne Buckle page, which at that time was essentially an attack page attacking the new jersey seven. Arguments ensued, and thus the discussion was spun off to form this page. I will admit to a personal POV, however if someone wishes to produce a better article outlining neutrally all of the claims, counter claims, and media portrayals reasonably then I can tell you they are in for a rough ride, it is neigh impossible to obtain any "official" statements on anything (I tried to obtain a court transcript, for example), and there are barely any facts agreed upon by any of the articles published. I don't know how similar cases are to be handled, so at this point I just have to deliver some article, however "poor" it may be, which referenced everything I could find. Until investigating this case I was blissfully ignorant of the extent of media bias, but seeing so much disagreement in a highly publicized case has enlightened me. I think the article should be kept, and if someone can present the available information without selectively dismissing one article for another they are more than welcome. Danielfong 08:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I wrote the Dwayne Buckle article and it was not an attack on the New Jersey seven. The article was very straight forward and presented the facts as agreed upon by the courts. In fact the information about the attack was intentionally kept to a minimum and did mention Buckles verbal assault of the women before the fight ensued. The fact is your problem and the problem with this article is that you view neutrality as an attack on the New Jersey seven. Now that being said I think this article is worth fixing to a NPOV so I will vote Keep --The Emperor of Wikipedia 05:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 13:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has a dozen sources from multiple accounts: it surely fulfills notability. This page needs to be cleaned up significantly, but it definitely does not deserve to be deleted. Nyttend 17:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment To The Emperor of Wikipedia: This shouldn't largely effect policy decision, but, are you aware that (a) courts have been known to make erroneous judgments, (b) media sources such as the New York Post and the Gawker are frequently biased or incorrect, and even newspapers of record, such as the New York Times, are known to be biased and self-censoring (see for example, footage captured in Chomsky's movie, Manufacturing Consent) (c) selectively ignoring reports or discrepancies in the media (such as for example the physical violence that Buckle was reported to have engaged in), and to report conviction of offense as fact (further, for a case set to be appealed), does not seem to fit the sensible definition of neutral? That to deny even the existence of alternative claims of the case in question it fails to provide a meaningful perspective on the issue? I don't have the energy to argue endlessly about this, but I want to make my point clear, again, that I do not believe that that article as it stood was NPOV, that I have reasons for believing this, and that I think many sane people and editors would agree with me. Danielfong 19:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While, as I said in the nom, I know nothing about the case and am not in a position to judge who's right & wrong, regardless of the justice of the courts decision, the fact of what the decision is a verifiable fact that should be stated in the article should the article be kept (as can, if necessary, discussion of people who believe it's a miscarriage of justice, providing they can be reliably sourced) — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, not keep or delete. Cases need notability but no point in law is clarified by this case, unlike Supreme Court cases. If the article is rewritten and retitled about the attack and not -- v. -- then maybe it's a keep. UTAFA 21:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I have no reason at all to write an article attacking these women. I wrote the Buckle article because of an E-mail I received about the case from a friend who believed it was a miscarriage of justice. I simply wrote an article with the facts available. Anyhow none of that is important I just don't much care for being accused of authoring an attack site. I think this article ought to be renamed the New Jersey Seven and redirect be established for the name each of the seven defendants. I also feel a template similar to the one for the west memphis three ought to be used. --The Emperor of Wikipedia 21:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's an article about the lawsuit, then I agree with UTAFA; I see no notability there (maybe there's a joke to be made involving a Johnson against a buckle?) The title of one of the sources.."Saying 'hi' lands man in the hospital" says it all (or "Man attacked by seven lesbians" might say it better). Notable because it's a straight guy being attacked by homosexuals, instead of a gay guy being abused by homophobes? Different, yes; notable, I'm not sure. Mandsford 14:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as it's sourced, but needs cleanup. Man bites dog story means it's news, but notable? Bearian 23:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minazo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A performing seal who died in a zoo in Japan in 2005, and the subject of the "i has a bucket' image macros. Article was created as an offshoot of Lolrus, an article on the aforementioned meme, also currenly on afd. Absolutely no indication or assertion of notability. -- Vary | Talk 17:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable (as I originally tagged shortly after the article was created). Realkyhick 18:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agreed, on second checking Minzano unfortunately isn't quite notable enough as a stand-alone seal (walrus). Searches on Japanese news may turn up more but I have no idea of how to do so with Kenji or other character sets. Redirect to lolrus, as that AfD appears headed for a Keep result. This can be a subsection of that article, and the few sources that exist for Minzano will bolster that even further for a fairly robust short article. Has you seen my redirect to lolrus? • Lawrence Cohen 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for the record, as poorly referenced and lacking in notability as this article is, lolrus is even worse, its only decent source being one passing reference in an article primarily about lolcats. And right now that discussion is at best heading for a no consensus: the mixture of 'deletes' and 'redirects' do outnumber the 'keeps,' and there have been very few arguments stronger than WP:ILIKEIT. -- Vary | Talk 23:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really dont see the historic notability as required by WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx 19:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 21:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minazo Vol. 1 (or Minazo Vol. 2) — Not notable on its own. However, it is clearly notable to either of these 2 Merzbow albums.--Endroit 02:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable animal. Keb25 09:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely no merge to lolrus. The animal was marginally notable in Japan (its death was on the news, and probably in the papers, if Japanese news sources had any sane way to search archives; but, I digress). The point being, it was notable before lolrus. I was going to suggest Redirect to Enoshima Aquarium,　but, that article is a red link. Japanese wikipedia has a section of the aquarium article devoted to the seal. The kanji is 美男象, and hiragana is みなぞう if anyone else is interested in tracking down sources. [15] is a news article about the death, and [16] is a scientific report about the cause of death; but, that's not probably enough to keep the article as a standalone. Maybe the best thing is to create a DAB page between the aquarium and the albums. Neier 09:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Japanese wikipedia article on Minazo per Neier. Seal is notable as the subject of an album by Merzbow and as the subject of an internet meme.Aharon 18:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A7. - KrakatoaKatie 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ploegmakers Publications[edit]

Already tagged by other users as WP:OR, which I agree with. Appears to be self-published. Prodded by others, and prod removed as author claims it has been "published elsewhere", but in fact the site linked to doesn't seem to show any especial evidence that it's more than what it seems - a fringe concept with either author-only or tiny-minority interest at best.

I'm not a scientist, but I'm fairly familiar with the field having edited a lot on cosmology and the Big Bang, and co-authored metric expansion of the universe. This article reads like a novel theory. In the introduction the article author states:

"Number of publications made on Wikipedia by Jeroen Ploegmakers from The Netherlands that contain new insights and findings from the author as investigator himself in Astronomy, Quantummechanics and Cosmology...."

Either this is 1/ genuine science dressed up very poorly in a rambling essay format that goes nowhere, or 2/ it's a snip from genuine science which is used to build rambling OR, or 3/ its pure OR.

Policies which this seems to falls foul of:

WP:NOT a publisher of OR
WP:N apparent lack of notability and WP:NOT a publisher of tiny fringe articles
Apparent self-promotion of own publications and website WP:COI / WP:SPAM.
Lack of WP:RS reliable sources
Lack of WP:V verifiability to independent credible sources
Possible WP:CSD / WP:AFD "patent nonsense"
WP:CSD / WP:AFD no assertion of importance/significance
Possible WP:HOAX?

A case of WP:SNOW?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, this article, whether the content is true or not, is just a place where someone claiming to be a scientists posts his theories and findings. WP:OR, WP:COI, WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:V all apply, perhaps other as well. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's arguments. Jakew 16:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It hurts to read this. The title of the article has nothing to do with the content (it would allude to a publishing company), and what this appears to be is a repository for things that Mr. Ploegmaker once stuck on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is absolutely, positively NOT for this! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR, and all the other above reasons. Sxeptomaniac 16:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete on so many levels. OR, bollocks, you name it. Realkyhick 19:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. WP:BOLLOCKS too, I forgot that one. Probably ran out of space to list it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - given my comments and the nom's blurb, is it possible that I can pull WP:COATRACK out as well? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:OR. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 21:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the nominators very thorough reasoning. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only question is whether it can be speedied. Perhaps as WP:SPAM? Leibniz 15:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Once on AfD, it should be closed per procedure. Bearian 01:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyHound[edit]

There are sources, but it is unclear that they are significant enough to demonstrate notability. FisherQueen (Talk) 15:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple pages. This AfD also includes the redirects My Hound Media, Myhound and Myhound media. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like mentioned before, MyHound is notable because it is the first centralized alert system for the entertainment industry. Various sources, including well-respected blogs and online tech portals (not to mention Newsweek!) lend credibility to this claim. These sources exactly fit the criteria for this article to be "notable." Admittedly it is not a very large firm yet, but this is not to the detriment of its importance as the creator of an original online concept, and thus its inclusion in Wikipedia is more than justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDB6000 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC) — JDB6000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete unless better sources can be found - the Newsweek article referenced is a one sentence mention, Google News brings up nothing of relevance, the first few pages of ordinary Google hits consist mostly of press releases, blogs and forums. No sign that this passes WP:WEB Iain99 16:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 16:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N. Bravedog 17:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another source that proves it is getting more and more attention: http://www.alleyinsider.com/2007/08/startups-to-wat.html (from the Silicon Alley Insider). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDB6000 (talk • contribs)
- Comment That's a two sentence mention. But two short sentences. Sorry, this is still a long way from "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Iain99 20:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, not notable. Realkyhick 19:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 21:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Attard[edit]

Local politician. Unsourced article, contested speedy. Other articles mention that he's a leader of a non-notable band (unsourced) and that he competed in lawn bowls in the Commonwealth Games, but is that really enough to satisfy WP:BIO? --Finngall ^talk 15:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Also, there are at least 3 other Joseph Attards on Malta. It would be very hard to source which is which.--Sethacus 15:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Bravedog 17:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and per WP:BIO. Hello32020 18:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A mayor of town of 11,000, definitly notable, not. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 21:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Representing Malta in bowls at the Melbourne Commonwealth Games would qualify him under WP:BIO as the Commonwealth Games is the highest representative level for that sport. However, it wasn't that Joe Attard [17] Being mayor may qualify him but I would want more information of having had a wider impact past his town. Capitalistroadster 01:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Don't think it is a town large enough for an individual article unless I'm wrong. (Was is the minimal population that would give the notability of a municipal mayor - I would have thinked about 25,000-50,000 +).--JForget 00:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Haemo 18:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of types of cricket delivery[edit]

Article provides no useful information other than a list of delivery names and nothing more than what's in template ((Cricket deliveries)) (which is in each of the sub articles). The list has no inbound links. —Moondyne 15:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Create a category for this information. Charles Matthews 15:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category existing, delete, assuming the list is pretty much complete. Charles Matthews 16:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A category already exists, see Category:Cricket deliveries. I'll run through and make sure they're all covered now. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Doosra was the only one missing, with the exception of slider, for which there isn't a specific delivery equivalent in cricket (balls can slide on from the pitch, but they aren't called sliders). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Oops, technically wrong, Slider (cricket) does exist - I assumed it was used in a general type cricket delivery context, not in terms of the leg-spinner's alternative, which slipped my mind :blush: - but it was already in the category. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There already exists Category:Cricket deliveries —Moondyne 15:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. ——Moondyne 15:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to the category with no potential to gain any extra usage over said category. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Improve it - add a brief description for each term, and remove the redundant template from the article. The Transhumanist 17:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does doing so *really* constitute any major bonus? The only thing from Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Lists that really applies is #1, but I would argue context is already there in the shape of the List's name; and would adding text to what is basically going to be summarised in a 20 second read of the specific delivery article's lead really worth it? I guess this is a matter of opinion, but I'm not so sure this is the case for it myself. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant version of category. Realkyhick 19:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary, redundant. Eusebeus 19:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know a lot about cricket, but maybe someone who does could clean it up and organize it in the style of "Pitch (baseball)". J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 20:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: article is orphaned. Nothing links to it. —Moondyne 04:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have List of cricket terms as a superset. Tintin 05:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant per List of cricket terms and Category:Cricket deliveries -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. KrakatoaKatie 06:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Recht[edit]

Single-sourced, non-notable musician. No hits, no sign of any real-world impact. PROD tag added but removed by User:Kappa with the comment "sounds like he passes WP:MUSIC", though I can't see the slightest way that's possible. Calton | Talk 15:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or even speedy delete per nom. Utterly non-notable. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found the AP story, and fixed the link to it in the article. While I'd like to see more notability, this is more than I see for 90% of the music articles. --Fabrictramp 15:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One source? One wire-service story? And the condition of 90% or whatever of other music articles means nothing, unless Wikipedia has started grading on a curve. --Calton | Talk 16:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Has anyone looked at the history of this article? The original opener,"Rick Recht is a Jewish musician who is especially known for his live performances for groups of youth all over the United States. He has released four jewish albums, one live DVD performance, and also three secular albums", was removed. He's also been featured in Newsweek and Christianity Today as a top performer in Jewish rock.--Sethacus 15:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except there wasn't a sliver of a breath of a hint of whisper of a suggestion of this alleged fame, nor of anything resembling reliable sources except a single AP article. And you haven't actually come close to changing that with your changes. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for every musical act on Earth to try and get famous. --Calton | Talk 16:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A little more sourcing and I'd say Keep. The Newsweek article is certainly a good one. MarkBul 17:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, barely enough sourcing for now, a couple of additional sources should do the job. Realkyhick 19:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like 145 Google News Archives hits, some of them the AP wire story, but others from prior to that getting print in places like the Jerusalem Post and elsewhere. Indications are that he's toured nationally, and he's got a whack of albums out (though I can't find a record label to determine if it's notable). The coverage would indicate enough notability for a weak keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 21:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several sources showing that he is sufficiently notable to meet WP:Music. Capitalistroadster 01:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additional sources added; well done. Now appears to meet WP:N.--Kubigula (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lemon Tree[edit]

The article is about a venue for music, plays and other types of performances in my home town. I've been to a few good gigs there but I have serious doubts as to its notability. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as CV of [18]. Tippytoe tippytoe lemon tree lemon tree ccwaters 15:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Besides that, I don't think it's notable anyway.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear notable, and reads like an advertisement (though the latter is not in itself a reason to delete, could be a rewrite). Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.No claim of notability in article; first several pages of non-wiki ghits don't show notability.--Fabrictramp 15:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable- like an advert. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 21:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Since there are far fewer redlinks this time, it seems the main complaint has been addressed.Krakatoa Katie 05:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Asian people[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This was recently part of a multi-article AfD which was closed as no consensus. As the name suggests, it's extremely broad and redundant to Category:British Asians and the various subcats therein. After a routine cleanup of some entirely uncited redlinks, I was surprised to be reverted with the edit summary redlinks.. are not to be removed. In an indiscriminate, bare, unreferenced vanity-magnetic list such as this, I couldn't disagree more. Deiz talk 15:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my previous reason in AfD, Asian people have played a significant role in British history and are a sizeable, officially-recognised minority in the UK. Issues of maintenance are not valid grounds for deletion. Qwghlm 15:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And issues of being bare, indiscriminate and redundant to categories? Nobody is denying the impact this group has had, but your rationale seems to have more to do with WP:ILIKEIT, less to do with any of the p's & g's that govern lists on Wikipedia. Deiz talk 15:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not indiscriminate if it's limited to notable people. It's not redundant to categories because it is annotated and is grouped by occupation, which the category isn't (well OK the category is partiallly subcategorized but it shouldn't be, per WP:OCAT). Kappa 00:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to British Asian being a criterion, it's a categorization used by the British census office [19] so its not something arbitrarily made up by WP editors. I suppose the alternative would be breaking down by country, but it might be better to wait until the list gets too big to fit on one page before doing that. Kappa 01:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dont we already have List of British people by <asian country> ? Why is there an need to encompass data from them into this ? (I think the others should be deleted too, but that's another story) Corpx 16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Dont we already have List of British people by <asian country> ?" Um nope, I don't think we do. Kappa 00:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this one is deleted, I'll get started on them. Kappa 00:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source it, and explain how it's not indisciminate. The Transhumanist 17:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LIST & the same rationale for the other lists like this that have come up. Essentially unencyclopedic, unmaintainable. Eusebeus 19:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant with categories. Also too large to maintain with proper sourcing. Hornplease 19:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment on the British Chinese AfD. Wl219 20:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:LIST. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 21:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not that I dislike info about the ancestry, but British Asian people seems kind of broad, encompassing as it does 1/4th of the world, including everyone from "Pakistan, India and Bangladesh (formerly British India)", China (esp. Hong Kong), Malaya, and other former colonies. Might as well have a list of British European people, taking into account all those folks from "the European Continent" Mandsford 00:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone reading the article might have noticed the message 'Those with an East Asian ("Oriental") background are not listed; in British English, "Asian" tends to refer to the South (Indian subcontinent) rather than the East of the continent."' which is cunningly concealed at the top. Kappa 00:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep This article contains useful information found nowhere else in WP: the redlinks to Britsh Asians about whom articles may be written. The nominator for this deletion has twice deleted this material to try to avoid having it here so this very important argument can be made. Hmains 02:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to elaborate further on why lists should be kept and maintained even in cases where categories exist: 1) the list is annotated with context; 2) the list is in different and more easily changed sort order than found in categories; 3) the list includes, and properly so, items for which there are yet no articles (red links); 4) sections of the list can be more easily linked to from articles (impossible with categories) Hmains 03:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article contains valuable, encyclopedic information that is relied on by our users for their research. Nominating a second time is WP:POINT, shows contempt for our community, and should not be tolerated. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 02:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and agree with Transhumanist about the need for clearer delineation of the scope--and the need for sourcing. Such ethnic combinations are notable, and if people are prepared to do the work,m the articles can stand up.DGG (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is what categories are for.----^DarkTea © 22:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. Scarian ^Talk 00:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the list very useful to know who does what in the Asian community in Britain. I don't see any other lists categorized in quite the same easy to follow fashion. Uranometria 23:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category will be enough.--JForget 00:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LIST. Keb25 17:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:LIST. The category will not be enough because it doesn't given any clue as to who they are or why they are notable, it's just a long list of names. Kappa 00:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work with the reds Kappa.. I've got far less of a problem with this if it's kept free of redlinks. When editors restore redlinks and tell me they are not to be removed, then we have cruft problems.. Maybe it'll stick this time. Deiz talk 00:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well in an ideal world an expert editor would be removing all non-notable red links and leaving the notable ones, and actually I have no reason to doubt that was happening here. However if you insist on removing unreferenced red links you can do so per WP:V. Kappa 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red lists are allowed everywhere else. WP is full of them, so what's so different about this article? Reverted Uranometria 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is full of unverifiable stuff which can be removed by any editor... Kappa 17:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what I see various editors do, once they have found a person to not be notable enough to be listed in the article (such as not in Goggle), is to move that name to the list's talk page and make a section which lists those names and why they have been moved there. This preserves information in WP for possible future use as the facts change (a later Goggle search or some other measure of notability), but keeps the lists up to standard. No harm in keeping such names on the talk page. Thanks. Hmains 03:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks ok, but I think maybe the name or membership criteria should be altered to include "notable", "prominent", "famous" or somesuch. Gatoclass 04:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 21:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft Clans[edit]

Fails WP:N and violates WP:OR. These clans are probably not more notable than a local sports club. No independent references (nor any sources at all) have been given. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is completely WP:OR and I fail to see much notability for just "Starcraft clans" Corpx 16:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see any way to meet WP:RS or WP:V either. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ORG. There appear to a lot of other Starcraft related articles that could be AFD candidates which seem to be badly written and referenced WP:Fancruft. --Gavin Collins 22:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can now say everything I now know about StarCraft Clans I learnt from this article. As a phenomona that has passed me by this article has been a useful in learning about the topic, I now at least know that the topic exists, and have some search terms I can use to Google farther information. Okay so things need to be sourced, however knowing the nature of fans in general any major inaccuracies and controversies will have been dealt with in a Darwinian process of editing. The edit history shows editing by multiple editors over a period of almost two years with the article stabilising into a form seemingly acceptable to editors of different persuasions. Given this I'd be willing to trust that the article is for the most part factually correct. As to notability the online gaming community is a huge phenomona, individual clans may not be notable but in total the claim on the talk page that in Korea alone there are approximately 3000 clans averaging 50 members each 150,000 active particpants. I would say notability approaches that of a minor religous cult not merely a local sports club. As a topic it may not interest you or me but that doesn't stop it being notable.KTo288 03:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I personally don't see a problem with notability, but I can't imagine how to meet WP:V. Unless you know of a reliable source that discusses starcraft clans, and can verify the article's information, it probably has to go. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you expand on why you think there should be no problems with notability please. Its up on two counts so if we can get one of them out of the way we can concenrate on the other.KTo288 08:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure. It's more based on the fact that given how popular the phenomenon is, I'm guessing that there are references that talk about clans. (Not that I'm convinced that the references have been produced and used to prove notability). But given the nature of of such clans (pseduo-fancruft-y and all), I imagine that most of those references would be unreliable. So, I thought I'd focus on the verifiability issue. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found and added two sources to the article, one from the National Defense University and one from Esther Dyson.KTo288 09:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)KTo288 17:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I could see, these sources are about gaming clans in general, and only briefly mention StarCraft as an example. They mention the commercial success of StarCraft in Korea (which may underline the notability of the game), and quote the number of StarCraft clans; but I think they are not suited for establishing the notability of a "StarCraft Clans" article. Citing these sources in StarCraft may be appropriate, though. --B. Wolterding 08:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subpage/spinoff If we say this article, which is intricately tied to the main StarCraft page, is worthy of deletion because of notability...then it would seem that we would have to throw the main page up for deletion as well. Scanning through I didn't notice as POV problems, it seems very encyclopedic in nature. I think that if this page is to continue, there needs to be a visible link to it from the main page. (Myhorses 17:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- In my opinion, an article that is not verifiable against sources is not encyclopedic in nature. The content given here is, in most parts, not attributable to the sources added later. --B. Wolterding 08:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Sources that can be used for attribution for the content can be found, but of the type which will be dismissed as "fancruft-y". If nothing else, even if they don't verify the content of the article, the sources I've added can be used to show the notabilty of the topic, that it is notable enough to be the subject of scholarly analysis.KTo288 12:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As far as I understood the sources, they scholarly analyze the topic "gaming clans", but not "StarCraft clans". (Also, it would rather be unlikely to find such an analysis related to one single product only.) --B. Wolterding 16:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - StarCraft clans is not a notable or verifiable topic. The article describes a mix of gaming clans in general and several Battle.net features. The Further Reading discusses clans in general, not StarCraft clans. There's nothing separate StarCraft clans from any other type of gaming clan. --Scottie_theNerd 09:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note This debate has been included in the list of Video games deletons KTo288 19:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. If anything here could be considered encyclopedic (unlikely), it could be integrated into StarCraft#Multiplayer. -- Sabre 13:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the provided references might be useful for Clan (computer gaming), but there is no particular coverage of StarCraft clans. Marasmusine 14:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I have copied the Further Reading section over to Clan (computer gaming). --B. Wolterding 15:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to List of GURPS books ELIMINATORJR 21:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS Monsters[edit]

Book of gaming instructions that fails WP:BK or WP:FICTION. The article content appears to have been cut & pasted from List of Monsters which sugests this is Fancruft. The article itself does not provide context or discussion of the books merit, and may have WP:COI authorship issues. --Gavin Collins 14:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't the first GURPS related article you're nominating today. Since all of these are probably going to get the same decision AfD-wise, I recommend that you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list multiple related pages for deletion and nominate accordingly. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tried that already and was advised to nominate on an individual basis - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS 4e Basic Set.--Gavin Collins 15:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless somebody can provide significant coverage of this book Corpx 16:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eusebeus 19:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Keep (based on newly-added external links) or Redirect to List of GURPS books as with other subjects in Gavin.collins' path. -- JHunterJ 12:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC), amended 11:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you the author of this book, J. Hunter Johnson? --Gavin Collins 17:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really relevant here, but covered by Talk:J. Hunter Johnson in any event. -- JHunterJ 11:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As both author of the book, and editor of the article, you are advised to have a look at the WP:COI guidlines. --Gavin Collins 08:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. You are similarly advised: "Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest". Like I said, it's not relevant here. If you have an issue, please bring it up in the appropriate place (my talk or the talk of the article which you feel has been edited in violation of WP:COI). -- JHunterJ 12:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of GURPS books as already mentioned. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on new reviews found, or barring that, redirect as above. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added two reviews to the article, though if other debates about GURPS articles are to go by, some of you will set little store by them. The thing is that with the advent of the web, the traditional independent paper RPG magazine has basically dissapeared, whats left is the online equivalent and the company mouth pieces,neither of which seems to satisfy those in favour of deleting. The GURPS books are unique amongst RPG source books in that they are open, they are designed to stimulate imagination and player interaction rather than binding players to the rules, the system allows tweaking to suit the game you are playing not the game the authors think you should play. The books are great resources for GMs and players using any game system in everything from characters and adversaries to items, vehicles and campaign settings.KTo288 02:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Keep Deletion is unnecessary and not helpful. Rray 02:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of GURPS books. Website reviews aren't in general non-trivial, so article fails notability test. Redirection helps to prevent recreation. Percy Snoodle 08:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what I understand, in these days of the web, not many gaming magazines do reviews of role-playing games anymore. I think Dragon hasn't really done reviews in many years (and, of course, has recently stopped being published). Pyramid does some reviews, but being the company mouthpiece of Steve Jackson Games, doesn't review their own games. Generally all we're left with is web-reviews. I agree that some of them are "trivial" (i.e. don't satisfy WP:N requirements like being user-submitted reviews), but other sites like RPG.net have "staff writers" that do reviews for the site. We shouldn't discount them all just because they are web-only. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Perhaps we can discuss this in the RPG WikiProject (or has this already done?). Do you think it is conceivable to define specific guidelines for notability of RPG books? --Goochelaar 20:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. JIP | Talk 10:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 15:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of GURPS books. — RJH (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as almost always. --Goochelaar 20:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)'RESULT'.[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Sweeney (ice hockey)[edit]

Never played professionally, fails WP:BIO ccwaters 14:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and ice hockey project notability standards. Has never played professionally and doesn't even play in a major junior league. --Djsasso 14:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO and Nobability Standards as agreed to on WP:HOCKEY. -Pparazorback 17:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOCKEY. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, still not drafted by the NHL.--JForget 00:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Thomas[edit]

Patent hoax; technically not proddable/CSDable under WP policy so bringing it here — iridescent (talk to me!) 13:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - 57 Google hits, none of which are related to the article subject. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless 'another man' can rapidly 'impregnate' this article with sources. Pursey 14:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete References are of no relavance whatsoever. No google hits that are relavant. No references to backup article content. Assume hoax. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has clearly given sources from the British library and not all historical events are posted on the internet. It is true that lately there has been vandalisment on this article, beefing up his criminal status, but the sources clearly indicate Joseph Thomas's existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.29.115.37 (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the first post in the above user's contribution history not to be vandalism — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 x Open proxy, blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks awfully hoaxy to me. Delete unless someone comes up with really definitive sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep verifiable sources have been cited as to this man's existence- i think we should keep this article unless someone checks the sources and sees if he is actually mentioned. Pekaak 09:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the facts themselves may have been exaggerated by vandals, however there should be no doubt at all that Joseph Thomas existed. Humjosh 09:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)— Humjosh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep A close friend of mine came across Joseph Thomas in a reliable source while studying at university. Therefore it is only fair to keep the article while the existence of this man is under debate, although really there should be no debate at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.128.207 (talk • contribs) — 62.31.128.207 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strong Delete per nomination. The sockpuppets have been less than convincing about the existence of this 'reliable source'. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Socketpuppets indeed - all 3 edits made within a timeframe of 15mins. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reported here as this isn't the first time these accounts have tag-teamed — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The google search gives us virtually a big donut outside of Wikipedia.--JForget 01:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep This article has clearly given sources which are books. Wikipedia allows these sources and you don't need an internet source. This article has clear historical importance and has a rightful place on wikipedia like any other sourced article and it would be an outrage to delete it. Johnthepcson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnthepcson (talk • contribs) 11:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC) — Johnthepcson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Very Strong Keep I own the book 1912 that is sourced and can confirm that it deals with the attack on taft by Weasel Thomas. TrevorTheBox —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.128.207 (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC) — 62.31.128.207 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This is actually 62.31.128.207's second contribution to this debate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And in the first one, it somehow slipped his/her mind that he actually owned the book in question...how odd! Iain99 19:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN criminal. Bearian 01:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as almost certain hoax created by a team of sock/meat puppets. In the unlikely event that any established user would like to take the time to look up the refs and check whether there's a shred of truth in it, I'd suggest userfying it until they have time to do so. Iain99 16:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources referenced are definately real books... perhaps sources which could be verified should be found by the author of the page, or alternatively give further proof? The links to the British Library cannot be followed without a British Library user account. Alternatively, this page could be categorised under myths and legends, as its content seems rather unlikely, but without further research into Taft, and the subject of this article, it should not be deleted.

The books do exist, however the links do not show this. Their relavence to the subject is however to be questioned. Also, some extreme exaggeration of what is no more than a myth causes this article to be no more than nonsense. The author must be asked to either improve on this article, or leave it for deletion, as it cannot remain in its current, ridiculous state. Presenting Weasel Thomas as a real life figure can only lead to deletion, since it is verifiably untrue.

A suggestion: Rename this page "Legend of Weasel Thomas". regds. Save the truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Save the truth (talk • contribs) — Save the truth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Legends have to be notable and sourced as well - just because something gets made up at school one day doesn't mean Wikipedia has to cover it as a legend. Iain99 19:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just felt that this sounded intriguing... if it was a real legend... I know that if you look in the People/Myths and Legends section you get far more ridiculous legend which are ceritified as REAL legends...

Save the truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Save the truth (talk • contribs) 20:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beast (state of being)[edit]

This article appears to be entirely original research. I've heard "beast" used colloquially to mean that someone is very good at something, but that's not enough to substantiate an article. I could not find a dictionary definition for this meaning and, in any case, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article would need to do more than define "beast". It would need reliable sources to establish this usage, and it does not. Leebo ^T/C 13:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The proper approach would perhaps be to tag it with ((notability)) and see if it gets expanded, but I'm going to vote delete as it would never work anyway Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I prodded this article because it reeked of original research. It wasn't verifiable, nor sourced. There are also issues with WP:NEO and the article doesn't exert its notability. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does seem to violate WP:OR, WP:NEO, WP:ISNOT, and WP:N. Best case scenario would be to condense and transwiki to Wiktionary as a slang alternate definition. Saturn 5 14:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Saturn 5. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 20:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per saturn 3tmx 23:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I do love using this term- in fact, I'd go so far as to say it's a beastly word- it's an NN neologism. -- Kicking222 02:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mariana Cordoba[edit]

Contested prod. Only 5 movies & no awards, nothing to indicate passes WP:PORNBIO. Although I'll mourn the loss of the line "Her Cock Is Bigger Than Mine!" from Wikipedia — iridescent (talk to me!) 13:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:PORNBIO Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PORNBIO. Carlosguitar 13:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and a nod to the nom for one of the better comments I've seen on an AFD Saturn 5 14:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:PORNBIO. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim_(talk) 13:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Burnett[edit]

Non-notable (there are many thousands of successful working musicians with similar resumes), and the article is basically a press release. Appears to be written by several related user accounts and IPs whose only edits are to insert Chris Burnett into articles, raising COI and spam issues as well. Special-T 12:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Has, according to the article, won a prize and is affiliated with a label that may make him notable. However, I believe the article needs a lot of trimming per WP:UNDUE, as most of it reads like a resume. I'll avoid trimming this myself in case this article ends up getting deleted. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 14:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His affiliation seems to be with his own record label (see the contributors to the article), negating any claims to notability. - Special-T 14:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. As written it seems borderline on WP:MUSIC, but does include enough unrelated references to suggest notability. Does need cleanup to be more encyclopedic though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturn 5 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you SineBot :( Saturn 5 14:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, I think too much weight is being given to his self-listed promo. Those 'unrelated references' are: BMI - anyone who's written a song can be an affiliate; a restaurant listing him as playing there; an endorsement of Lomax mouthpieces; membership in IAJE - anyone can join; an entertainment calendar listing - anyone with a gig would be there; a local magazine feature; another gig listing at a local festival; AFM membership - again, anyone can join; and his military service record. All indicate that he's a working local musician in KC. All well and good, but not encyclopedic. - Special-T 16:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence or reliable source that indicates he passes the standard at WP:MUSIC, without which keeping this amounts to little more than WP:ILIKEIT. Eusebeus 19:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article's badly written and promotional, to start with, and there's not a whole lot of sources to go by (note that the BBC link at the bottom refers to a movie character, not this musician). I'm not sure that he quite reaches WP:MUSIC at this time. Weak delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find much on this guy on the web that hasn't been written by himself (or rearranged wording written by him), no apparent discography other than a selection of songs he claims royalties on. Once you've dived below the blanket of rhetoric there doesn't seem to be much that meets WP:MUSIC--WebHamster 21:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. This guy has obviously had a noteworthy career. I am the intern who posts all of these types of things for their record label. So, this bio is not "self-listed promo" and anyone making a case to delete is mostly doing so without due consideration of the objective standards at WP:MUSIC. The man has already had a very distinguished musical career of 22 years in the military and is continuing in the commercial music world. Keep this and please clean it up, that is what wiki is about. Knowing the inherent competitive nature of musicians, doesn't anyone else find it particularly curious that a saxophone player started this campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.202.54 (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEITWikipedia editors are a pretty diverse bunch and as such pretty much everything is hated by some editor somewhere. Hating a music style is no reason to argue that an article on a band who play that style of music (providing they meet the relevant verifiability and source criteria) should be deleted, as music tastes are incredibly subjective and one person's dirge is another person's symphony. The same applies to any issue of personal preference; some editors hate trivia, but what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there's no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted. Other editors hate fair use images and text, but again until there is a policy stating that fair use is prohibited the fact that an image is fair use, or an article contains a lot of fair use media, is not grounds for deletion provided fair use criteria are met. Arguments that the nature of the subject is unencyclopaedic (for example individual songs or episodes of a TV show) should also be avoided in the absence of clear policies or guidelines against articles on such subjects. Perhaps the most common example of this kind of argument is the oft-used argument that articles/categories/whatever should be deleted as cruft. While the "cruft" label is often used for any or all things of minor interest, it is worth considering carefully whether or not so-called "cruft" has potential. Some may see it as an embarrassment if someone's garage band later enjoy international success, though we cannot yet know this, hence such an article would have little potential. On the other extreme, featured content has emerged from "cruft": a featured list called Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc began as an in popular culture section.

Comment - In the jazz world, there are not (many thousands of successful working musicians with similar resumes), especially in the major US jazz market cities like Kansas City - New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington DC, New Orleans, etc. Add the factor Chris Burnett's military music career and you have another element of note because only a small number of musicians and people qualify for military bands at any level (some qualify as individuals, but not as musicians and some qualify as musicians, but not as individuals - the number who qualify in both areas is small). Any adding of Chris Burnett's name to sections at wikipedia were done by me to cross reference, not spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.202.54 (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 1- I made no subjective judgments about quality of his music - that is not the issue here. 2- Extrapolating from the number of excellent jazz musicians working in the small-market-for-jazz city where I live (guys who have played with Ellington, Maria Schneider, Aretha, Wynton, the list is nearly endless, and many who have had long careers in military service bands), it is reasonable to extrapolate to, yes, thousands of such musicians in the country. 3- The conflict of interest issues here are pretty obvious - you, an employee of his record label, deem him to have a noteworthy career. Maybe he does, but by Wikipedia policy, the judgment of someone in that position should not be the basis of deciding notability, and I didn't think the press-release-style article proved it adequately. That's why the article is listed here - not because I don't like someone or his music. And, since you've accused me of some personal/professional pettiness in listing this article here, you might want to take a look at WP:No personal attacks. Let's stick to the policy, notability, and conflict-of-interest issues. - Special-T 21:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thanks for clarification of your position. Believe me, I am as objective as anyone and I am not an employee or biased in the manner you imply. This listing has been here for more than a year. It has survived vandalism and if the pointedness of my remarks are taken as attacks on you, they are not meant to be. It is just easy to sit in the position of anonymous judge and jury in a paradigm like this. Whatever is decided is cool. I don't even think that he looks at this anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.202.54 (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, whatever the community decides is cool - well said. Just working for a better Wikipedia. - Special-T 22:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn and page redirected by nominator. Non-admin closure. Iain99 14:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition (song)[edit]

Individual track from an as yet unreleased album. Does not pass the proposed notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC Kevin 12:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected as suggested. I'll leave this for someone else to close though. Kevin 13:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition. That World War II era song is surely worthy of an article. I am not familiar with this particular song or artist, or whether this song is either a cover or just an allusion to the original, but anyone looking for a song with this title is probably looking for the Frank Loesser song. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The forties song is absolutely notable. If it's being recorded by someone else that note can be added here. Nick mallory 13:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 14:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart Parish, Marystown[edit]

(Very) slight assertion of notability due to media coverage of the family in the basement, so not prodding, but if there is anything to that it should be in an article on the family, while anything on the church should be in an article on the building. While I firmly support a page for every named geographic location, I can't believe we need an entry on every individual church parish — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article doesn't give any context on the history of the parish, the architecture of the building, or its influence in the community. It also doesn't assert the importance of the Alexi Portnoy and family case, either. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage of this parish Corpx 16:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per proposed guideline as NN parish. 01:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Bearian 01:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CitiCat^♫ 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creator (musician)[edit]

No indication of notability, no important information, no references, looks like a complete vanity entry — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move it back to being a redirect which it was, hence why an IP was able to create the article. Google returns nothing of relevance to "creator musician" and to "Anthony Andrew Keane" so this would seem to be unverifiable. I don't think there's a GFDL issue with simply reverting back to the change highlighted in my diff. although of course it could then be reverted back to the article again. If so, delete and recreate the redirect. Pedro | Chat 12:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prefer to delete it, since it is now no longer located at Creator, which is now a disambiguation page (there are several things with that name). The page Creator (musician) should just full-out be deleted. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current article is about a completely non-notable musician, and there are no logical reasons why anyone else would go to the page Creator (musician) rather than just Creator, so a redirect page isn't needed. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 14:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please avoid the v-word as per WP:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tyrenius 01:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equality Maryland[edit]

Too local in scope for inclusion per WP:ORG New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 00:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Becksguy 19:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Local scope does not prevent notability, so long as WP:V can be met. Not sure if that's the case here, but it's worth pointing out. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the author. :) I think this is a fair point, and will fully respect any consensus, but the relevant criterion reads thus: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." I think two defenses can be raised:
- (1) Is Equality Maryland "local in scope" in the sense intended here? It's not perfectly clear what "local" means -- I think a county chamber of commerce is clearly local, but is a statewide civil rights organization? This is an authentic question; I do not know that there's a definitive answer, but I would say that, if this criterion applies, then many other articles would be subject to deletion -- sticking only to very similar organizations, you'd have to start with Equality California, Equality Mississippi, Equality North Dakota, and MassEquality. I now see this last is in fact nominated for deletion, but I think that's definitely misplaced; that organization has had a very high profile nationally throughout the same-sex marriage saga going on in that state for the past few years. Which brings me to this...
- (2) Even granting that the organization is local in scope, the criterion says that verifiable information from reliable independent sources can show notability. I hope that I've done that with this article, with at least one citation from a major newspaper (Washington Post) and several others from local and major LGBT publications. kdogg36 01:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a more standardized reference format would make kdogg's points more clear to others reviewing the article for deletion. Philwelch 01:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Judging by the references, this organisation satisfies WP:ORG --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tagishsimon and reasonable degree of notability. - Nascentatheist 02:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The organization, like MassEquality, is mentioned in a number of New York Times articles. kdogg36 03:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Mentions" don't count. Citations should be to articles written about the subject, not articles mentioning them in passing. MarkBul 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I don't agree -- citations should support the facts to which they're attached in the Wikipedia article (which I think the citations in this article do). The entire article cited doesn't have to be about the subject. (Thanks, by the way, to Tagishsimon for reformatting the references to make them clear.) kdogg36 17:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - WP:POINT much? See Equality Maryland afd, MassEquality afd, Equality Mississippi afd and Kansas Equality Coalition afd -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tagishsimon, SatyrTN and kdogg36. • Lawrence Cohen 13:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm shocked this even got to AfD. Pursey 14:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per other similar debates started by the same user previously. Given that the other discussions are rapidly leaning towards keep or no consensus, a new listing for the same disputed reason speaks volumes of the bias of the nominator. -- Roleplayer 22:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a highly notable group, and the cites in the article support that. -- Kicking222 02:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep per above.--JForget 01:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CitiCat^♫ 00:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S cities with large Romanian American populations[edit]

DELETE: This article is almost completely unsourced. It contains a random list of cities that it claims have large Romanian-American populations, with no way to verify that (a) these cities do have large (whatever that means) Romanian-American populations, or (b) that other US cities do not have similarly large or larger Romanian-American populations. The inclusion of Montpelier, Vermont, total population not even 8,000, makes me think this article may in fact be a joke. Malangali 06:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete almost entirely WP:OR / unsourced, and doesn't make any definition of "large". Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and arbitrary. Fails WP:OR and WP:V as written. Saturn 5 14:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I fail to see why we should index cities by racial composition Corpx 16:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. Bravedog 17:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment out the unsourced entries, and then add them back in as they get sourced. - The Transhumanist 17:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent (List of U.S. cities with large Polish American populations). This can be readily sourced from U.S. Census data. --Polaron | Talk 19:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, nom. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not trump notability, verifiability or reliable source concerns. Eusebeus 19:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page of the article for a strating point for getting this list fully sourced with Census Bureau data. --Polaron | Talk 19:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm sorry but have to agree it has a lot of WP:OR. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 20:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Romanian-American The article itself is not terribly interesting, a USA Today factoid (NY-LA-Chicago-Philadelphia-Phoenix being the big five cities that apparently have thousands of Romanians). Mandsford 00:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD G4: the article is not significantly different from the previously deleted article Michael Kelly (journalist). —David Eppstein 16:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kelly (Irish journalist)[edit]

to save from vandalism should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siptu (talk • contribs) 2007/08/30 18:18:50

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as the nomination is invalid as can be. If the only problem with this article is that it can be vandalised, it should be protected, not deleted. 96T 13:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per 96T. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This shouldn't be on AfD (for the reason given). Nick mallory 13:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. Links to own articles and radio appearances do not qualify as independent evidience of notability. --Gavin Collins 14:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It should be noted that the AFD originator is also the subject of the article/originator. He deleted a sourced edit (albeit from a blog) from another person that showed evidence of plagiarism. But...as you note...his lack of notability has already been estabilished in another AFD discussion. - Smashville 15:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Considering the page shows no evidence of being vandalized in the past and considering that "potential for vandalism" is not a reason for closing an article (see: Michael Vick), this is not a valid reason for deletion. Smashville 15:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as db-repost after discovering previous AfD. Slightly changed title, still not notable. Smashville 20:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete as a recreation of an already deleted article that does not introduce any additional material asserting notability. IN instances like this, one doesn't really need to go through AfD, just ask an admin to delete and protect the page. Eusebeus 19:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a Recreated Article. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 20:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is nothing but a vanity page which was previously deleted. It is for reasons of vanity that the originator and subject of this article is requesting to delete the article, and my gut instinct wants to deny him his vain request, but the Wikipedia guidelines demand that there be no article about this non-notable newspaper employee. The only interesting part of the whole article was the information offered from the crazy protestant blog, but the blog was a highly unreliable original source. And just because that little interchange was interesting and entertaining does not make it in any way NOTABLE.OfficeGirl 03:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Collectible. WjBscribe 23:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collector's item[edit]

List appears to be a WP:POV fork from Collectible and or Stamp collecting, where there are already lists & categories of collectable items. This article is little more than a magnet for WP:Listcruft. --Gavin Collins 11:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Collectible. Percy Snoodle 12:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per Percy Snoodle. I'd do it myself, but that's probably bad form since it has been brought to AfD. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Percy Snoodle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djmckee1 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Bearian 01:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Rlevse 23:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nguoi lai[edit]

Non-English expressions do not belong in the English language Wikipedia, unless they have notability outside of their respective languages. I originally prodded this article, which was declined with a suggestion to AfD instead. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 10:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree. If the expression is notable, it is notable, in just the same way that if there are several good sources (but all in Turkish) talking about a Turkish musician, we would not delete the article. As such, if this expression has sufficient sources to pass notability guidelines, no matter the language of the expression or the sources, it should be kept. J Milburn 12:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable usage in the english language. No sources provided. Normally I disdain the Google test but in some cases - such as this - it's a landslide result. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 20:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable usage in English. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 20:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Rlevse 23:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bu$ine$$ I$ Bu$ine$$[edit]

Apparently non-notable, I tagged it for notability about 3 months ago and nothing has happened so far. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 10:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the artist is notable enough to have an AMG page, and the album is released on the notable Relativity Records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96T (talk • contribs) 13:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being on AMG isn't an indication of notability (the initialism does, after all, stand for All Music Guide). Nor is being released on a notable label - notable labels also release non-notable albums from ditto artists. This, of course, does not mean that the subject matter per se isn't notable, but failure to establish notability for so many months is, to me, an indication of an article needing to go. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I prodded this article back in June with the following Doesn't explain the significance of the album, doesn't cite sources, plus needs major clean up, expansion to be viable. Guess how many edits were made since then?-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 14:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 20:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't assert notability, apparently the artist is only notable for his collaborative albums. Melsaran (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Possibly redirect to the rapper. Bearian 01:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The people saying delete, don't know anything about hip hop music or PMD, Bu$ine$$ I$ Bu$ine$$ is a classic and being that it is an actual album by an actual artist, it shoulld not be deleted. SameAsItEverWas 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If so, it shouldn't be too hard to find reliable sources to establish the notability of the subject. Melsaran (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. CitiCat^♫ 00:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robot Wars Episodes[edit]

This article is an unnecessary content fork from Robot Wars; the latter could quite comfortably contain any encyclopaedic detail in the former. Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 10:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 14:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. List of XXX episodes articles are extremely common on Wikipedia and very encyclopedic. Bravedog 17:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I expect it was split off for a reason, looking at the article it's still pretty long. Created a seperate list of episodes fork is common practise in TV show articles, and I don't see what's unencyclopedic about it... Whilst I don't wish to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, other lists of an identical nature are on here. I would use an AfD of one of them that was kept as precedence but, well, I don't actually remember an AfD on *any* List of Show X episodes pages. The page needs heavy cleanup and a rename, sure, but I don't really see any reason to delete. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AllynJ.--SarekOfVulcan 19:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In this case largely trivial, but such episode lists are well-established. Eusebeus 19:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are alot of episode guides on Wikipedia. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 21:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: While lists of episodes are common on Wikipedia, these shows are effectively plotless, so the article is largely a table of contestants, listing the winners. Does this go against WP:NOT#DIR? Do we list episodes of sporting events and game shows with tables of those winners as well? If not, how is this different? How is this encyclopedic? / edg ☺ ★ 21:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It badly needs references and sources, but it is a useful page and should be allowed a chance to get sources. StuartDD ( t • c ) 21:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 02:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Unthinking Majority[edit]

Individual track from an as yet unreleased album. Does not pass the proposed notability criteria at WP:MUSIC Kevin 09:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 14:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike the other songs from this album, this one has actually been released as a single. The artist is fairly notable, so I think that should apply to his singles as well. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a single. gracz54 ^(talk) 16:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomOo7565 19:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Song is being played in circulation on major radio stations across the country. Thus, the song has been "released" publicly with the permission and under the auspices of the artist, Serj Tankian. To clarify, the Song is not a single, and was not realeased as a "single," but rather as a "teaser" for the upcoming album to be released this September, 2007. (also see post by Director of The Unthinking Majority video, Tawd b. Dorenfeld, under the "discussion" tab). Bionicplatypus 19:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of GURPS books. KrakatoaKatie 02:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS Bili the Axe - Up Harzburk![edit]

Out of print book of gaming instructions that fails WP:BK or WP:FICTION. The article claims that the book is "notorious", but unlike Lady Chatterley's Lover, provides no independent source for this claim. The article itself does not provide context or discussion of the books merit, and links to publisher, related books fail to compensate for lack of notable content. --Gavin Collins 08:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Horseclans, which is a rather short article. sjgames freely admit they needed to recall this[20], which is the articles stated reason for it being "notorious". All of the missing information can easily be added, but ultimately as very few copies of this exist in the wild, it is unlikely that this article will grow much beyond its currently length. John Vandenberg 09:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but to GURPS Horseclans, rather than Horseclans. It's a better context for the moved material. GURPS Bili the Axe has no merit itself, it's only notable for being a publishing disaster, but it is widely known as such in the roleplaying community. -dmmaus 10:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure what the benefit would be of merge. If I understand correctly, this book was withdrawn when it was published in 1988. It has not been republished which indicates that this book is not only non-notable, but downright obscure. An edition sold on Ebay at $18.90 recently, so I am not sure it qualifies as a Collector's item as the article alleges. As regards GURPS Horseclans, that looks like a potential AfD candidate as well. --Gavin Collins 11:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both this and GURPS Horseclans to Horseclans. Percy Snoodle 12:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per Percy Snoodle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djmckee1 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to GURPS Horseclans or Redirect both this and GURPS Horseclans to List of GURPS books. -- JHunterJ 12:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to GURPS Horseclans Certainly non-notable on its own. And I own a copy! Wasn't aware it had been recalled though.. weird.Ealdgyth | Talk 15:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Diaries of...[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N - I could not find any sources to support this article, especially the name. Also, WP is not a crystal ball — *Hippi ippi 08:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Veronicas have announced an upcoming album but have not titled it yet, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thaurisil^t_c 09:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability. Carlosguitar 13:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing on their webpage about the title of any upcoming albums. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until something is actually published somewhere about future releases for this band. -- Roleplayer 22:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft. Twenty Years 10:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 23:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L A Matheson Secondary School[edit]

Here is a school, perhaps one of thousands, in Canada. Not notable, page looks like it was written by a committee of kids and teachers. SolidPlaid 08:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete If this had been a company or product, we'd have called a CSD as blatant advertising. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep after this impressive piece of improvement. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 08:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SCHOOL and WP:N, but not to teach a lesson. Saturn 5 14:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nice re-write and wikification, DS1953. Saturn 5 21:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of third-party sources, delete. Jakew 16:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - some third party sources have been added, as well as additional factual material. -- DS1953 ^talk 17:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nicely cleaned up by DS1953 and now clearly notable as shown by the sources readily available on a Google seach. TerriersFan 17:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:SCHOOL. Bravedog 17:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is much better now, and reads more like an encyclopedic entry which establishes some notability. I do not condone deleting pages to teach new or established users a lesson either. Camaron1 | Chris 19:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not really satisfied with the sourcing so far, but there will probably be enough evidence for notability for this--and for all other established high schools. I therefore think we should change the practice, and start considering all high schools to be notable, and spend our time writing and improving articles. Consensus can change, and i think it has. DGG (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with every single thing DGG just wrote. Noroton 20:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wow! Anybody who hasn't thanked DS1953 yet should get a load of this dif! Great, great job! Noroton 20:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the recent changes or Merge to its school district in case of different scenario.--JForget 01:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to One Day Son, This Will All Be Yours ELIMINATORJR 22:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Floods (Fightstar song)[edit]

A song by a band I've never heard of. We need to stop these people from making pages for songs. The band itself may or may not be notable, the article makes reference to future events too. SolidPlaid 07:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've tidied it up now, please take a look. I think reference to future events is fine if it's sourced and not just all wild predictions. It needs some sources added, definitely. As for notability, the band itself is definitely notable in the UK and I would think that the song is notable too, esp. if it was cancelled as their first song from the new album because of the UK floods. That makes it slightly unusual (I agree that there doesn't need to be an article for every song in the world). changed mind, see below KZF ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just because you havn't hear of them does not make them not notable. Fosnez 09:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even if the band is notable, no citations indicationg notability of the song appear on the page, even after "tidying up". Who cares if a weather event caused a delay anyway? The song is not notable. SolidPlaid 10:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source on the article; personally I would like to see another before a "future single" warrants an article. John Vandenberg 10:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

haha, i never said i'd added any citations, i just did some "tidying up" and then told you about it. KZF ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC (though I realise that those are only proposed guidelines). the band is notable (I guess), but that doesn't mean that every song they ever record should get an article on Wikipedia. One mention in Kerrang! doesn't appear to be enough to be notable, IMO. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or source and merge into main band/album article. Jakew 16:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Non-noteable single. Bravedog 17:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the band's article; if it becomes a single, and it becomes a huge smash hit, then maybe it'd be worth an article of its own - right now, it's not notable enough for it. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete - i briefly googled the song and there's hardly any info on it apart from lyrics, so i'd say merge or delete. the song is actually already mentioned on the band's article anyway. KZF ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cybercontrol[edit]

Contested prod. Non-neutral essay in violation of WP:NOT. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 07:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Essay, OR. SolidPlaid 07:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essay. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an essay that doesnt mention "Cybercontrol" other than in the title. John Vandenberg 10:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom, completely unencyclopedic. No reason for this AfD per WP:SNOW, as this can never have any other outcome than delete. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR essay. Hut 8.5 14:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP. Saturn 5 14:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 20:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pile on delete and be prepared to salt it - I can see this one being recreated a dozen times — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grasswood Road, Saskatchewan[edit]

This is a typical locally-maintained road. All but parts of the first two paragraphs are about the area, not the road. All that is specifically about the road is that it runs from the South Saskatchewan River to Highway 11, and that the Highway 11 intersection (presumably) has recently been rebuilt. This is not enough for an article; if it was we'd have millions of articles about similar roads that connect small neighborhoods to major roads. The road can be seen here (Google Maps). A recent similar precedent is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warner Road, Arizona. NE2 07:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a tourism agency. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't look to be a major artery, no significant locations there, doesn't look like it is a county/regional/provincial road.--JForget 01:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Local roads, as a rule, should go unless they can actually demonstrate notability. I don't see any here. Delete. Bearcat 18:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:V. In accordance with WP:DGFA, articles must be deleted even if the discussion fails to arrive at a consensus for deletion, when it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching the core policies WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. In this case, the article has been unsourced since 2004, and is thus presumably unverifiable. It may be recreated once sources become available. Sandstein 06:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hofje van Oorschot[edit]

makes no claim to notability (indeed, the subject is a courtyard) and has no sources delete Ardent ^†alk _∈ 06:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A courtyard can be notable. The lack of sources is a problem to be overcome by means other than deletion. It does, of course, not establish notability, but let's give editors a chance to fix that by slapping a ((notability)) tag on the article. If that fails, then we can AfD the article again. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to assert notability.Burzmali 00:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a random courtyard, it is a courtyard that was built in 1769 and is a tourist attraction for Haarlem. Note: I started this article when I lived in Haarlem and got interested in the city's history. Guus 23:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article does not establish notability or cite any sources, which is troubling, but it looks like a tourist attraction and a historical monument. I think sources for this can be found. Melsaran (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge most per Moonriddengirl (18:11, 9 September 2007) below, and no consensus to delete the others. Whether or not these should be merged as well is an editorial issue. Sandstein 08:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beanie Babies involved in lawsuits[edit]

A large group of articles for individual Beanie Babies lacking notability per WP:N. Should be either moved into a list or deleted entirely.--PCPP 06:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All per nom. --Gavin Collins 08:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or~~ Merge. Definitely not appropriate for individual little articles like this, but considering that Beanie Babies is quite short, I wouldn't object to merging much of this info there. ~~(Count this as a "delete if not merged by the time this closes" vote)~~. AndyJones 12:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to Merge (per Moonriddengirl). May I ask if anyone here is volunteering to perform the merge if this closes, now? AndyJones 16:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All Not notable enough for individual articles.DCEdwards1966 14:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all The beanie babies article would be much more interesting with a "Lawsuits" section, into which verifiable information from all these articles could be merged. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:POKEMON. Bravedog 17:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least most I have written most of these articles, and I proposed a WikiProject on Beanie Babies. I did not write an article on every single beanie baby, only a select few that I felt had notability. Mostly, these included those that made news or otherwise heavily impacted society somehow. I have also been unable to complete these articles myself or provide photos - I was hoping someone else would come along and do so.

What I felt would make good individual articles are beanies that were among the most sought during the fad. Also, certain events and concepts pertaining to beanies, such as Retirement (Beanie Babies), would make good articles. Xyz7890 18:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your best approach, then, would be to merge all of this material into Beanie Babies: making it a far better and fuller article. Then, if that article gets too big, individual aspects could be split out into separate articles. See Wikipedia:Summary style. I think little diddy-articles like these will always be attacked, with some justification, for a lack of individual notability; whereas I don't think anyone here doubts that Beanie Babies are sufficiently notable for an article. AndyJones 19:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but merge some. Some of these articles may do well on their own. In particular, I think the Teenie Beanies and Retirement articles are great. It would be best if some more time, say a month or so, be given before taking any action. Perhaps this debate will help spark more interest. Any articles that cannot be expanded beyond what they are today should then be merged into the Beanie Babies article or into one another. For example, instead of having articles on Peanut or Quackers, there can be an article simply on the beanies of high value. Tatterfly 12:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into fewer articles. The original article on Maple was made into "Canadian Exclusive Beanie Babies." The same can be done with others OGLY 16:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but especially the lawsuit one, as that is NN as a set of lawsuits and listcruft to boot. Bearian 01:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can help with merging: From the scope of this discussion, it has become clear to me that the majority want these articles merged. I am planning to start out by creating a new article titled Rare Beanie Babies that will be a merger of several other articles here in question. Xyz7890 13:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just started it. I just created the article. So far, it contains sections about Peanut and Quackers. I am trying to see what else may belong in that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyz7890 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 13:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is complicated. :) I think primarily merge into fewer articles, as OGLY says. There's one for deletion, one for keeping, and one for renaming, in my opinion.

Merge The Original Nine Beanie Buddies into Beanie Buddy--neither page is long enough to merit separation

Merge Teddy (Beanie Baby) into Beanie Babies (but, note, as written it contradicts The Original Nine Beanie Babies). Also merge into Beanie Babies: Counterfeit Beanie Babies and Beanie Babies involved in lawsuits. These topics may merit inclusion in the parent page. Division is not necessary.

Merge Peanut (Beanie Baby), Canadian Exclusive Beanie Babies, Quackers (Beanie Baby) and Clubby into the new page Rare Beanie Babies.

~~Delete~~ Redirect The Original Nine Beanie Babies--I've incorporated that information into Beanie Babies and as it is only a list it should not violate copyright.

Keep Teenie Beanies, though the article needs improvement.

Rename Retirement (Beanie Babies) into Retired (Beanie Babies) and Merge Princess (Beanie Baby) into that.

Primarily I think this is a matter of organization. But note that in most instances, references need improvement. I see primarily references to an unofficial website. --Moonriddengirl 14:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is the second time these have been put up for deletion. I don't like the use of multiple deletion in this circumstance. I say Keep them all until the person who nominated makes a case for deletion of each one. SolidPlaid 01:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AndyJones asks above if anybody will merge as proposed. Sure, I will. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Incidentally, having merged The Original Nine Beanie Babies to Beanie Babies, I think it's better to redirect it there, rather than deleting as you proposed. AndyJones 17:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (reset indent)Okay. I have not created redirects because I do not want to complicate the AfD process if others want to see the articles as are. However, I have merged the following--

Into Beanie Babies--The Original Nine Beanie Babies (no copyright issue; information already there); Counterfeit Beanie Babies, Beanie Babies involved in lawsuits, Teddy (Beanie Baby)

Into Beanie Buddies--The Original Nine Beanie Buddies

Into Rare Beanie Babies--Canadian Exclusive Beanie Babies, Clubby

Into Retirement (Beanie Babies)--Princess (Beanie Baby)

Already merged--Quackers (Beanie Baby), Peanut (Beanie Baby)

If Teenie Beanies and Retirement (Beanie Babies) are to be allowed to survive, I think that's the lot of them. If the AfD is closed without objection, I will place redirects on the ones that I've merged. And I will rename Retirement (Beanie Babies) to Retired Beanie Babies. I will also add references to these subpages to the original Beanie Baby article. --Moonriddengirl 18:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. AndyJones 07:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close now? Looks like we have a consensus. AndyJones 07:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like consensus. --Moonriddengirl 13:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improve All: Though I originally created these articles about Beanie Babies, I never intended for the project to be a one-person operation. I was hoping from day one that others would get involved, provide more info and references from their expertise, and best of all, photos of these beanies, which unfortunately, I cannot provide myself. I would like to see several more people join the Beanie Babies Wikiproject I proposed and to improve all these articles. Xyz7890 15:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all are we an encyclopaedia or a joke? NBeale 23:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Picaroon (t) 17:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daantjie Badenhorst[edit]

I'm not sure about this one. I clicked on it because it was a target of vandalism, and speedied it because it looked like a non-notable bio in its vandalised state. However, I looked down, and there may have been substance in previous edits. He's a South African game show champion, with one book published. Here are the GHits FWIW: [21] I'm not sure about notability, so I've brought it here for discussion -- Samir 06:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If American game show champions are notable enough, South African champions should be too. By the way, I am sorry for not reverting farther back fast enough. I had tried to fix the vandalism but it went back very far. Academic Challenger 06:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Academic Challenger. Appears to have authored a book too. Pursey 12:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But take note of the edits in his "other" entry on Wiki. A lot of the information portrayed in these edits is true. Such as his disruption of the largest motoring forum, etc. Not well liked or known for his outbursts. If one has an entry on Wiki, it must be representative of the WHOLE person, not the bits he would like to be shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.101.45 (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment it goes without saying that 'people on a motoring forum thought he was a bit of a tosser' probably would not be included unless it had been mentioned in well-regarded newspapers or something like that. There are other places for such things.Merkinsmum 14:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable--Zingostar 19:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omniscopic[edit]

This page is about original research that is not cited by any reliable secondary source Anarchia 06:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page was also created by the person whose ideas it describes. Anarchia 06:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this article. It is also difficult to verify the contents of this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources and unverifiable. Concern about possible vanity article. Pursey 12:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism with associated verifiability problems. Jakew 16:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dangerously close to WP:SPAM. Burzmali 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. CitiCat^♫ 00:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethic of reciprocity[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ethic of reciprocity

This article is full of empty sections, is poorly sourced, full of empty sections, POV, and gives undue weight to Islam Sefringle^Talk 05:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 05:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems appropriate to have an article on the golden rule. The claim that this is not a deontological thesis is controversial, as is the claim that this is an ethic of reciprocity. The article as it stands has some valuable material that is poorly presented and some mistakes and soignificant gaps. Somewhat hesitant suggestion: rename it 'The golden rule', and allow it to be developed. Anarchia 06:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appropriate subject per Anarchia but I think "The golden rule" is too ambiguous to be a good article title. John Vandenberg 10:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously a notable subject. In addition, while I haven't gone through the entire history yet, even merely comparing the last 100 edits [22] leaves me wondering why so much information was "gutted" from the article. - jc37 12:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Other than some possible tidying up needed, I can see no good reason for this to be deleted. Pursey 12:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. AfD is not cleanup, and this ethical axiom surely deserves an article. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup. Many incomplete segments but the ones that are covered are well referenced, even if the references are not formatted as such. Saturn 5 15:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This concept is downright religious for many people, myself included. Deletion is simply not an option, and the reasons given for deletion are somewhat insubstantial, given what a quick cleanup (as suggested) would do. I will also have to say that renaming the page "The Golden Rule" is not appropriate, as EoR is much more tangible and much less colloquial. effsee
Keep Except for a title that is sooooo "P.C." that nobody knows what the hell they're talking about, this is a pretty good article; of course, all articles are good in their own way, and my opinion is no more valuable than that of anybody else, so I apologize for whatever I just said that may have offended someone. Mandsford 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep - The article could use some work, but deletion is really out of the question. This is quite literally one of the most rudimentary topics in moral philosophy. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I can't emphasize enough how absurd it is to nominate this article for deletion. This is a fundamental concept in all religions and cultures, and is absolutely notable! It is deplorable that one of Sefringle's reasons for deletion is because the Islam section is sourced.Bless sins 05:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we can't even get concensus on what this ethic is, we can't have a list of nonsense OR wikipedia editors claim are instances of it. BS's statement that it is a fundamental concept in all religions is utterly false. Having some sort of "be nice to your brother" statement in Islam only applies to other Muslims, as Muslims are ordered to wage war on non-Muslims, and are allowed to enslave them, have sex with their prisoners, etc. If this article says anything to the opposite we're doing readers a disservice. Arrow740 05:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So even you want this article deleted simply because you don't seem to like Muslims.Bless sins 06:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think wikipedia should have an article stating that Islam is even compatible with the golden rule. I've removed all the OR again. Let's build the article from the ground up. Arrow740 07:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your POV, I don't know that it's valid. Can you cite sources to support it? - jc37 09:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Islam sub-section could use some more neutral commentary, but is that a reason to delete the whole article? It looks like it's already being neutralized, and it would take an editor with adequate background knowledge 5 minutes to finish the task. Is it worth rewriting a ~16 page article to fix a small subsection? — xDanielx ^T/_C 18:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of corse it is. Especially since the rest of the article has no sources (other than that section), and is not verifiable. It makes no sense to keep garbage which isn't sourced.--Sefringle^Talk 19:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you're not serious. I counted 62 offsite links, many of which were inline references. If you want to rewrite all ~16 pages so that it's perfect, great; otherwise, please respect the work of those who put countless hours into the article. It could use a modest bit of cleanup, but it does contain a good deal of comprehensive information on a subject with notability that is plainly obvious. Fix it; don't delete it for having a handful of easily correctable blemishes. — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I noted in my initial comments, the page seemed to have been "gutted". Apparently due to User:Arrow740 personal opinions about it's applicablility to certain religions. For reference, I've pasted the July 15 2007 version here for reference. (Chosen as prior to the user's initial edit to the page.) - jc37 09:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree it needs a clean up: too many quotations, but fundamentally (!) it is anti-bias since it points out the astonishing (IMO) similarity between all major religions. To lose that insight would be divisive, and tragic. I agree that it is also central to ethics and moral philosophy. TonyClarke —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyClarke (talk • contribs) 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep whose lame idea was it to delete the golden rule? None of the reasons for deletion justify deleting any article. There should be a twelve step program for deletionists. Gregbard 00:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of downloadable airline timetables[edit]

WP:NOT#IINFO. Just a directory of external links. I previously tagged this for speedy A3, as it contains no content except external links. User:DGG removed the db tag, claiming it "may be controversial". The criteria for speedy deletion as CSD A3 is; "No content other than external links of whatever kind", and apart from the introductory sentence, this is only a list of external links, so IMO this qualifies for speedy deletion. Masaruemoto 04:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertisement.--Sefringle^Talk 05:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination reason. Cs1987 05:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchia (talk • contribs) 06:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an internet directory. This is more or less tantamount to a directory of airline websites. We should have links to the company website, where users can find the timetable if they want it, but they should be in the articles of each airline, not as a separate article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; these links belong on each airline. John Vandenberg 10:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement and/or Vanity Article. Pursey 12:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — unencyclopedic, and is in violation of Wikipedia Not.Yamaka122 ...:) 13:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed with nominator. Carlosguitar 14:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non and WP:LISTCRUFT. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per nom. Good grief. --Calton | Talk 15:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sjakkalle. Like Sefringle, I also view this as an advertisement, because the content can have no conceivable use other than to promote commercial transactions: it has no encyclopaedic value. Jakew 16:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:LISTCRUFT. Bravedog 17:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory, nor a haven for listcruft, nor an external links deposit. This page is quite clearly all 3 - indeed, by title alone it's going to run in to WP:NOT#DIR problems. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Bearian 01:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as failing WP:BAND and as copyvio of http://www.profugusmortis.com/bio_en.html. - KrakatoaKatie 02:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Profugus mortis[edit]

I was about to put a speedy tag on this one but technically there is a bit of an assertion of notability in that the band won a prize at something called the Extreme Distortion Festival a couple of years ago. Basically though I think this group fails notability as described at WP:BAND, though they do seem like they are "up and coming" and will perhaps be notable enough in the near future. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick search shows no signs of notability. Myspace hits and promos. MarkBul 04:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Appears to be signed artist, but by a label I can't find much info on. Google hits return promo's for band but nothing of any real substance. Still concerned that this should be kept as a possible notable Canadian Black Metal group. Pursey 12:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The text of this article is copied straight from the band's website. Added copyvio template accordingly. Mr pand 12:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CitiCat^♫ 00:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries receiving snowfall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

WP:NOT#IINFO; snow falls in lots of countries, that doesn't mean a list of those countries is encyclopedic. What next, List of countries receiving rainfall? Was nominated once before in 2005, but AFD standards were lower then and many of the "keep" comments were "it's interesting", or worse. Masaruemoto 03:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO, totally pointless list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 04:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This list is just slightly shorter than List of countries receiving sunshine. DCEdwards1966 04:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The map and photos are pretty cool, please be sure to move them to snow if the result is delete. Wl219 04:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dunno... I'm a deletion dog, and this one is close. It is associated with the Snow article, as suggested for lists. On the other hand, there are no references. If every listing was referenced I think I'd Keep it. It's a lot better than the typical "Video Game Bimbo's Who Show Their Coochie" lists that show up here. MarkBul 05:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is this a joke?--Sefringle^Talk 05:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - really pointless. Cs1987 05:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. Arbitrary cutoff altitude and even hot countries once in a long while get snow. Clarityfiend 07:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not serve as a means of navigation, could not be a (useful) category and is largely unreferenced original research. Pedro | Chat 07:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is very professional and rich of useful information about rare and unique snowfalls made by the best world expert in this category. Forsure Wikipedia will loose if the list is deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.146.173 (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melt Seems incredibly pointless. A list of countries never to receive snowfall would be interesting... Pursey 12:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete — Is way to general because it snows in way to many places, but it's an ok list. Yamaka122 ...:) 13:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was originally going to vote delete, but this has been up for AfD before with the decision to keep. I see no reason why we should decide differently this time around, even if it does go against my own "beliefs". Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article, as titled, sounds like a rather indiscriminate list. On the other hand, it would be useful to have a list of average snowfall and mention of where it falls in each country. I don't know if we already have such an article, but a reorganization of this list would provide some useful information. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change name to Snowfall by country, and add it to Lists by country. The problem was with the name, which is causing it to be interpretted as a "list of members" rather than as "list by country". Framed in a more appropriate context (with new name), the article is entirely encyclopedic and fits in Wikipedia's "by country" section. The Transhumanist 18:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Infrequent snowfall and either delete those parts of the article not meeting that (admittedly arbitrary) criterion, or move them to Snow. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's replace this with something really stupid like "Category: Countries receiving snowfall" and we can add that tag at the bottom the page of every article about a country. Mandsford 01:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and snowball, as suggested by Clarityfiend. Bearian 01:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list contains very interesting information (thanks to me too :-))), maybe it was the way how it was created that is questionable. Maybe the title should be changed and the content reorganized. Rare snowfall information should be kept maybe in a list Snow by countries and a list of countries where snow has never been reported on their territories may be more interesting. I have already made a list of countries where frost has never occurred, if you give me time I will create the one of countries where snow has never been reported . Anyway, you can do it easily just by picking up the countries which are not in this list ! Clarityfiend is clearly ignorant in this field, since there are DOZENS of countries where a single flake of snow has NEVER been reported. Cheers. mh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs) 07:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CitiCat^♫ 00:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Mendoza[edit]

Non-notable blogger. Book is self published, no indication that it set any records in the Phillipines or anywhere else. No reliable sources to verify the article. Article is edited in a great part by the subject. Fails WP:V, WP:BIO and WP:COI. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless somebody can show significant coverage. Being named an emerging blogger by another blogger is not really a claim to notability Corpx 09:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Apparently started by himself, full of buzzwords and peacock words, completely non-notable despite of the article's claim of "known throughout the world". Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm from the Philippines but I never heard of him in the news. Google only gave his blog Lenticel ^(talk) 02:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete or replace the article with the Philippine Basketball Association player of the same person... unless they're same person. --Howard the Duck 06:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Not yet that notable. Maybe in the future, but at this point he doesn't have anything to distinguish him from the hundreds of bloggers in Manila by WP standards. --- Tito Pao 04:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies that do business with Sudan[edit]

WP:NOT#DIR and possibly created with some kind of agenda; to quote; "Lists of this kind have been assembled to undermine the economic security of the government of Sudan". Masaruemoto 03:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a veteran of the South African boycott there is a need for a strict definition. Is the company selling in Sudan? Do they own stock in a subsidiary of a company in another country that does business in Sudan? Do they actually sell to the government of Sudan? What about companies that are doing unqualified "good", say, exporting fair trade goods that help villagers in distressed areas of Sudan? And so on. One organization's list is always a bit different than another organization's list. Then you have the lists that are simply out of date, such as the rally I heard about (apocryphally, but it's illustrative of the problem) where they had to cross out the name of one of the companies on the signs mid-rally when it was determined they had divested their holdings the year before? I don't put any weight on the quoted motivation, free speech and all, but stepping out a level this is essentially POV, not to mention nearly unmaintainable and almost impossible to police in terms of scope. --Dhartung | Talk 04:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NOT#SPAM. Should we have Lsit of companies that do business with the United States or Lsit of companies that do business with the United Kingdom or Lsit of companies that do business with China or Lsit of companies that do business with India, etc. What a bunch of useless lists that would include almost all international companies.--Sefringle^Talk 05:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we should spell them with "list" instead of "lsit"... =) JIP | Talk 17:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. It's pretty much just a pointless directory. Cs1987 05:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the information is out of date and without proper sourcing it is not salvageable. John Vandenberg 12:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOT#DIR. To indiscriminate. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, needless list, seems to be made to promote someone's POV. JIP | Talk 10:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft.--Aldux 16:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. KrakatoaKatie 02:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gestalt prayer[edit]

Delete a belatedly contested prod which had been deleted, unsourced article about a prayer or poem, a couple thousand google hits but not much by way of realiable sources - about 1/3 of the sites indicate that the prayer is copyright ([23] gives 800 hits), so this could be a copyvio as well Carlossuarez46 03:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, according to this it was first published in "Gestalt therapy verbatim" and probably later in his autobiography. As far as I can tell it was first published by Bantam Books, a united states company, and the only renewal I can see is this '51 book. John Vandenberg 12:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Something published in 1969 or having its copyright renewed in 1979 is probably still under copyright protection - I think it lasts quite a long time: otherwise all the movies and books and music from the 1950's and 1960's and 1970's would be public domain which is contrary to my understanding. Carlossuarez46 17:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right about that; s:Template:PD-US-no-renewal stops at 1964. However, the book appears to be primarily a compilation of "verbatim transcripts from his large-scale weekend dreamwork seminars between 1966 and 1968 and from an intensive four-week gesalt therapy workshop in 1968, all of which were held at Esalen." There is definitely a fair-use case that can be made for this, however it may also fit within s:Template:PD-US-no-notice if distribution of the text of the prayer was promoted in those workshops. John Vandenberg 23:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP This is a perfectly good stub with a valid reference source. The Gestalt Prayer was a mantra of the 1970's that inundated American culture. It was quoted often and nearly everywhere. My dad had it on a plaque on the wall in our downstairs den. Schools and churches had plaques on their walls. It was used as the basis for many lectures, sermons, philosophies, books. It had a real place in the history and shaping of American culture. there should be an article on this subject and this is a good start.OfficeGirl 05:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any chance you could ask your father when/where he purchased that? A photo of it would also be an excellent addition to the article. John Vandenberg 23:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP As a response to questions of the cultural importance, I've added a section on the impact and legacy of the prayer. I've also cited several journal articles which have discussed the prayer about 15 years after it's original publication. I hope this goes some way to demonstrating the popular and academic significance and longevity of the text. 212.56.88.63 14:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 111 Google Book hits and 33 Google Scholar hits. John Vandenberg 23:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Gestalt Prayer is a vitally important document in understanding the human potential movement, as well as the culture of the '60's and '70's. Jack Gaines' oral biography of Perls, Fritz Perls Here and Now (1979, Celestial Arts Publishing) details the impact and controversy surrounding the Gestalt Prayer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.207.70 (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete. Maxim_(talk) 13:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn of the Dead in popular culture[edit]

Delete - yet another directory of loosely associated items. List seeks to capture anything that references Dawn of the Dead or anything that is supposedly "inspired by" DOTD or any time a film poster from DOTD appears in the background with no regard for the triviality of the reference. The list tells us nothing about DOTD, nothing about the fiction from which the references are drawn, nothing about their relationship to each other (since there is none) and nothing about the real world. Otto4711 03:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia isn't a trivia guide, and is not a directory of loosely associated terms. RobJ1981 04:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disappointed that this line of attempted deletions continues, and that some still do not realise that artists influence each other. To use the straight-forward example provided by the nom., when a director makes a film and puts a poster for another film in the scene he is making an explicit reference connecting the two. Not particularly subtle, but neither are in my opinion the films. Certainly clear enough evidence for the significance of the relationship. Editors who understand relationships contribute content to WP. But even editors who do not understand should avoid seeking to perpetuate the lack of understanding by keeping serious significance out when others contribute it. doesntmakesensetome, soitcantbeimportant. DGG (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. Just because director A likes director B's movie that doesn't mean that director A has been "influenced" by director B. Filmmakers put trivial little props in their movies as shout outs to their buddies all the time. That doesn't mean that every time something from one movie shows up in another movie that the first movie has had any "cultural impact" on the other at all. And, frankly, your attempt to portray people who disagree with you as ignorant is insulting and borders on a failure to assume good faith. Otto4711 07:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extended thread about participants in this and other AFDs moved to the talk page.--Chaser - T 05:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is original research for some of these items and others are as trivial as one line mention in a song's lyrics. Merge anything significant to Dawn of the Dead Corpx 09:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — It is a list internal links with violations of WP:NOT, but if it was cut down to the most important influences it could be made into a small section of the Dawn of the Dead article. Yamaka122 ...:) 13:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After having read the article and found in wanting in sources, I nevertheless feel that the article does cover a notable film that has recently been remade and that is part of a major horror series. The article demonstrates the film's significant impact on popular culture. The list format perhaps could be converted into text and references are needed, but we should approach this article with User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy in mind and thereby give the article a chance. Moreover, the film's place in and relationship to popular culture has attracted serious scholarly study, as seen here. And articles can be found discussing the film's similarities and differences with Dead Rising. Also, please note that I submitted my post here to two admins for approval before posting on this discussion as part of my participation in the adopt-a-user program. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a directory of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR by design. Jay32183 18:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Just a directory of loosely associated topics"? After all the talk of sockpuppetry above? The mind boggles. Desdinova 20:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making any claim about this article other than "it is a directory of loosely associated topics and should be deleted" is factually incorrect. Any complaint about sock puppetry is meaningless whining by people who can't have their way because they don't bother tho read and understand policy. Jay32183 02:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loosely associated with each other or loosely associated with Dawn of The Dead? The former is a misreading of WP:NOT#DIR. Artw 15:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, the latter is. A directory of loosely associated topics is one which contains stuff that isn't related to each other. If this were being used as analysis from secondary sources, you might have a point. No such sources have been provided. Jay32183 19:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That;s a completely seperate issue form your misreadfing of WP:NOT#DIR, which these days is becoming a useless subset of WP:IDONTLIKEIT through misuse. Artw 23:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not misreading policy, you are misunderstanding the English language. A directory of loosely associated topics is a collection of things not related to each other. By definition, I'm right, you're wrong, and the article must be deleted. Jay32183 00:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to be open to debate. My reading is that your interpretation is an extremist one and far from the mandate for policy-based deletion you seem to think it is. Artw 03:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an open issue. By definition, this is a directory of loosely associated topics. There isn't another interpretation. Any one who says otherwise does not grasp English well enough to participate in this discussion. Jay32183 03:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly you should reread WP:CIVIL as well. Artw 03:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't going to follow WP:NOT you shouldn't be telling people to follow other policies. You don't have a point. There isn't anything you can say that would result in this article not being a perfect candidate for deletion. You need to accept that you are wrong, because there is a zero percent chance that you are right. Jay32183 03:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anything of significance that fits should be merged to Zombies in popular culture or Dawn of the dead, though those both seem adequately served right now. Artw 19:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia needs to reach a consensus on these types of articles - rather than just doing individual debates like this one. Desdinova 20:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possibly, but I've seen enough blanket decisions and the discussions that result in them to advise caution... --Kizor 23:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it (1) is clearly notable; (2) has reliable sources (but needs more), and (3) is not indiscriminate (it has ordered sections). Some lists are cruft and some are not, per WP:LIST. Bearian 01:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't address the concern that the article fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 02:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See link above. Artw 03:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film is notable, and its effect on popular culture is extensive enough to deserve an article. If given a free hand I would tighten up and shorten the article. More references are needed. The cited paper by Stephen Harper (under External Links) seems good and there could be others out there. EdJohnston 02:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't address the concern that the article fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 02:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See link above. Artw 03:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable per coverage like this article. Any article can be called a "collection of loosely associated items" -- take the Bush article for example, which mentions his background as a cheerleader, or the Bertrand Russell article, which mentions his lonely childhood experience. Some of the items in this article are more closely connected than others; the overall I don't think the relevance is particularly loose, and the references which are can be removed. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Vote - Just wanted to point out WP:ITANNOYSME - It may be a list now, but we had a featured article that started as an "in popular culture" list. That is not a reason for deletion. Whether or not the subject is notable and CAN be expanded is what should be debated. Denaar 15:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It can't be. No one has shown sources that it can. Jay32183 18:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It has been proved it can be to my satisfaction by comments above. Denaar 18:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jay, what about this article? Americana is "an academic, non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation . . . dedicated to the publication of exceptional American creative writing and American Studies scholarship," which publishes "three highly selective periodicals." "All of the work submitted to [their] periodicals goes through the rigorous process of peer and editorial review." And an 11 page article dedicated to the subject is substantial coverage, IMO. — xDanielx ^T/_C 18:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That has nothing to do with this article. This is a list of things that reference Dawn of the Dead. Critical analysis of Dawn of the Dead is fine. This isn't even a starting point. Use that article to expand the Dawn of the Dead article. That single ref doesn't justify a stand alone article. Since it hasn't been incorporated yet just let this get deleted and expand the main article, avoiding the inevitable merge if you were to just write it here. Jay32183 20:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suggest reading the whole article (as in the referenced article, not the WP article). — xDanielx ^T/_C 08:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The ref is not a list of every mention of Dawn of the Dead, it is analysis of its role in popular culture. The Wikipedia article is a list of mentions, not an analysis of the role in popular culture. The ref does not support this article. Even if it supports an article with this title, all of the existing content would still have to be removed. However, since it is a single source, use it to expand the main article, because it won't justify a stand alone article. Jay32183 20:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So can't this source (and others, once some research is done) be used to turn the article into a discussion of the film's role in popular culture, rather than a list? If any editor is really interested in salvaging this article, they can start with that. :) --Midnightdreary 22:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You'd have to start from either way. A single source does not usually make a stand alone article when there is a logical place to merge. This list needs to go away. If you want to use those sources expand the main article, because the new article will just end up being merged. Jay32183 22:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It really isn't relevant that the WP article gives more specific examples than the reference which establishes notability. The subject is the same (actually the reference has a somewhat different focus, but it certain does give substantial coverage to the subject of this WP article), so it stands that the subject is notable per WP:N. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:N isn't the issue with this article, WP:NOT#DIR is. No matter what, everything that is here has to go. Right now the Dawn of the Dead article needs its section on pop culture expanded, even if a stand alone article is justified. This article is not that stand alone article. Start by expanding that section and use summary style if necessary. It's better to split too much than to merge too little. Jay32183 01:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I can agree with that. I'll change my vote (struck out below) to ~~Delete~~ with the expectation that info from the great source (and hopefully others) in the popular culture article will be integrated into the main article (which, by the way, needs lots more sources throughout). My hope, of course, is that a dedicated editor for the Dawn of the Dead article will put some real effort into making it a substantial section avoiding cruft. If it becomes a really good section on its own, then it may be worth separating again. Any volunteers? --Midnightdreary 01:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - If I understand correctly, it sounds like you're supporting a merge as opposed to deletion? — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You got me. I meant merge meaningful content. My suggestion at this point might be close the AfD discussion (it's getting heated and not really moving forward), give a chance for the dedicated supporters of this article some time to improve it then renominate. Anyone else think this is the most civil route? --Midnightdreary 12:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        WP:NOT#DIR doesn't say that we can't have directories of information (if it did, we would have to delete all lists and categories) -- just that being a directory of information doesn't guarantee inclusion in and of itself. Whether articles of this nature constitute "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" has been debated ad nauseum, and while it is probably a reasonable argument, there is nothing objectively correct or incorrect about it based on the loose policies. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        This article is undeniably a collection of loosely associated topics. There is no debate over the application of WP:NOT#DIR. There are, however, people who do not understand it and complain that they cannot make there lists of things that are only tangentially related to each other. Jay32183 06:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, except on the talk page, as noted above. Also your comments about "people who don't understand it" sounds a lot like the WP:CIVIL breach above that got you a talking too from admins. Artw 17:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not a act of incivility. It is the truth. You quite specifically do not understand the policy and hide behind the "you're a jerk defense". Saying I'm uncivil does not change the fact that you are wrong and need to grasp a better understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is no debate on the issue. Jay32183 18:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        This is getting very boring. You were uncivil and you got a slapdown for it. You're verging on incivility again. And I am not "wrong" because it is quite clearly debated on that talk page. Artw 19:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        And this is why we may as well just close as no consensus. I hope that the editors interested in this article (such as yourself, Jay32183) at least consider the advice that has been suggested here and do their best to improve it. Even if the article isn't wholly agreed to be in need of deletion or merging, it should still stand that there is a legitimate reason to suggest those actions. There has been enough support for deletion to affirm that it's certainly questionable and that seems undeniable. I'll keep an eye on both the main article and the popular culture spin off and continue giving my advice, if that helps. Don't forget to assume good faith, by the way. --Midnightdreary 19:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        While I object to the use of WP:NOT#DIR as a deletion hammer against Popular Culture articles I think theres still a good argument for the merging or deletion of this article - it's way to specific, and most of it's content is fluff. That's a judgement call rather than policy, and others may disagree. I donlt think theres any particular reason here to call for an early close. Arn't we about done anyway? Artw 19:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (vote changed) - Can be salvaged. I want to make the response, too, that Wikipedia is dedicated to verifiable truth so just because you know in your gut that Ozzy Osbourne is referencing the movie when he happens to put four or five words together doesn't mean it's verifiable. That may mean massive cut-down on this article. But, having seen there are a couple of sources out there that do talk about the impact of Dawn of the Dead on popular culture implies some notability to the topic. So, may suggestion is all the editors here that have passionately defended the in popular culture article do that work first: cut, snip, verify and source as much as possible. Then, convert as much as possible into a prose-based discussion of the impact (which, frankly, the best sources will provide information for, rather than list form). After all that heavy work is done, we can take a look at what's left and see if it's worth merging into the main article. But, who really knows how much is left over once all the cruft is gone? As a side note, that Ozzy line is a huge speculation, and a bad one at that. Boo. =) --Midnightdreary 18:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is the movie notable, of course. Is an article based on a bunch of trivial mentions on said movie notable, no way. People need to realize that on these article, we are not denying that the movie is notable, and just about every movie has effected pop culture in one way or another, but separate articles of trivia are not needed. This could easily be widdled to a paragraph or less and put back into the main article. Dannycali 19:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Obviously. Highly influential film, important part of pop culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was source and merge into Largest organisms. KrakatoaKatie 02:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heaviest land animals[edit]

Not prodding this as it will inevitably be contested and wind up here - but this is pure OR and an indiscriminate list of information if ever I saw one — iridescent (talk to me!) 02:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source the figures, then merge them into Largest organisms. Add the average weights into the various entries that lack those figures. The Transhumanist 02:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per The Transhumanist. John Vandenberg 13:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, improvements appear to have negated most of the reasons given by those !voting Delete. ELIMINATORJR 12:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saskatchewan provincial roads[edit]

This is a list of a lot of rural roads, with nothing setting any apart from any others. I don't see the use of the list, and I'm a "roadgeek". NE2 02:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "This is a list of a lot of rural roads, with nothing setting any apart from any others." - Did you read the descriptions that follow each road name? One can find many things that demonstrate the roads' differences. "I don't see the use of the list, and I'm a 'roadgeek'." The list is meant to be a collection of all Saskatchewan rural roads that are not necessarily highways. It is similar to a list of highways within a province, but not all of the roads would have their own articles. Ultraflame 02:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My reading of Wiki Lists: list pages should link to a page written on the subject. There is no such page talking about Saskatchewan roads, so there should be no List page. Q.E.D. MarkBul 03:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the lists of Pokémon (List of Pokémon (61-80), for example)? Few of those link to any articles (and if they exist, they are intended to be deleted before long). Should those be deleted also, even though most members of WikiProject Pokémon (myself included) support the switch to the list format? Ultraflame 00:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Must say I have a vested interest in this topic as I was original creator)... And I will add for now just ~~six~~ seven rationales for keeping the article....
- There are currently lists being prodded for deletion because they only mention in the listing articles created and in a category, so the deletion says the list has to leave, as the info is already covered in the category. In this case, the list is original and helps to create articles for the category.
- The other rationale for keeping this article, is that many of these roads define a large part of Saskatchewan's history. As the roads which are named, for example...Haultain Road, Strehlow Road, Indi Road all mark either communities which centered around a one room school house, or town which no longer exists, or which may exist depending on the road name and place. These placenames all had a rich and vibrant history in the Sifton Last Best West immigration era. Towns, schools, elevators, needed to be about miles apart in the horse and buggy days, and the industrial revolution caused a change in Saskatchewan scenery, as mechanisation meant larger centres further apart. These roads thus named, help us to find our Saskatchewan past and roots. Cemeteries can be located for genealogists, one room school houses, and ghost towns for historians come alive with our provincial roads, for one example.
- When traveling to locations in Saskatchewan and one needs to locate for instance.... FOREST NOOK School District # 2048 at Sec Tsp 27 Rge 8 W of the 2 Meridian Sk A near Jedburgh, P.O. the directions can only be cited using rural roads and their names, identifcation, notability make travel so, so, so much easier. Or perhaps a genealogist from England travels to Saskatchewan and wishes to locate family ancestry at Delisle Fron Lutheran Cemetery which is located at NW Section 19-Tsp35-Rge8-W3, the directions again rely on rural Saskatchewan roads which also can be located, traveled upon much much easier with naming, identification, and notability to recognize our ancestry again. Or perhaps a historian wishes to find an early homestead for a provincial or national historic site, and once again, the legal land description can only be arrived at with rural road travel. More currently our rural residents are familiar with their neighborhood, but the census taker still needs also to know the roads to arrive at their destination to enumerate our population, a rural resident requires counting and recognition of an early ethinc bloc settlement which has evolved into a current placename of history is just as important as the urban residents.
- Fourth Rationale...Some of our newer rural industries such as Doepker Industries who are trailer makers in Annaheim, Saskatchewan require rural roads for their sustenance and survival in Saskatchewan, as Annaheim is not located on a highway, but is located on a rural road, and Doepker industries could not get its semi truck trailers into sales without travel on these rural roads.
- Fifth rationale...As just a few points can be considered, it should be enough to suffice the beginning of an article, especially as an article on Saskatchewan Provincial roads could expand with references and sources, and not just a few thoughts which spring to mind. So an article on Provincial roads could indeed be begun.
- Sixth Rationale...I opened nearly every provincial highway listing, across Canada....as well as a few U.S. state highway listings, and none of them have an article about the list...but do the same introductory paragraph... that the wikilink is around the state / province, and a wikilink is around the article defining interstate/highway/road but not an article pertaining to the roads and highways of that locale for any of the lists, which seems that the immediately preceding comment is not valid for a whole host of lists...I will open a few more non highway as well as non road lists shortly and see if the above comment by another user is valid for other topic lists, and if it is used in practice.
- Seventh rationale...the governance and upkeep of the various roads are by the Rural municipality with provincial government assistance whereas the highways are provincial government upkeep. So the manpower, finances, maintenance issues are varied and diverse in various fields of endeavours. SriMesh | talk 03:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - New comment regarding Keep. Would like permission to change name of article to 'Saskatchewan provincial roads'.

The red links regarding roads have been deleted
An under construction article regarding the preliminary history of Saskatchewan roads is added to the list...which is still being sourced for more additional information and history.

- - With road article definition added of roads and how they rank compared to highways will help to define notability. There are Saskatchewan roads which are small gravel roads, and there are paved roads which are secondary highways, which connect or are concurrent with highways for the majority of their length. As the rail lines close down, roads are upgraded to highways to support local mining or oil and gas industry as well as to get grain to market. Is there a definition of notability regarding...
A. number of vehicles that travel the road/highway
B. length of road/highway
C. construction material of the road/highway
D. residential centers of the road/highway
E. industry of the road/highway
F. what the road provides travel for - people - tourism - industry - goods - products - 'why the heck was it made in the first place, most roads in Saskatchewan are not decoration, and why the heck is it maintained and why the heck is it being upgraded from road to highway or gravel road to paved road and / or why the heck is it being left to deteriorate and become abandoned....?
G. Just delete anything with road in the title....

Deleting anything with road in the title eliminates quite a few range roads and township roads which really have another highway name as well. The moniker range roads and township roads is a legal land description naming convention in Saskatchewan dealing with location, and many range roads and township roads are A.K.A. highways. SriMesh | talk 05:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Me again, as the article progresses there develop two notions regarding notability guidelines one of which is functionality and amount of use and classification of road or highway as major arterial, minor arterial, collector and local, as well Notability standards comprise how many times the topic is mentioned in other sources.... showing significant coverage.SriMesh | talk 02:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Under WP:SAL

"Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." Is there going to be an article on Saskatchewan roads any time soon? MarkBul 05:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article begun under construction at the top of the list article as we speak now...SriMesh | talk 05:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We will determine if any of the roads are notable enough to have their own articles. In any case, we currently have 8th Street East (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan) and Grasswood Road, Saskatchewan. Valley Road, Saskatchewan redirects to Saskatchewan Highway 762. Ultraflame 00:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, articles like this are almost common: Category:Lists of roads. Unless someone comes up with general criteria for this stuff, there is no reason to delete the Saskatchewan road list, while keeping others. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing on the list is notable. They are all dime-a-dozen two-lane roads, maintained locally. The notable ones are in List of Saskatchewan provincial highways. --NE2 07:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The cat also contains stuff like List of county routes in Middlesex County, New Jersey and List of traffic circles in New Jersey. Please don't mention WP:OTHERSTUFFETC, I know that one. But its useless to start deleting articles like this when there are no guidelines on roads etc... --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A proposal for a notability guideline was started here, but was rejected citing "instruction creep". --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can understand if these were major highways, but every single roads in a province? I think this falls under WP:NOT#DIRECTORY Corpx 09:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are there so many lists of local roads elsewhere (some of which were mentioned by Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr))? Do you support deleting all of those as well? I will again mention the lists of Pokémon, and you may find the rationale of merging the Pokémon articles yourself. Ultraflame 00:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, will gladly support deletion of those Corpx 18:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you may nominate them for deletion. Ultraflame 03:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete As per above. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Remotely interesting however. Pursey 12:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After looking over it again and considering the rationale of the original creator, I'm inclined to agree that this article does have some merit. I'll give it benefit of the doubt in this case, and change my original statement to be one of Support for Keeping the article. Pursey 14:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In my view, this "article" could be either kept or deleted. However, if kept, it needs a lot of reworking, including the delinking of every single one of those roads. I don't see how an article on any of those roads would ever make it to B-class or better; I would also be hard-pressed to defend any of them if they were individually taken to AFD. The articles also use the wrong disambiguation, as roads should use "(Saskatchewan)" instead of ", Saskatchewan". But returning to the point of this page...the pivotal question is whether a list of individual non-notable roads is notable by itself. Personally, I don't believe it is. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have already stated that I do not intend for all of the roads listed to have their own articles. If you do not agree with lists of roads, do you also agree with deleting every single local road list existing on Wikipedia? Ultraflame 03:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Local road lists, yes. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At first I thought this was the list of provincial highways. However, it is not. This is too confusing, and is a red link farm, or at least a perma-stub farm. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ah yes - It did strike me at first as a list of Provincial highways. but alas - one should rightfully question the notability of the article links that have been listed here. Even if all are notable (which I would not say as such) - you're looking at perma-stubs here. Nonetheless it is essentially a red-link farm. master son^{T - C} 18:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To the two people posting above: We are not aiming to create articles for all of them, just the notable ones. The red links for the less notable roads could be removed, and then paragraphs could be written about them within the road list. Are red links THAT difficult to remove? Ultraflame 03:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article/list is just an enormous red-link farm. While it does have some merit, it is listing most of the non-notable roads in Saskatchewan, with no line for inclusion and non-inclusion. Provincial roads in Canada can be practically any road there is, notable or not, and from what I've seen, most of these are not. (→O - R L Y?) 21:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Commnent to the above three red link farm deletionists. The red links in the article regarding the roads have been removed, and a listing is made to support an article about Saskatchewan roads, and a request made to change the name of the article as such. From the article development, hopefully, a concrete theory regarding road notability format is established instead of just a mad deletion rush just for the sake of deleting something. SriMesh | talk 05:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also comment on this article Regional road which lists road definition and notable regional roads of Ireland. SriMesh | talk 00:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new text looks fine, but the old list should still go. I don't know why you didn't make it as a new article. --NE2 16:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced content should not be transwikied. May be redirected to wherever appropriate. Sandstein 06:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vagina gentium[edit]

Either this is genuine, in which case it's a seemingly unsourced dicdef that should be transwikied. Or, while not quite something made up in school one day, it's a phrase that's never used. I know Google's unscientific etc etc, but I can find no legitimate non-trivial use of this phrase anywhere. As I'm frankly a bit baffled by this one, bringing it here for consensus as to whether to boot it over to Wiktionary, delete it altogether or keep-and-expand (having gone through what sorry sources I can find, I do not volunteer to do this) — iridescent (talk to me!) 02:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki To Wikitionary Mbisanz 02:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Wikitionary [24]. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 03:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I love the vagina, this version must go. The theory is real, the term was no part of my anthropology education. MarkBul 03:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking reliable sources and therefore failing WP:V. The term was used by the historian Jordanes to describe the part of Scandinavia from which the Gothic tribes erupted into the Roman world, and it has since been applied to other areas from which peoples have spread into surrounding regions, but in a hasty search I can find no evidence of its use to mean "the place where humans first appeared," as stated in the article. Deor 03:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Wikitionary Would fit over there, but probably not deserving of an article. Pursey 03:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although an article for this phrase could be written over at Wiktionary, this certainly is not it. J Milburn 13:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. FWIW, vagina gentium is not really Latin; originally, vagina meant "sheath" or "scabbard", and its use to describe female private parts is relatively late in development. Venter gentium feels more natural (venter, "belly" or "womb"). - Smerdis of Tlön 13:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that Jordanes probably knew Latin better than you or I do, so saying that the expression is "not really Latin" isn't much help. Deor 18:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree about saying it is "not really Latin" is not extremely helpful, SoT is correct in the original meaning of "vagina", and its usage appears to be incorrect here. Off topic, what does "FWIW" mean? J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think FWIW means "for what it's worth." The usage would be incorrect—or at least muddled—if what Jordanes meant was in fact "womb of nations"; but who's to say that was what he was trying to express? (And if he had meant "womb," he probably would have used matrix or alvus, not venter.) Perhaps the metaphor he had in mind was that of the birth canal rather than the womb. In any event, I still think the article should be deleted, since as I said above, there appear to be no sources that back up its claim that the term is used to refer to "the place where humans first appeared." Deor 12:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jordanes (6th century), who described himself as as agramatus - illiterate, wrote a rather poor approximation of classical latin. Delete this entry. /Pieter Kuiper 20:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XWiki to Wiktionary, but take out the speculation. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 20:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki this is much more suited for the Wikitionary.--JForget 01:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There's an article on Cradle of civilization, so this should be a redirect to that article. This article shows that it is a legitimate term "coined by Iordanes in the 6th century". SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 15:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's So Raven: The Movie Musical![edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/That's So Raven: The Movie Musical!

Procedural nomination after a readdition of a Prod tag. Prod reasoning was "The article lacks sources." Michael Greiner 01:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. One non-Wikipedia Google hit for a film supposedly set to go into production sometime next year. Otto4711 01:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal ballery. I can't find any sources for it. Someguy1221 01:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources on any site --Yankeesrj12 01:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources to be found. John Vandenberg 01:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Crystal Ball, No Sources, Nothing too Relevant on Google. Pursey 03:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not this again. Nuke from orbit per all above. --Core desat 04:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, reads like a fan page. Bravedog 17:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as above. Eusebeus 20:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into That's So Raven, although it probably never left... Mandsford 14:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. TheInfinityZero 15:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Utterly fails WP:ENC. Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural references to Grand Central Terminal[edit]

Delete - directory of loosely associated topics. List seeks to capture every reference or appearance of a particular building, or buildings that aren't even identified as the building except through the original research of the editor who spotted it. This list of trivia tells us nothing about the building, nothing about the fiction that contains the trivia, nothing about their interrelationship (as there is none) and nothing about the real world. Otto4711 01:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fix the above-mentioned problems, or delete The Transhumanist 02:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost all the mentions on the list are trivial, like where "Tobey Maguire's character rushes to board the last train of the evening back to Connecticut". Merge the significant mentions back into the main article and delete this per list of loosely associated items / trivia Corpx 09:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . If we wanted to establish a list of every mention based on RSs, this might be a good start-- as it is, it lists a few significant ones from major works--Szilard, Hitchcock, Salinger George M Cohan. --all of these are certainly sourceable. And more recent major films: Armaggadon, and many others. If Corpx has objections to one or two, let him make suggestions on the article talk page. No, this article doesnt say everything there is to say about the buildings or the films--it does what a list article should do--collect major references together. More work needs to be done on these articles, but probably every thing here could be expanded. And no, I am not about to write this entire section of WP, but neither am I suggesting we delete it. Its so easy to say delete and so hard to add content. That's no reason to concentrate on deletion. DGG (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't want to establish a list of every single time GST is merely mentioned in every single book, magazine article, TV show, movie, play, etc. because such a list is a collection of trivia. It's not that this article doesn't say "everything" about the building or the fiction. It's that it says nothing about the building or the fiction. Otto4711 13:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we only want to mention the significant ones. i think the significant ones are easily defined as the ones where the work mentioning them is notable enough for an article in WP. This is is similar to the practice in links in general. Remember that the individual items of content in an article just have to be relevant, not meet WP:N. DGG (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You can tell from the title that this was written by a New York City snob. Yes, we know you New Yorkers don't call it "Grand Central Station", but the other 5,990,000,000 of us do. Even the remark "What is this, G__ C___ S___?" is as outdated as saying that something is "the cat's meow". Basically, this is the usual IPC article about mentions and sightings of the world famous "Grand Central Terminal". If we were to substitute "JFK" for GCS, it would illustrate that a terminal, no matter how famous, is not much a part of our culture. Mandsford 14:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That;s just an argument for rename, and the question is what the references in general. good idea to have a similar article about JFK if we dont. the cultural references are all for this specific terminal/station.

Oh Geez, don't tell me I've inspired someone to write an idiotic article about all the mentions and sightings of the JFK Airport too.... Nobody outside of "The Big Apple" gives a shit about Grand Central Station. Mandsford 21:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Ah... the good old similar to the IPC articles and without sources.--JForget 01:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced is not a reason for deletion. But yes, like other IPC articles which should be expanded, sourced , and kept. DGG (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have mean also per WP:TRIVIA and as listcruft. However, scrolling back the article and the first part doesn't look too bad, although sources and expansion would be needed as you stated. However, the latter part is similar to every IPC or other similar types of articles which means containing a long list/collection of OR trivia. I'm changing the vote to Merge with the main article because there is some content that can be salvageable and that can be moved there providing sources are included. Then remove/delete the trivia trash per WP:NOT and that is impossible to be sourced to meet WP:V.--JForget 18:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge, because well-organized article, does not violate any policies, contains a nice text introduction, images, etc., i.e. more than just a list; with that said, definitely please do add some references. Perhaps a good start would even be something asking about how cultural references to Grand Central Terminal has changed: Is Grand Central Station still a focal point?. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very trivial list of mentions that isn't useful. These dumping ground articles need to go. There has been more than enough time to clean them up, and no one has done it. RobJ1981 00:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPOILER (film)[edit]

Delete - appears to fail WP:N. Otto4711 00:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Spoiler (1998 film) - the film appears in the IMDb [[25]], and it appears to have been distributed by a major studio, and received some sort of a public release. Seems notable enough, although the quality of the article itself leaves something to be desired. I suggest moving to an address including the date so that the page is not mistaken for a general explanation of the concept of a spoiler in a film. Terrafire 01:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB seeks to capture every movie regardless of any other factor so an IMDB listing by itself doesn;t mean much if anything in terms of notability. The release appears to have been direct-to-video [26] and there do not appear to be reliable sources that are substantially about this film as WP:N requires. Otto4711 02:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, many notable actors making this stub a useful linkage page. Also it was also released in German[27] and there are reviews in German.[28][29] John Vandenberg 02:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appearences by several notable actors, reviews are available in both German and English. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above evidence that the film is real. Bravedog 17:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suggesting that the silm is not real. The film's existence does not establish the film's notability. Otto4711 18:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is always a dubious criteria. We have verifiable information that can be expressed in a neutral point of view. Good enough for this editor. Terrafire 13:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 01:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin unicorns[edit]

The article is an absolute hoax. No truth in the article whatsoever. Mattinbgn\^talk 00:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a hoax (I like the image, though). =Axlq 01:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - their players are back from "decades" of retirement? No evidence that this is a genuine team. Even if genuine, the article is entirely related to a possible future team that may play, may be successful and may then go on to notability. Alas, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Euryalus 02:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal ball, probable hoax and not-notable--ZayZayEM 02:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources provided, and none appear to exist either. John Vandenberg 02:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Unless the AFL has opened up a "Senior's league" I highly doubt they'll be coming back for the Darwin Unicorn's after decades of retirement. It's not a probable hoax, is is one :) Pursey 03:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this hoax. And if the Darwin Unicorns do ever start playing AFL, the article can be re-created with sources. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once the untrue bits are removed there is nothing left. Is there any reason this cannot be speedied as a non-notable organization, seeing as the assertion of notability is patently false? Kevin 05:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- hoax. - Longhair\^talk 12:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax - the picture is lifted from Unicorn#Alleged skeletal evidence. Hut 8.5 14:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even assuming non-hoax, still fails WP:OR, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:CRYSTAL. Saturn 5 15:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NN (even if not a hoax). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest9999 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Smith (American football player)[edit]

Non-notable college football player, didn't play in the NFL or have much in reliable sources that are not trivial, cut in training camp. Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Cut by Eagles during preseason. - Smashville 05:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. (I don't know of an analogue to WP:HOCKEY for American football). In any event, he didn't play in the pro leagues, and didn't win any major awards (according to the article at least), so NN. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to HAVE played a game with Eagles yet.--JForget 01:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to poodle hybrid. — TKD::Talk 09:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pom-a-poo[edit]

procedural nomination Article previously deleted via WP:PROD, Jan 2007, then tagged again for PROD-mediated deletion in Aug 2007. The first PROD held the reasoning "non-notable dog breed, verifiability concerns" while the second PROD held that "Other than membership in American Hybrid Canine Association, which only entails a $5 fee was paid, the dog has received no specific "significant coverage" in reliable, published sources. Thus, it fails notability criteria." The article was also party to a withdrawn multi-article AFD from April 2007. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and ~~salt~~ redirect per VanTucky below. ~~If this article keeps reappearing after being repeatedly deleted, it should stay deleted.~~ =Axlq 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to poodle hybrids as prod nominator. While poodle hybrids in general are very notable, this hybrid has not received significant coverage in reliable sources and is not notable. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poo dogs are non-notable mutts. MarkBul 03:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not to poo-poo the pom-a-poo, but it's not notable. Pursey 03:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make the redirect as VanTucky. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with poodle hybrids. Insufficiently notable for its own article -- but since there are some reliable sources, we should include whatever we can take from them there rather than just redirecting. --TheOther Bob 16:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 22:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bret LeVier[edit]

NN former minor league baseball player, currently plays for a semi-proffesional independent league, fails WP:BIO Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 16:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BIO standard of having played in a fully professional league. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinston eagle (talk • contribs) 00:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Golden Baseball League isn't fully proffesional, see also User:Jaranda/Notabilty (sports), which is in the making. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but he did play in "AA" [30] which is professional. Still, the article lacks sources and the guy doesn't seem to have made any all-star teams or anything.. Spanneraol 01:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea reading at the stats, seems like he didn't even became a starter. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The guidelines mention nothing about being a starter. They only require that he "played in a fully professional league." I think everyone can agree that AA is a fully professional league. Kinston eagle 03:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, this discussion has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Baseball by the nom. John Vandenberg 02:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Golden League is an Indy Pro League and maybe he didn something notable in college. Mbisanz 02:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he did something in college? Either he did or did not.. If he did, put it in the article.. but the possibility that maybe he did something in college doesn't justify that article? Spanneraol 16:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldve been a question as in "did he do anything in college?" Mbisanz 21:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he did something in college isn't a reason for keeping Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no stats, no sources, and no reliability to the article; we don't need to have another debate about notability in baseball to figure this one out.Ravenmasterq 19:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Right now, the article does not give any indication that he has played in the majors yet, due to failing WP:V and having no external links and no cats.--JForget 01:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BASEBALL --Truest blue 15:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Haemo 00:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tobi_from_the_anime_Naruto[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tobi from the anime Naruto

Not encyclopedic, fancruft, possibly original research, speculations, belongs to the Akatsuki main page ScotchMB 00:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Akatsuki (Naruto). The bulk of the article at the moment is fan opinion and commentary without sources. Pairadox 00:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AH yeh use a speedy for things like this not an AFD.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 01:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok thanks. Never knew the difference between afd and speedu. -ScotchMB 12:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Akatsuki (Naruto). There's nothing in this article that isn't already covered in his bio on that page. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Akatsuki (Naruto). No substantial content here beyond what is present at the main article, aside from a giant load of original research. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I personally don't think we need to redirect this. While there will defently be some people looking for info on the character I doubt anyone would actually type Tobi from the anime Naruto as a search term. --70.48.108.196 00:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with the above, most people aren't going to try searching for that. Most of the info is already on the main article and everything that isn't is fan speculation. The Splendiferous Gegiford 05:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More or less just an attempt to ignore consensus. Useless and inaccurate speculation. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedily per nominator. Redirecting it to the parent Akatsuki (Naruto) article would just leave us with, well, something that nobody would ever type into the search bar, which contradicts with the purpose of a redirect. You Can 't Review Me!!! 12:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete you guys above are joking about redirecting it, right? This is a redundant redirect, just as ridiculous as these deleted ones, Baki Sensei (Naruto) and Sarutobi The Great Sandaime Hokage. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spies and Mercs[edit]

Likely a non notable variant of airsoft. No independent sources available or provieded. Daniel J. Leivick 00:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Airsoft; strong WP:MADEUP vibe here. Eleland 21:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a page on Airsoft game variants. --ForbiddenWord 17:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 09:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for the Palladium[edit]

NN college football rivalry, playing a couple of games against each other doesn't indicate a rivalry, no Reliable sources on why this rivalry is notable. Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, assertions of notable not independently verifiable. —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Fred. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 03:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:RS. Bravedog 17:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starlight Express Original London[edit]

There is no reason to have separate articles for each individual production of a musical. There article is basically a reiteration of Starlight Express. — MusicMaker 5376 00:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We have a bit of a silent dispute going on, with someone deleting from the main Starlight Express article all the information about productions that did not occur in the UK. I appreciate that having all the information from all the productions on one article is a lot to swallow, which is why I am working on breaking it down into production-specific pages. It would be rather against the spirit of an encyclopaedia to have information available and not used, simply because one person is anglocentric. Is there a reason that detail should not be gone into when it can be? Mazz0626 00:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: User:Mazz0626 is mistaken. No one is deleting information about productions, all of it is simply repeated twicein the article. As MusicMaker noted, musicals should not have separate articles for each new production of the musical. Unfortunately, Starlight Express is full of repeated information, WP:LISTCRUFT and fancruft. -- Ssilvers 00:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It is not all the same information repeated. If I go through and remove all the repetitions, replacing entries with ones like 'in this produciotn, the song Lotta Locomotion was replaced by the new Whole Lotta Locomotion', would that be acceptable? I though the way I had done it was the least confusing. Mazz0626 00:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Yes, that would be a more acceptable way of presenting the information. — MusicMaker5376 00:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Ok, right on it - but it's going to look comparatively confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazz0626 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I dont think that Starlight Express needs to be split. While it is a large article, duplication is a large reason for that. I've looked around and not seen any musicals that have sub-articles. MusicMaker, do you know of any? John Vandenberg 03:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, To my knowledge, the only subpages for musicals involve extensive cast lists or articles about cast recordings. There had been an article for the Las Vegas version of The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical), but it did not survive an afd. (It may have been speedied; I'm having trouble finding the afd.) — MusicMaker 5376 15:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all information into main article and delete all individual sports articles. MatthewUND^(talk) 05:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Dakota Class A high school track[edit]

Non notable high school sports leagues, fails WP:N ~~Delete~~ Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to North Dakota High School Activities Association as all these articles contain are championship history Corpx 00:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into North Dakota High School Activities Association; not only these but the others linked from the template. TerriersFan 01:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in a state no larger than North Dakota, the lack of professional sports teams makes school teams like these widely followed and important to the state --MatthewUND^(talk) 01:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't mean that they all deserve articles on their own, especially with the little content they have merge and redirect all the articles from the template to North Dakota High School Activities Association Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 01:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition to the three nominated, all of the "Class xyz" sub articles in ((NDHSAA)) should be considered part of this discussion. If the school association's sports are important to the state, I think the level of detail required would stop at articles about each sport; i.e. keep North Dakota high school football and merge the four "football" sub articles into that article. John Vandenberg 03:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I certainly wouldn't be opposed to that idea. I've actually always thought that breaking each sport into all of these different classes was overkill. --MatthewUND^(talk) 05:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect as above. Eusebeus 20:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect. I support John Vandenberg's idea. If someone wants to add enough encyclopedic information that it would be better for a particular sport to stand on its own in an article that demonstrates notability, it makes sense to do so. With a merge, I think any editor is capable of reversing the merge to do just that. An article with much more content and the citations to demonstrate notability would be different from what we have here. Noroton 20:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should anyone care who won the championship for some sport in 1903 or even 1983? I don't think that's encyclopedic. I'd pare each of these lists until they're shorter. That way they can all fit into the larger article. Noroton 20:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If no one cares who one a championship in 1903 or 1983,then shouldn't articles about the 1903 and 1983 World Series be deleted???? Leopold Samsonite 23:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Leopold Samsonite[reply]
  - Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough: I try to be inclusive, and certainly just because I'm bored by a subject doesn't mean it shouldn't go in the encyclopedia. I wouldn't oppose an article about the 1903 championship in any sport in North Dakota if it demonstrated verifiability and common notability requirements. In other words, some editor could write an article (not just a list), cite sources to meet WP:V verification and do enough to satisfy WP:Notability, and not only would I support that, but hardly any Wikipedia editors would support deleting it. A list of state championship winners going back that far, even combined with other lists of championship winners in other sports, is really directory material violating WP:DIRECTORY, and I'm voting "Merge" more out of the hope and expectation that there's enough enthusiasm for North Dakota sports out there that the resulting merged article will garner enough prose content and citations to make for an acceptable encyclopedic article. In that kind of an article, a list of championship winners would do what lists like that are supposed to do in Wikipedia: contribute to understanding the subject in ways that prose doesn't do as well. When these things stand alone, without even some other encyclopedia article to give them meaning, there's justification for deleting them under the way we've been working on Wikipedia. I hate to see work go to waste and I'm sympathetic to any editor who puts in the time, so I hope an encyclopedic article results. Noroton 14:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. —Noroton 15:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - looks like this is going to be a merge so we need to discuss how to do it. If we simply join the tables together, then we will get an unmanageable, world-record page length. Any thoughts? TerriersFan 15:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think one big article that groups together all of these lists would be really ugly and difficult to navigate. Personally, I think it would make sense to group information by sport. Instead of four football articles, merge all of that information into one football article. Instead of two basketball articles, one would be better. The only problem that pops up with that idea is that we currently only have a Class A track article...no class B track article and no generic track article. I'm not sure how we should handle this particular article.

This is what I would suggest...

Merge North Dakota Class A high school baseball and North Dakota Class B high school baseball into North Dakota high school baseball.
Merge North Dakota Class A high school basketball and North Dakota Class B high school basketball into North Dakota high school basketball.
Merge North Dakota Class AAA high school football, North Dakota Class AA high school football, North Dakota Class A high school football, and North Dakota 9-man high school football into North Dakota high school football.
Merge North Dakota Class A high school volleyball and North Dakota Class B high school volleyball into North Dakota high school volleyball.
Merge North Dakota Class A high school wrestling and North Dakota Class B high school wrestling into North Dakotahigh school wrestling.
Keep North Dakota high school hockey and North Dakota high school soccer as standalone articles.

That just leaves North Dakota Class A high school track. I know the above proposal may not be perfect, but it would be much better than the status quo, would be a compromise between deleting all of these articles and keeping all of these articles, and would provide a starting point from which interested editors could work on individual sports. --MatthewUND^(talk) 05:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry, but there is no only limited support for multiple articles~~, with the exception of the way forward proposed by Noroton~~. To avoid a terrible long article we need to decide how to cut back the information to manageable proportions. TerriersFan 16:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please share your proposal, TerriersFan. Personally, I'm not terribly worried about keeping championship histories for every one of these sports. --MatthewUND^(talk) 21:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if we can gain a consensus for the elimination of these long tables then we have a way forward since a single article is feasible. My suggestion is to replace the tables with textual summaries, picking out the highlights. TerriersFan 22:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For what it's worth, I'm not sure you're correct in saying there is no support for multiple articles. John Vandenberg seems to have introduced that idea and several of us seem to agree with that proposal. --MatthewUND^(talk) 21:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If other users think we need to merge all of these smaller lists/articles into just one big list/article, I've been thinking about how we can put that big article together. Please take a look at User:MatthewUND/North Dakota High School Activities Association to see what I've come up with. I haven't removed any information from the lists, but I've tried to combine tables so that each sport just has one table. --MatthewUND^(talk) 05:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - nice work and certainly a big improvement. However, I still question whether we need to preserve the details which seem more suitable for the organisations web site. My suggestion is text based sections. An example might be:

"The first competition in the Class A girls section was in 19xx which was won by ABC. The current holders are DEF, who won in 20xx. GHI have the most titles with xy closely followed by JKL with yz. Notably between 19xx and 19xx MNO won for five consecutive years."

In many ways this would be more useful since patterns and interesting features are not obvious to the reader in the present table format. TerriersFan 14:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If MatthewUND feels strongly about it, I don't object to his creation, but I hope he'll consider what his purpose is for his article and how that relates to an encyclopedic purpose (does this relate to some other encyclopedic article?). Can we get some encyclopedic prose in here? I think TerriersFan's idea is a good start. Noroton 15:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TerriersFan has some good ideas. I'm also glad that you think my proposal is an improvement over what we've had with all of the individual articles. Because I like TerriersFan's ideas so much, I would propose that we go with my condensed lists grouped onto one page like I've done, but also add a brief text section like the one TerriersFan is talking about for each sport. That we, we could have the exhaustive list and a summary. Best of both worlds? I think so...let me know what you think. --MatthewUND^(talk) 22:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just finished merging all the tables into User:MatthewUND/North Dakota High School Activities Association. Take a look and let me know what you think. We should also add some summary text for each sport. I hope this proposed solution will be acceptable to other editors. If so, we could move my new NDHSAA article out to the mainspace and delete all of the individual articles. --MatthewUND^(talk) 08:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am happy to go along with the compromise proposed above. Once summary text, along the lines I suggested, has been added for each sport then this can be moved across and the AfD closed out. TerriersFan 18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I finished with the summaries. I think we're probably good to go now. --MatthewUND^(talk) 08:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no objections to Matthew's merger.Noroton 21:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - good job. Go for it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerriersFan (talk • contribs) 22:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, I moved my version of the article out to the mainspace. Now we should decide if the individual sport articles should be deleted or made into redirects. After we decide that, I suppose we could close down this AfD. I'm glad that we've been able to come to a very good outcome with this AfD. In this particular case, one big article seems to be much better than many little articles. --MatthewUND^(talk) 23:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no doubt; the individual articles should be deleted. The case for redirects would be if the titles were likely search terms and plainly these are not. Consequently making redirects would serve no purpose. TerriersFan 23:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree. --MatthewUND^(talk) 23:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Maxim_(talk) 13:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rigsby Sisters[edit]

WP:COI, possible WP:VSCA if the article was created on behalf of the Scruggs Katrina Group. Notability is questionable under either WP:ORG or WP:BIO. Though it may be salvageable, the article in its present form is in violation of WP:NPOV. Mwalimu59 14:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The subject is notable, but the article is a POV-pushing VSCA mess for the COI reasons identified. May be better to delete if no one is going to write something objective. THF 15:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:NOT#NEWS - Only known for one event and I do not think are deserving of an article Corpx 03:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge where? A indepth article on this is definitely not appropriate on State Farm Insurance, and I cant find a Hurricane Katrina sub article that is a suitable merge target. John Vandenberg 05:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Any BLP issues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbisanz (talk • contribs) 22:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 00:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Appears to be notable. The article does need a lot of work though to fix NPOV issues. Pursey 03:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the nomination is a shopping list of potential problems, but none are clearly articulated either here or on the talk page. If real problems were raised, I have no doubt they can be fixed. The case involves a year of news and 640 insurance claims, which is notable. IMO the article should be renamed to Scruggs Katrina Group or State Farm Katrina adjustment controversy, as these ladies are only one part of this story. John Vandenberg 05:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Clear instance of WP:NOT#NEWS. No wider assertion of notability as required by notability standard. Eusebeus 20:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. — TKD::Talk 09:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KBCO Studio C[edit]

This nomination is for an article about a radio show, and a long list of compilation albums they have published. The show may be relevant in the context of the broadcaster, KBCO, and is already described there. But no sources have been found to establish notability for separate articles, neither for the show nor for the albums. The article about the show just duplicates content from KBCO, even verbatim in some parts.

I also nominate the album articles, the most of which are simple track listings. Where they go beyond that, they might be copyright violations from the KBCO website; see in particular album #3 and the corresponding page from KBCO.

KBCO Studio C - Volume 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KBCO Studio C - Volume 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KBCO Studio C - Volume 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KBCO Studio C - Volume 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KBCO Studio C - Volume 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KBCO Studio C - Volume 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KBCO Studio C - Volume 7 Retrospective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KBCO Studio C - Volume 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KBCO Studio C - Volume 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KBCO Studio C - Volume 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KBCO Studio C - Volume 11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KBCO Studio C - Volume 12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KBCO Studio C - Retrospective 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KBCO Studio C - Volume 13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KBCO Studio C - Volume 14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KBCO Studio C - Volume 15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KBCO Studio C - Volume 16 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KBCO Studio C - Volume 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KBCO Studio C - Volume 18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, I hate mass deletions like this - but, in this case, it's justified. All of the volume articles appear to be similarly formatted, all consisting of simple track listings. It appears that the albums collect live studio performances from a given year - if one of these performances were notable in and of itself, an album containing that performance might be notable for that reason - but I can find no evidence of that. The description of the show and the charity proceeds on the KBCO Studio C article might do well as a Merge into the main KBCO article - but, once merged, I'd recommend Delete for the main article and all volume articles, citing WP:MUSIC and, if the volume pages are as close to the KBCO page as volume 3 is, WP:COPYVIO. Best, ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Rehevkor 17:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Not notable in my area, but if copyvios can be resolved, it would be like any of the other thousand album listings. Mbisanz 22:01, 30 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, WjBscribe 23:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any way to save these pages - non-notable. MarkBul 00:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all are just track listings and they lack notability Corpx 00:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per nom. No independent notability for the show or the compilations. At best it merits one sentence in the article for the station from which they originate, certainly not separate articles for each compilation. Otto4711 03:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Chris 06:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I don't want to think about these ever again. Why would they issue such albums? Why do we care? SolidPlaid 08:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd equate this to the spam I get in my inbox almost. Pursey 12:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but root article (weak keep root article). The radio show is vaguely notable, I think, but a catalog of each volume of show is not for here on Wikipedia. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Simply not-notable. Eusebeus 20:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 23:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Soul (play)[edit]

No independent sources. The play hasn't started its run yet. Smells heavily like a COI. Drat (Talk) 12:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it has been reviewed in two newspapers, the Liverpool Echo and Liverpool Daily Post, per a Google news search. Not enough to make me recommend 'keep', but it's a start. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 18:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started this page - was not intended as advertising or as anything malicious, just to help keep the Royal Court Theatre, Liverpool page up to date and to provide information about theatre in Liverpool. I concoiusly tried to not have any advertising or opinion in the article, and just kept to the facts, with references. Hopefully this is in line with Wikipedia rules and I hope this issue can be resolved. AndyP543 02:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - premature, it's hard to be notable when the show hasn't started, but it will debut in just a few days and will get sources then. A little OR: I've heard good things about the Royal Court Theatre and I don't think they'll take just anything. -- Steve Hart 22:04, 27 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, WjBscribe 23:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a professionally produced play, the Liverpool Royal Court is a major city theatre, reviews can be added when it opens. Nick mallory 00:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, our page may be a bit ahead of schedule, but the article is free of any flowery adjectives so if there was any COI, it was kept in check. Also, the source quotes comments from the Liverpool Daily Post and Liverpool Echo, probably due to those papers having either read the play or seen the practise sessions; my guess is local newspapers will have already printed a number of newspaper articles about the upcoming play, and interviews have probably made it to TV as well. John Vandenberg 05:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was performed at the Unity Theatre in Liverpool I think, last year, however I didn't have any info or references so I didn't want to include it incase any of it was incorrect. I will try to update the page when I get chance to include this. AndyP543 18:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a valid addition. Genuine professional play at a top venue. What's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Signalnorth (talk • contribs) 08:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the show has started now and has been reviews by BBC Liverpool and the Liverpool Daily Post. A valid article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jess Liverpool (talk • contribs) 22:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Maxim_(talk) 13:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Christopher Dodd[edit]

I am nominating this article for deletion since it is a copy of the website ontheissues.org.--Southern Texas 23:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator.--Southern Texas 23:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make sure the ontheissues.org link appears in the main Chris Dodd article. That external link is a far better source of information than this article nominated for deletion; no need for partial duplication of content on Wikipedia. =Axlq 01:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant Mbisanz 02:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the content of this page is equally attributed to senate.gov as to ontheissues.org. I have checked the page history and not found any obvious copyright violations with this. We replicate the content that can be found on other websites all the time, so unless a specific allegation of copyright violation is raised, or real problems found with this article, I cant see any reason why this candidate shouldnt have a views sub page. John Vandenberg 09:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary. Eusebeus 20:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to his main article, don't need to separate the point of vues of candidates or other politicians from the main page.--JForget 01:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per JForget. Bearian 01:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the other candidates in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election have "issues" pages. I say keep -- both for uniformity and to keep the info on the candidates unbiased (as far as who can have an "issues" page, and who can't). I actually think it should be expanded -- Ljpernic 06:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are wrong, Tom Tancredo does not have a positions page and neither does Sam Brownback, your argument has no merit.--Southern Texas 03:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. Mackensen (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Bill Richardson[edit]

I am nominating this article for deletion since it can already be found at Bill Richardson#Political beliefs. Content doesn't need to be on here twice.--Southern Texas 00:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator.--Southern Texas 00:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Redirect this article title back to Bill Richardson. =Axlq 01:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundent Mbisanz 02:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect. Pursey 03:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Bill Richardson is a reasonably long article, and most other "(views)" articles of this nature are much longer; I think we should give this page time to expand. John Vandenberg 09:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Vanderberg. Give time for expansion, there is considerable potential to do so. Perhaps the article could be tagged for "Expert on the subject needed".--JayJasper 12:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant, unnecessary fork. Eusebeus 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 01:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to his main article, don't need to separate the point of vues of candidates or other politicians from the main page.--JForget 01:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, either every candidate can have their own section for their political views, or none of them can.--Mr Beale 14:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per JForget. Bearian 02:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand; do it the other way round. Don't merge it in, split it out. —Nightstallion 06:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His small section on his beliefs is not enough to show the whole aspect of all his political positions, if we get rid of this article then we should also get rid of the 15 or so other articles on political positions of the other candidates for president.--Joebengo 18:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, then get rid of them too. They don't all deserve separate articles either. The fact that other articles are malformed as well is irrelevant to the merits of this article. Please stick to the topic. =Axlq 05:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - as noted above, all of the Presidential candidates have separate pages for their political positions. And while some are more fleshed out than others, if one candidate deserves a page then they all do. (And shouldn't we undo what appears to be vandalism to the page in question? All of the positions have been blanked.) Postmodern Beatnik 02:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're twisting the facts, they don't all do, Tom Tancredo does not, Sam Brownback does not. The problem is that there is a belief that all the candidates need to have their own page even when it isn't practical. It is not practical to keep this page because the information is an exact copy of what already appears on the Bill Richardson article. I see no effort from anyone to expand this article and it was clearly only created to fill a void on the template. This article needs to be deleted. It appears to have been vandalized because it never had any content to begin with. Please be a little more informed before you register a strong keep.--Southern Texas 03:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to carnivore with a dab notice for zero-carb diet. — TKD::Talk 08:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carnivorism[edit]

unreferenced neologism, may serve as part of the Carnivore main page, but not as an individual article. ZayZayEM 02:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Carnivore. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 03:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could be convinced to go to redirect, but I don't really see any salvagable content. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 03:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carnivore with a ((redirect)) link from there to over to Zero-Carb Diet. From a quick scan of google books, it is used both in relation to animals and humans. I cant think of any other way the word would be used, so a dab page isnt necessary. I think that most of the current incoming link to the Carnivorism page are probably using the human meaning and so should point to Zero-Carb Diet. John Vandenberg 07:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect to Carnivore. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect article serves as a dictionary definition only, redirect per WP:NOT#INFO. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 01:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, Carnivorism may be more suitable for Wikitionary.--JForget 01:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zero-Carb Diet, since the Carnivorism article itself states right at the start: "Carnivorism, also referred to as Zero-carb" — Haim Berman 12:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this Redirect occurs, I'd want a dab pointing back to carnivore--ZayZayEM 12:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carnivore per above suggestions. Bearian 02:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep and move to electrocardiogram technician with redirects and clean-up tags. Clearly a real occupation. I'll work on the article.

EKG tech[edit]

Completing unfinished nom by User:124.180.113.220; I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Placing the AfD tag is User:124.180.113.220's second edit. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 replace with a redirect to Internet_pornography#Peer-to-peer.--Kubigula (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheggit[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This torrent site fails WP:WEB straight off the bat. Indeed, despite these concerns being brought up in its first nomination, it was kept on the basis of it having inherited notability from Empornium (despite the fact notability is not inherited), a site which has now been deleted on the basis of *also* being non-notable. This could even be a borderline CSD A7 article, but I've brought it here due to it having been AfD'd before. Delete. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I would be surprised if it could pass WP:V (I'm not convinced it does now) due to the difficulty in obtaining reliable sources for such topics. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm kinda surprised empornium got deleted. I thought it'd have more sources giving coverage like this Corpx 05:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too really, but only because of the saga discussed in that article. Had that not happened, I definitely don't think that it would've been notable enough; and Cheggit's only claim to fame is through that, really. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 05:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just requested a DRV of Empornium - Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_26#Empornium_.283rd_nomination.29 Corpx 05:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll wait for the Empornium deletion review. Italia^vivi 19:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Core desat 04:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, sadly the nom is right; Empornium is more notable than Cheggit, and neither are likely to be covered in super duper reliable sources. Next we can delete PureTnA and probably even TargetPoint; because of course, it didnt happen unless a really reliable source has covered it. FWIW, I have added mention of these three sites on Internet_pornography#Peer-to-peer; perhaps we can redirect these obscure sites there so the unverified information can hide under the redirect until someone has time to research it properly. John Vandenberg 07:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails to distinguish between product and provider, but think this fails WP:CORP. Internet companies like this come, go, merge and split all the time, but notability/Notoriety still to come. --Gavin Collins 08:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then replace with a redirect to Internet_pornography#Peer-to-peer. What's in the article right now is unsourced and strongly appears to be original research by someone who's at least versed of the internal politics of the two sites. That just looks bad.--Chaser - T 18:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Goldstein (Tintin's doppelganger)[edit]

Ga Won Middle School[edit]

Starter Deck Syrus Truesdale[edit]

Darren Hayday[edit]

Finding Treasure in Iraq[edit]

Harry Potter newspapers and magazines[edit]

Chitauri[edit]

Snowmen hunters[edit]

Are we nearly there yet equation[edit]

Bubba Radio Network[edit]

Heather Hunt[edit]

DOT.TUNES[edit]

Matthew Fowler[edit]

Muslims in CIA World Factbook[edit]

EvThreads[edit]

Ordinary life in Japan during WWII[edit]

Rise of Persia[edit]

Hillcrest Elementary[edit]

Same brain[edit]

Georgia After 1990[edit]

Jimmy Wales[edit]

Elie D. Al-Chaer[edit]

Johnson vs. Buckle[edit]

Minazo[edit]

Ploegmakers Publications[edit]

MyHound[edit]

Joe Attard[edit]

List of types of cricket delivery[edit]

Rick Recht[edit]

The Lemon Tree[edit]

List of British Asian people[edit]

StarCraft Clans[edit]

GURPS Monsters[edit]

Patrick Sweeney (ice hockey)[edit]

Weasel Thomas[edit]

Beast (state of being)[edit]

Mariana Cordoba[edit]

Chris Burnett[edit]

Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition (song)[edit]

Sacred Heart Parish, Marystown[edit]

Creator (musician)[edit]

Equality Maryland[edit]

List of U.S cities with large Romanian American populations[edit]

Michael Kelly (Irish journalist)[edit]

Collector's item[edit]

Nguoi lai[edit]

Bu$ine$$ I$ Bu$ine$$[edit]

Robot Wars Episodes[edit]

The Unthinking Majority[edit]

GURPS Bili the Axe - Up Harzburk![edit]

The Secret Diaries of...[edit]

L A Matheson Secondary School[edit]

Floods (Fightstar song)[edit]

Cybercontrol[edit]

Grasswood Road, Saskatchewan[edit]

Hofje van Oorschot[edit]

Beanie Babies involved in lawsuits[edit]

Daantjie Badenhorst[edit]

Omniscopic[edit]

Ethic of reciprocity[edit]

List of downloadable airline timetables[edit]

Profugus mortis[edit]

List of countries receiving snowfall[edit]

Paolo Mendoza[edit]

List of companies that do business with Sudan[edit]

Gestalt prayer[edit]

Dawn of the Dead in popular culture[edit]

Heaviest land animals[edit]

List of Saskatchewan provincial roads[edit]

Vagina gentium[edit]

That's So Raven: The Movie Musical![edit]

List of cultural references to Grand Central Terminal[edit]

SPOILER (film)[edit]

Darwin unicorns[edit]

Chris Smith (American football player)[edit]

Pom-a-poo[edit]

Bret LeVier[edit]

Tobi_from_the_anime_Naruto[edit]

Spies and Mercs[edit]

Battle for the Palladium[edit]