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

The result was speedy delete under criterion A7. No assertion of notability is made, nor is a reliable source provided to verify. (The only source was from blogspot.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefania Podgorska[edit]

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

Is she notable ? thisisace (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to Uyghur captives in Guantanamo. Any relevant information can be included in that article. There simply aren't the third party reliable sources that single out this individual for notability justifying the article. Tyrenius (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saidullah Khalik[edit]

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

I fail to see why this prisoner is notable. Guantanamo Bay detention camp's notability doesn't mean that each prisoner gets their own Wikipedia article. I find it analogous to making an article for each prisoner held at Rikers Island. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Geo Swan (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclaimer -- I created this article, just a few hours ago.
  • I strongly disagree with the nominator, on all his points.
  • No offense, the comparison with Rikers Island is spurious. Rikers Island contains men who have been charged or convicted of crimes. Charging, prosecuting, and acquitting or convicting suspects is a well-understood and generally non-controversial process. Very, very few Rikers convicts will stir world-wide controversy. While the captives at Guantanamo, with less than a dozen exceptions, are not only not convicts, they have not been charged with a crime.
  • As captives go, the Uyghur captives in Guantanamo, like Saidullah Khalik, are among the most controversial. There is a wide discrepancy among commentators as to the extent to which they might be pro-USA innocent bystanders.
  • I believe this article fully complies with all wikipedia policies.
    • Please don't confuse Guantanamo Bay detention camp and it's detainees. Guantanamo Bay detention camp is unquestionably notable; it's detainess aren't.
    • There are people world-wide that are being held without charges. Being held without charges (unfortunatly) doesn't make you notable.
    • It would be most reasonable to redirect to Uyghur captives in Guantanamo.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes extrajudicial detention is a world-wide phenomenon. With very few exceptions those captives held in extrajudicial detention are victims of totally closed, repressive, totalitarian regimes. With very few exceptions the closed and repressive nature means we don't know about most of these captives. For the exceptional cases, when we do know about the captives, where there are verifiable, reliable sources, I believe those case merit coverage. For the exceptional cases where the captives held in extrajudicial detention are being held by a country that is not generally considered a closed, repressive, totallitarian torture state, I believe that merits coverage. A side effect of this is that there might be more coverage of the exceptional cases held by relatively open societies, and relatively less coverage of those countries with no open press and ineffective judiciaries. But I don't see that as a good reason to suppress material that cites valid sources and complies with all wikipedia policies. Geo Swan (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If this guy can make Uncle Sam shit his pants in fear, surely that's pretty notable. Mykej (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's nothing notable about this person and comments about 'Uncle Sam' soilings his pants are less than helpful. Nick mallory (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was puzzled by this comment. I re-read the article. I decided it needed more work to spell out what is unusual about Saidullah Khalik's detention.
  • The Bush Presidency asserts the Guantanamo captives enjoy an unprecedented level of review of whether they should continue to be detained.
  • There has been a formal review procedure, since August 2004. All captives are supposed to have a CSR Tribunal confirm whether they were "enemy combatants", and they are supposed to have annual Administrative Review Boards recommend whether they should be released or transferred, or continue to be held in detention.
  • However about as many captives have been released -- even though their Boards recommended continued detention, as have been released because their Boards recommended release. And, even though their Boards recommended release, those captives largely remained in captivity for years afterwards. Approximatly 40 of the 133 captives officially cleared for release of transfer in early 2005 remain in captivity in late 2007.
  • Saidullah Khalik is an example of a different, related phenomenon. The rules require a Board to convene, once a year, to make a recommendation as to whether he should be released. The record shows no Boards convened. Yet, he remains in detention. One of the clauses of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 -- John McCain's bill explicitly barring the use of torture -- was intended to explicitly strip from captives the right to initiate new habeas corpus petitions in the US civil court system. It replaced this with a clause to allow captives to request a more limited review in courts in Washington DC -- but only of whether the DoD followed its own rules in its CSR Tribunals and ARB hearings.
  • Is Saidullah Khalik a candidate for the DC courts reviewing whether the DoD followed its own rules? In the absence of authoritative commentators writing about his case, our readers will have to make up their own minds as to whether or not the DoD has not complied.
  • That he was supposed to have been reviewed in 2005 and 2006 is verifiable, and belongs in the article. That those reviews didn't take place is also verifiable, and also belongs in the article. Obviously this information can't be covered if the whole article is deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is one way for a person to be notable according to Wikipedia policies, and that is if he/she "received significant coverage in reliable sources" .
    • Whether you're right or wrong, you can't decide if a person is notable or not. See WP:ILIKEIT.
    • If you think that he's notable because the CSR Tribunal rules weren't applied to him (unsourced), I would suggest first making a CSR Tribunal article. Maybe then, the info here can be merged into that article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment above is an alarming conflation of guidelines and policies.
      • Comment above, IMO, fails to apply wikipedia:use common sense.
      • Comment above suggests that over 10,000 pages of documents be covered in a single article. IMO that is unrealistic. If those 10,000 pages of documents were extremely repetitious they could be covered in a single article. But, having read a substantial portion of those documents I know that each document, each Summary of Evidence memo contains unique aspects. IMO the best way to cover this material is an article for each captive for whom there is robust documentation. Geo Swan (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comments above are an alarming conflation of guidelines and policies.
        • Comments above, IMO, fails to apply wikipedia:use common sense. That's why there are notability guidlines. My common sense and your common sense are obviously extremely different.
        • If a substantial number of people don't think that every guantanomo prisoner is notable then ipso facto, it isn't "common sense." For reference of a number of reasonable editors that don't agree with your "common sense" see:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Gulam Rasoul, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahed Nasser Mohamed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adil Said Al Haj Obeid Al Busayss, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brahim Yadel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walid Said Bin Said Zaid, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabir Hasan Muhamed Al Qahtani.
        • According to WP:NOTE, Wikipedia's notabililty guidline is "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The subject of the article has not met that standard. If the reason why it hasn't met that standard is because it is difficult for an independant secondary source to look through 10,000 documents, then it's not WIkipedia's problem. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- there is a whole lot of Guantanamo Bay detainees with individual articles. See Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees Guroadrunner (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The US government has said that Guantanamo is only used for "the worst of the worst". That means every prisoner is of the same notoriety as Al Capone or Bonnie and Clyde. Now you may or may not agree with the US government, but it's at least noteworthy that they think this. When an organization that has nuclear weapons offers an opinion you don't have to agree, but you should give them a listen. Mykej (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unless there's something I've overlooked, there's nothing about this particular Guantanamo inmate that warrants an article about him when there is already an article about the ethnic group of which he is a member. In other words, his situation is exactly the same as that of the other Uyghurs, as far as I can see from the two articles. The situation of the Uyghurs in Guantanamo as a group appears notable, but precisely why this one man is notable beyond and above that is something I can't work out. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Every individual person there is notable, at least in his home country--the acts giving them notability was not in most cases engaging (or not engaging) in the conflict, but being the victims of an action which has attracted world-wide attention, and where everyone who has been there will be considered a martyr by one country or other large group.. At present we have trouble sourcing that end of things, due to cultural, linguistic, and source availability limitations. But they just have to be sourceable, and the basis is already here. DGG (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Around 800 people went through Guantanomo Bay. Let's assume that a few hundred were Saudi Arabians. Are all of them notable in Saudi Arabia? I don't think so. Moreover, assuming, arguendo, that they are notable in their own country, the notability isn't lasting. It's a classic - Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The detention at GB is likely to be most of the person's life, not a one-time event. And yes, I think at least the individual ones from his particular country will be notable in that country, and N is worldwide and permanent. DGG (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Guantanamo Bay detention camp article it states in the header: "Of the roughly 355 still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest." That is very believeable considering that the camp at one point had 750 prisoners. Why don't we, therefore, wait until they are stuck there for a long time. Until then, it's a WP:BLP1E.
• I had a hard time understanding your last comments. "I think at least the individual ones from his particular country will be notable in that country, and N is worldwide and permanent." That sounds contradictory. Am I missing something?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. —Geo Swan (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Merge to the main article on the Uyghur captives in Guantanamo. I don't see individual notability, I do see notability for that article, and I see sourced content here that is not in that article. So merge. GRBerry 17:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, one of the few non-Arabs held in Guantanamo Bay for crimes unrelated to the War on Terror, it's a notable story. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Werrell (Musician)[edit]

Brandon Werrell (Musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article includes no reliable sources to verify notability, and a google search on this person's name results in a surprising 0 hits. Even I have more google hits than this musician? That's surprising enough to make me suspect a hoax. Prod removed without comment or improvement by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, pretty much seems a standard A7 to me.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 03:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manpool[edit]

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

Contested PROD. At first glance it looked like WP:MADEUP, but it doesn't. There are a few relevant ghits, not enough however to establish real notability. Delete, man. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 22:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rjlohan (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Can verify this game exists, and is rapidly gaining popularity. I've just played in a sponsored tournament in the eastern suburbs of Sydney. My $50 loss is real. :-( The game started as a small promotion, but took off quickly in nearby bars and pubs. Rjlohan 23:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sole word of a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor is not verification. And popularity is not a criterion here. Please cite sources to show that this purported game has already been documented outside of Wikipedia in books, papers, or articles. Uncle G (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely original research. Local notability isn't established, but even if it were -- it's only local. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't care if you lost a million dollars, this is completely non-notable. If you do make it notable by the end of the week, I may change my mind. —BoL @ 00:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFT/WP:N unless in the unlikely event of third-party references on this variation of pool.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - not yet notable Guroadrunner (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no sources verifying the content. Rt. 17:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and comments here. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Bell[edit]

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

A girl who made the news for throwing a party that caused damage to her house. True, the event received news coverage, but nothing else has come from it since. 15 minutes of fame are over. Jmlk17 22:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, utterly without significance. --Dhartung | Talk 23:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the policy WP:NOT#NEWS and the essay WP:NOTNEWS. Also appears to run contrary to WP:BLP1E. hat said, she expected "only 60" teens to attend a party when the parents were absent, but was surprised when it turned into a yob-a-palooza? The most surprising thing is that 7 police cars arrived in the midst of the event and the officers did nothing to stop it. No prejudice against recreating if it somehow gains a higher significance than one-off mischief. Agree with the "15 minutes of fame" comment by Jmlk17. Not every "water-cooler story" which gets a splash of publicity deserves an encyclopedia article forever. Edison (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like a textbook example of what WP:BLP1E was written for.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. In no way is she worth a biography per WP:BLP1E and the event of the house-trashing is not encyclopedic information per WP:NOT#NEWS. Alternatively transwiki to Wikinews if this has not been done so already, but it's old news so may not be suitable for them... I don't know much about Wikinews's policies and guidelines.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasspeedy deleted by Orangemike (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G1. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 06:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z.E.B.R.A.[edit]

Z.E.B.R.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedy was originally proposed, but the original editor said "Its qualified under fiction but sources and citations will be posted soon." None of the sources make clear what fiction universe this group is from. Accordingly, this is a non-notable fictional group with no sources to verify its existence. Without knowing whose works this group appears in, it's not even possible to redirect it to the article on the book series, etc. —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur wholeheartedly. This may someday fall under the guises of an aspect of notable fiction, but as it stands currently, no. Mhudson3 (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete possible speedy. It is fictional but not so that it would qualify for an article. The article concludes "All information provided by Z.E.B.R.A. members Chris DeCastro, Brian Long, and Lucas Sullivan" so definitely original research. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It's just hoax vandalism. The article claims that Ghostbusters was a documentary about ghosts in America, for starters. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This article is not a hoax. I'm Pete McDonald one of the legendary brothers. Every word of this is the truth. Its called an underground society, jeez read a book one in a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.218.68 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

• If it's a real society, then it needs reliable sources to back it up, or it can be speedy deleted as a non-notable real group. Members of the group writing about themselves do not count; that qualifies as original research. —C.Fred (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax and WP:NOTE. I suggest moving this to Uncyclopedia where it would be more appreciated.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense and don't feel the trolls.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per information that arose since the nomination (non-admin closure) brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Alternative Music Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Assuming that it's notable at this time, there's a WP:NOTNEWS problem. This is a one time conferernce that in a year from now will be forgotten. Nothing in the article suggests that the conference will have a substantial and lasting impact on Latin Alternative music. In addition, that article seems a bit too much WP:SPAMMY. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's been going 8 years, not just one year. I've added a couple of sources for notability. The whole article is spammy but could be rewritten. --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to me all this needed was a few refs to show independent coverage (now added), and copyediting for a more neutral tone (still needed). No reason to delete.--Michig (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If it's been going on for 8+ years, then it's NOT WP:NOT#NEWS. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calum Callaghan[edit]

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

Delete NN actor Mayalld (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability unestablished and unsourced. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a hoax but a poorly written stub with no sources and nothing in there which suggests that he is notable enough for a biography.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable biography. --Lockley (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darby Lloyd Rains[edit]

Darby Lloyd Rains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't pass WP:BIO, and no significant coverage found on Google. Epbr123 (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn She is a member of the XRCO Hall of Fame so passes WP:BIO. Epbr123 (talk) 12:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There are definitely some claims to notability there. They need sourcing though.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Although notability is usually not inherited, this is clearly an important part of the franchise. GlassCobra 09:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isla Nublar[edit]

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

This article is an in-universe plot repetition of plot points from the various Jurassic Park stories, and has no notability or referencing of its own, and as such its just total duplication. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jurassic Park. Plausible search term. --Dhartung | Talk 06:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there are no primary sources to verify the origin of this article, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Merger would be inadvised, as without primary sources, this would be moving this problem elsewhere.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is the setting of a major novel, film, comic, and video game and can easily be verified by a multitude of sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this island was the setting of multiple different works of fiction by multiple different authors and in multiple different media. The Jurassic Park franchise is of undisputable notability and this is a major part of that setting. Bryan Derksen (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the whole franchise does not give this small part of it notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 18:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in accordance with policy, style and guidance for the reasons made above by Bryan Derksen. Hiding T 16:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non admin closure. The result was redirect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topless Sun Tanning[edit]

Topless Sun Tanning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability. Subject matter is already covered in suntanning and other articles and there isn't sufficient information to justify a seperate article. Pharmboy (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Current article seems to be purely original research as well. Pharmboy (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete If this is already covered, it should be deleted or possibly merged.cf38^talk 22:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lacks any notability. Not really deserving of its own article. Scarian^Talk 22:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - should be merged into suntanning. Andareed (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the full color illustration was a nice touch, but this is not encyclopedic. The title kind of says it all. Mandsford (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect To Suntanning or Toplessness Much though I like the illustration, this isn't really needed here. Covered already elsewhere, this can only result in a duplication of info. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Suntanning. As for the picture, I wonder if the person who submitted it obtained model releases from the females shown topless? Though it is not grounds for deletion I note the presence of such high quality writing as "Some woman want to attract a mate by showing off they're breats." Edison (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopedic poorly written original research with no sources and a subject that in itself, independently appears to fail WP:N. Redirecting to suntanning would also be acceptable. Nice bit of WikiPorn there in the image used... or not.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect To Suntanning or Toplessness The article provide little context and fewer sources. Besides, better pictures could have been added. Alansohn (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The picture illustrating it would seem hard to improve on, but of course additional examples would be helpful for those having trouble mastering the concept. Edison (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better angles and additional images would be helpful for those trying to better master the concept. While in general a picture is worth a thousand words, here it could save somebody a few dollars. Alansohn (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. GlassCobra 09:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronit Herzfeld[edit]

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

Non-notable "life coach" and activist. Nothing on Google News, only 81 Google hits, and I can't find any that are reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 21:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Couldn't find any sources that meet WP:RS, looks pretty much like a WP:VANITY piece to me. Pharmboy (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Currently no verifiable RS. --Dweller (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there is certainly debate about the format, current state, referencing and possibly name of the article (all just requiring cleanup tags and editing) ; the consensus about the subject is to keep - (non-admin closure) Peripitus (Talk) 08:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scottish counties by area[edit]

List of Scottish counties by area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was up for WP:PROD. It was proded for the following reasons: "has been tagged unreferenced for well over a year", "does not give year the data was captured" and "numbers are claimed to be unreliable on talk page". I could have just deleted it, but I didn't feel that it was something that could be removed without a full discusion first. That isn't the sort of thing that can simply be proded, imo, because there are many articles (and lists) for which such problems are true, and to delete them all would be ludicracy. I personally don't have an opinion on this; I present it to you to reach a consensus on what to do next. However, I suspect, unless anyone has some great plan, this will require deletion. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - would require getting editors with an interest together and agreeing on the numbers. Going by the talk page it is not like this is a list of numbers someone has made up themselves, there are valid and acceptable sources being batted about - there are just minor disagreements on some of the exact figures, mostly on very large rural counties where an acre here or there is easily up for debate because it is on the side of a deserted mountain or some such reason. Don't see any reason to delete - as list topics go this one seems far more valid than some of the random junk that passes for lists - Lists of made up star wars characters or List of green smurfs being the type of thing that are often kept. SFC9394 (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've never seen a geography article that measures the area of a political subdivision in acres. How bizarre. "Hoot mon, that's a big farm ye have there, Angus". Mandsford (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article lacks a year from when the measurements are taken, like List of counties of England by area in 1831. No sources are given for the data at all. It also excludes counties of cities without explanation. MRSC • Talk 22:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why not hit the edit button and rewrite as per the talk page, and hit the rename button and rename the article so that it has the appropriate year in its title? You did these two things for List of English historic counties by area. An administrator hitting a delete button isn't required to fix the problems that you are pointing out. Uncle G (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do the counties change size over the years or something? Mandsford (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Right, OK, I can tell you that these counties are now mostly historical, and that they have either been renamed, merged or changed their boundaries to become Scottish council areas, which we have a list of at List of Scottish council areas by area. I'll say keep here as geography and history-related lists are far more encyclopedic than fictional fancruft and the like.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we cannot have an article full of statistics without clearly defining what units are being presented, and from which historical time period. What comprised a former 'county' in Scotland changed throughout the relatively brief period when they were used as local government units. And where are the required refs? --Mais oui! (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. —Mais oui! (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Counties of Scotland. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 10:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The equivalent article on England is based on the 1831 census. It was written at the same date and by the same author, so that it is likely to have the same source. Unfortunately, the sources for the English article do not include the Scottish data (as far as I can find), though it is certainly in the original publication. Counties can change in area due to boundary changes. There may also be a probelm of measuring them, as to how much foreshore to include. All that is needed is for some one to discover the source and cite it. No need to delete, certainly not while the equivalent English articel survives. Its counties underwent much greater changes due to the abolition of detached places and otehr boundary changes. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Scotland article does not come from the same source. The talk pages reveal it is original research from a variety of publications over a range of years. Furthermore, the England article was amended to be based on the census of 1831. MRSC • Talk 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article is unacceptable as it is, but it should not be a huge effort to provide the relevant data for the pre-1975 counties at least. I'll put in a ref as show of good faith. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 14:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eh!? So you have corrected and provided a reference for one of those figures, but not the rest? What year is that for? MRSC • Talk 19:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (talk) 03:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BarbieGirls.com[edit]

BarbieGirls.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:WEB; unsourced. Also: administrator "Can't sleep" redirected this page to Barbie three months ago and was reverted. I think he had the right idea. Also: the original author, Rinku11 (talk · contribs), has few other edits and may have a conflict of interest. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I would agree that "Can't sleep..." had the right idea, but it may warrant a one-line mention when merged. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Delete I don't see enough justification (notability) for the article as a stand alone. Pharmboy (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's notable in the world of pre-teen girls, believe me. I believe that sources can be found to confirm that this is popular, and that there is a feeling among parents and educators that the internet site is an acceptable means for introducing girls to computers. Granted that neither you nor I (nor most Wikipedians, sorry) played with Barbie dolls, but like "Bratz", it's popular with a large group of consumers. Mandsford (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a significant brand-oriented site. If it should be redirected it ought to be to Barbie Girls, which is the name of the brand extension (Bratz-like stuff), which we do not have an article on or even a real mentino in Barbie.[1][2][3] --Dhartung | Talk 23:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Dhartung's good research work but it does, definitely, require major cleanup.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the multiple links cited by Dhartung. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly a notable website. I was the one who reverted that redirect: the main Barbie article said nothing about this website, and even if it had, the site warrants the more extensive coverage possible in a separate article. Everyking (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singularity 07:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seone Nuku'olafa[edit]

Seone Nuku'olafa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ()

A non-notable actor, known for appearing in one advertisement where he sings one line. The article is entirely unsourced and a google search does not find anything relevant, even when using what I suspect is the correct spelling of his name - Nuku'alofa. The article has a work in progress tag but with the best will in the world, I cannot see this article managing to assert notability.

A previous speedy (by another editor) was denied, therefore it is listed here. Mattinbgn\^talk 21:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting part about the above comment is the observation that a google search does not find anything relevant. Being a valued member of Wikipedia, I would have thought objectivity in one's analysis of sources would be one of the cornerstones of research.

As useful as the internet -and including wikipedia, may be for such searches, all knowledge, wisdom and information does not reside solely on the internet. Hence, this point should not be taken into account in order to assess the validity of this article.

As this is a work in progress, verifiable sources are in the process of being made available online. Not being able to devote one's time solely to editing new wikipedia articles, this process does take a little time.

Seone, for those in the know, is not only known for one advertisement -even though a high proportion of the population will be familiar with him for this reason. It is for his work with Maori and Polynesian communities in Australia for which this article will build satisfy concerns of notability. In addition to this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankstar 79 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there is no requirement that sources are online - they simply must be verifiable. Such as an interview in Rolling Stone magazine.Garrie 02:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 23:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all sources shown to date are self-published by his employer, his church or the company running a competition he entered in with very little success. So none of them lend weight to claims of notability. Not every advertising actor is notable, including this one.Garrie 02:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I dont believe it is very notable or all that useful. What wikipedia is not . Kingpomba (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per the nom, he's appeared in one ad campaign - hardly the mark of a notable actor. The rest of it is barely even worth mentioning; auditioning for Australian idol and going to church hardly confer notability. If he's notable for other reasons, it should be easy to come up with sources, but as they seem to be in short supply here, I'm going to have to endorse deletion. Lankiveil (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep, This may sound a little unwikipedic, but I'm agreeing with this Lankstar fellow. I specialise in underground cultures, sub-cultures and people that run against the grain in general, and targeting an article for deletion on the above basis does raise certain questions in my mind. To me it seems like its the 'have' and 'have not' argument here. On one hand there is the argument that because of the lack of availability of secondary sources through quite limited web searches etc, the article is not notable. As none here seem to be SME's on the topic, and unfamiliar with the sub-culture Seone may be in, I would strongly suggest that this article be allowed to develop. 122.105.140.41 (talk).

• Comment As is the case with the creator of the article, Lankstar79 (talk · contribs), the only edits made by this IP are to the article and this discussion. The editors should be aware that canvassing and sockpuppetry are frowned on by the Wikipedia community. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Smells of promotion, and is completely unsourced. Checked local/state newspapers using Factiva and got nowhere. Orderinchaos 23:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Alarmingly non-notable - why on earth was this article created? The only claim to notability is that Seone Nuku'olafa is a rising star, which seems to be crystal-ball gazing, especially as it is uncited. If he is in fact a rising star the article can be re-created after he obtains fame - and has some reliable sources written about him. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as nonsense. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kymtendo[edit]

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

No notability at all, GS returns virtually nothing relevant. Lots of POVl (and OR?) prior to my most recent cleanup edit. Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as nonsense/hoax. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete indeed, tagging.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 My December per WP:MUSIC, this can alsways be reversed if it gains independent notability. BLACKKITE 17:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How I Feel (Kelly Clarkson song)[edit]

How I Feel (Kelly Clarkson song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Song is not a single, it is wishful thinking, a page is not required for it Alankc (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect to My December, logical choice for a song that doesn't deserve its own page. Also redirect How I Feel (Kelly Clarkson) to My December to prevent a double redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? What reader is going to enter this exact title into the search box? Uncle G (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that there is a strong possibility it will be released as a single means that there is a good chance someone who knows Wikipedia documents most singles individualy will type it in, IMO. Besides, a redirect is harmless, and if only one user is redirected, it will have done some good. There's a guidline on that somewhere, I'll add it here if I can find it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I couldn't. I suspect it's probably merged somehwere. Basicly, it aid redirects should generally be put in place wherever possible unless they are directly harmful. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You haven't answered the question. What reader is going to enter "How I Feel (Kelly Clarkson song)" into the search box? Uncle G (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • One who saw it wasn't at How I Feel but some other song has been disambiguated in this way. They might assume that by typing the above in, instead of following the link to the album, they could get to the song. We may as well make life easier for them. Also, they may know of other songs disambiguated in this manner and thus type it in directly; often song articles are written at titles that disambiguate unnesesariliy. Hey, on the side, you gotta apreciate the funny side of two editor arguing over such an unimportant point, huh? ;-) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • A reader who reached How I Feel by typing "How I Feel" into the search box would follow the disambiguation headnote pointing to the article to read (assuming that 76.109.54.18 (talk · contribs) hasn't misguidedly edited it out again in the meantime). Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's no need for the link, or this artcile, have any of you even read it? The article itself is nothing but a crystal ball, and promotion for a fansite project. The referacnes are links to myspace pages, not actual resources. It clearly vilates wikipedia standards in more than one way. You all just love to argue and debate way too much. 76.109.54.18 (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no prejudice against re-creation when this is Clarkson's next single, and charts as such. See WP:CRYSTAL. Keeper | 76 21:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect If a release date had been anounced, and it was sometime soon, I might have waited until then to see if anything happened right off, and then decided, but in this case we have no idea. No issues with allowing it to return when the subject is notable. See WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above. Uncle G (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• note: the article itself says it's all based on RUMORS and promoting a project from a fansite. if i'm not mistaken, that goes against everything about wikipedia. Even the referances are just links to myspaces and the site, which is promotion, not referance. it's clearly self=-promoting a fansite (and myspaces) and definatley falls under crystal ballism. what's the debate all about? 76.109.54.18 (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 09:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South African cricket team in India in 2007-08[edit]

South African cricket team in India in 2007-08 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete this is premature at best; WP:CRYSTAL, and WP is not a repository of everything that has been, is, or ever will be. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless a reliable source can be found to shown this tour is actually happening. What I can find says South Africa are going to Bangladesh, not India next year. If it is going to happen, keep the article: either the tour will happen (and be notable) or it won't, which will also be notable --Pak21 (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Genuine tour. Either it will happen (and be noteworthy) or it won't (which will also be noteworthy). Three months isn't too much crystal balling. --Pak21 (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a genuine tour, see this page on the ICC future tours programme at cricinfo [4] for example. The nominator could have found and added this source in ten seconds if he'd looked for it. It's not 'crystal' either, if it's in the FTP then it's going to happen, baring some political disaster and it's scheduled for March 2008 - in three months time. Test tours, although shorter than they used to be, are still notable sporting events by anyone's definition. Nick mallory (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Test tours are the top of the tree when it comes to cricket, and this is (as others have said) guaranteed to happen. It looks like a sorry excuse for an article at present, but that's going to change pretty soon, I think you'll find. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see how this warrants an article of its own; I'm fairly sure that the tour won't get a play-by-play analysis; I'm not sure why a section can't be made on the South African cricket team page instead. Of course, I could be wrong. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you're wrong. Nick mallory (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a more helpful vein, I'd imagine (having been involved in the copyediting of a few of them) that something like this would be the end result. There are articles like this on most recent Test series, generally due to I believe the prominence of any tour and also to the fact that keeping it on the relevant team's page would make some exceedingly long articles. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. ——Moondyne 08:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep tour by one major cricketing nation of another. Highly notable. DuncanHill (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball keep/withdrawn by nominator. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Istro-Romanian grammar[edit]

Istro-Romanian grammar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unecnyclopedic. More of a grammar guide/glossary, which wikipedia is not. For now, it is unreferenced, but although that can be fixed, the article would need a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What it needs is cleanup which AFD is not. Uncle G (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments. I don't think however that the article needs anything less than a complete rewrite, or I wouldn't have brought it to AfD. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The cleanup tag for a complete rewrite is ((cleanup-rewrite)) not ((subst:afd1)). Please read Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. This is Articles for deletion. Do not bring articles here where an administrator hitting a delete button isn't the solution to the problem. Even editors without accounts have all of the tools necessary for rewriting articles. Uncle G (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, nom's concerns are invalid. I agree with Uncle G here, the article needs cleanup not rewriting. I've placed a ((rewrite)) tag on it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are scores of grammar articles. See Category:Grammars of specific languages. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 00:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the existence of perfectly valid other articles like English grammar and Portuguese grammar, even if this is a minority language.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It seems that this is a snowball keep. In my personal judgement I still think it should be deleted, but it makes no sense to let this AfD continue. Instead, I'll go take another long look at other articles and guidelines. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DxO Labs[edit]

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

Delete fails WP:CORP, no significant coverage in third party reliable sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Although only a small stub, it seems to have a somewhat large company in France. I think we should keep and expand a bit.   jj137 ^♠ 21:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete The burden of proof is on those who wish to keep, to provide evidence of notability. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete withoutindependent, reliable sources that prove the company's notability. The onus, as stated by Shalom, is on the article's contributors to show notability. Keeper | 76 21:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Changing to keep per independent, reliable sources added. All better. Keeper | 76 15:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I added this article because I learned from a professional photographer that it was a leading image-processing software company. It was a stub because I don't know much about them. I have added some independent sources to the article which document their notability both for consumer and for OEM software. --Macrakis (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Browse the table of contents of any photo magazine and it'll come up. I've added three. Fg2 (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (talk) 03:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel McGoff[edit]

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

Non-notable person; redirected after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guylan Qudsieh but now recreated without any additional sign of notability. While I'm sure the creator will be along to point out that there are many similar articles on Wikipedia, the fact still remains that this person has no notability from sources outside Kid Nation Pak21 (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Seems notable enough. --Pmedema (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the length, the referencing, the various examples... in the grand Wiki scale of notability, Laurel McGoff is hardly on the low end of it. If we're going to go after non-notable articles, let's start with things like fuzzy dice and online wedding instead first.

• Keep - duh. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was always told that new comments go at the bottom, so I re-arranged this back the way it should be... considering that the above is the order in which comments were left.

Comment2 - as has been said: "Comparing reality "stars" to reality "stars"... Laurel has a basic one-page article with five references and three external links. She has been a major player in the [[Kid Nation] show and appeared in every episode (actually, featured in every episode). Contrasting that with Earl Cole, Andria "Dreamz" Herd, and Yau-Man Chan, all from the reality show Survivor: Fiji. Cole has an equally short article with only one reference and no external links (even though he won!), Dreamz has five references and one external link in a slightly larger article (at least enough to not be deemed a stub), and Yau-Man, who has the most descriptive article (and was probably the best of these contestants from the few episodes I caught that season), runs with four references and two external links. So, I wonder, how are any of these three notable and Laurel is not? While each of these Survivor contestants is notable solely for that appearance, Laurel (using her as an example as she is the strongest candidate for a Wiki article of the ones created thus far) has performed in other major productions (not nationally, but locally/regionally). And it's referenced. Really I would think that this article, though still growing and expanding, would serve as the model for Kid Nation individual pages for whoever ends up "deserving" them. Just a thought."

Comment3 - Yes, I will be here to say that tons of pages just like this exist. Before anyone starts with OSE, remember that essays are opinions and nothing more. The simple fact is that if we are going to be deleting pages because the subject only has 5, 10, however-many references, only has 3, 5, however-many sections, only demonstrates 2, 4, however-many appearances or performances, that notability is only regional/national/international, or whatever else, we would eliminate half of Wikipedia. Is this our goal?

Comment3a - The simple fact is that this article has been very well referenced. It is lengthier than a typical stub. It has more notability than the average stub. It is in accordance with the average reality series contestant. The only reason I can see for the continued attempts at deletion of an article like this is the participant's age; a young person could not possibly be important or notable, right? (The only other option for the illogical deletion attempts is less palatable, so I assume good faith.) Bottom line is that this contestant has performed, is at least regionally notable before Kid Nation, and with Kid Nation is now nationally and perhaps even internationally known. How is that non-notable? VigilancePrime (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with associated Cleanup to List of Kid Nation participants. While notability has been demonstrated, it is primary due to her participation in Kid Nation, not for her other aspects. I believe that one can achieve a higher quality article by grouping all the notable (outside of KN) participants into a single article (without losing information) than to have separate articles for each notable one. Until such a time that any of the kids becomes the next Dakota Fanning and that notability exceeds what Kid Nation gives them such that a separate article makes more sense, keeping them all together in one article provides a more consistent approach. --MASEM 20:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge into List of Kid Nation participants. This is not based on Laurel's age. Yes, she got in the newspaper. Yes, she has a page on CBS.com. Yes, she has a page on TV.com. Yes, she was in a local play. Does that establish notability? No. Anything related to CBS is out because it's not independent of the subject. A page on TV.com/IMDB cannot establish notability because it is a trivial mention. Not everyone who is on TV has a Wikipedia page. And finally, the local newspaper and local play are out because, again, it's a list of names. That's a trivial mention. In short, per WP:N, none of the references establish notability. And this is close to a G4 speedy because it isn't substantially changed from the last AfD. Just keep Laurel in List of Kid Nation participants. And, finally, VigilancePrime, we shouldn't go for Fuzzy dice first, and length of an article or number of references isn't necessarily a reason to keep an article. NF24^{(radio me!)} 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think it's funny how you seem to be using the same argument that you're telling VigilancePrime not to use. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS explicitly states:

"Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should".

In other words, invoking the "other stuff does not exist" argument by saying, "Not everyone who is on TV has a Wikipedia page" is just as bad as using the "other stuff exists" argument. Of course not everyone on TV has a Wikipedia page and not everyone on TV deserves one because not everyone who makes it onto TV becomes famous. We're not saying that Laurel McGoff deserves a Wikipedia article simply because she's been on TV, we're saying that she deserves a Wikipedia article because she's famous, the fact that she gained her fame because she was on TV is not important. I'd say that MOST people who are famous today wouldn't be as famous if there was no such thing as TV. Ospinad (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - well-sourced article, subject meets the notability criteria. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - as per Pmedema and Videmus Omnia. This one definitely stands on its own. DoubleVibro (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Anything but Delete - If it's decided again that Laurel still doesn't deserve her own article then there's no reason why all the information there has to be lost since it can just be merged into List of Kid Nation participants. Also, I have to say that I think the reason why her article keeps getting nominating for deletion is because some people are misunderstanding what "independent of the subject" means. Because Laurel has a biography on CBS.com doesn't mean that CBS and Laurel aren't independent of each other anymore than an actor with a page on IMDb isn't independent of IMDb just because he has a page on IMDb. In other words, saying that any fame that Laurel may have gained from being on Kid Nation automatically doesn't count, simply because she was on Kid Nation doesn't make any sense. Laurel is famous mainly because she was on Kid Nation, that's true, but that doesn't fall under "self-published" material simply because Kid Nation wasn't Laurel's creation. Kid Nation was CBS's creation. Besides, there's no rule that says a person needs to gain sufficient notability in at least TWO separate areas before they can be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. If she's done only one thing to make her famous but that one thing was enough to make her well known to millions of people then there's no reason why she still needs to do something else to prove she's famous. Ospinad (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • She doesn't have to be notable for two different things. What I'm saying is that none of the references provided can establish notability per WP:N. All the references are either trivial lists of names or a page on TV.com (which doesn't necessarily prove notability in its own right; it just proves that the subject was on TV and that cannot establish notability) or pages on CBS.com which are disqualified because they are not considered independent from the subject. NF24^{(happy holidays!)} 23:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still don't understand how someone can be featured prominently in every episode of a TV show that was watched by millions of people every week and still be considered non-notable. Ospinad (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm... I wonder how many hundreds (or maybe even thousands) of BLP articles more we'd have to worry about if we had article on every reality show contestant. We have many Survivor articles, but every person doesn't need one. Laurel has some references, but most are somewhat trivial or are CBS. There is no reason why this can't be merged to the participant list. Reywas92^Talk 20:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nice try, but your so-called analogy is flawed and, in point of fact, only reaffirms the significants of this article. We are not listing an article for every participant. In truth, only 1 in 40, that's 2.5% of participants, and one of the ones who was awarded in the show, and one who was prominently featured in every episode. This is on the scale of a page for the winner of Survivor seasons. As has been pointed out above, many reality show contestants have their own page even if they didn't win. Survivor is a great example. If Survivor averages two contestant pages per season, that's more than 11% of all participants. With your analogy logic, we should have 8-9 articles. We're looking at a single, notable, highly recognizable character in a nationally-televised, well-rated show. That is, by definition, notability. I agree we shouldn't have a page for everyone! Laurel clearly should have her own. In the long run, a couple others probably should as well, maybe. Anyway, I appreciate your reasoning, but that reasoning only lends credence to keeping the article in question. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion may be moot and OBE. User:Pak21's page indicates that he had decided to exit the scene temporarily. As he is the nominator for AfD, I submit that this article should be removed from the AfD list. DoubleVibro (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. An AfD cannot be speedy closed because the nominator is temporarily inactive. You can read the speedy close criteria at WP:CSK, but in short, they are 1) The nomination is withdrawn or the nomination is to merge, move, or perform another non-deletion-related action 2) The nomination is in bad faith (such as Derek Jeter or Coca-Cola) 3) The nominator is banned 4) The page is a policy or guideline. NF24^{(happy holidays!)} 22:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer this one play out anyway, so that when it's all over and the page is kept, the article will have the "survived AfD" tag. Just a thought... VigilancePrime (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC) :-)[reply]

Don't get your hopes up yet. Though this article will most likely be kept, remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy and arguments that the closing admin feels invalid can be thrown out. If there are 12 "keep" !votes that are all WP:ILIKEIT but there are two well-thought-out "delete" !votes, the AfD will probably be closed as "delete" or "no consensus". Now I'm not saying that any of the !votes here are ILIKEIT, in fact it appears, again, that the article will be kept. NF24^{(happy holidays!)} 22:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Kid Nation participants. I wasn't on Kid Nation, but I've been on the Honor roll and my name was published, and there are multiple web pages referencing me. The last four refs are all the CBS Kid Nation site, the first two are simple profiles, and the second two are local news. This somewhat condenses into three refs. Anayway, I see absolutely no reason this cannot be merged into the above article. Reywas92^Talk 23:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or weak keep I dislike reality TV and Kid Nation in particular, but given this shows popularity, I think the information should be kept around. As a note, I'm getting 1,720 ghits, which seems low for anything so popular at the moment. Hobit (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Merge to List of Kid Nation participants. The information is good, valuable, and should be kept around, but I don't think that Laurel has enough independent validity to constitute having her own page. 69.236.71.61 (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mirado Black Warrior[edit]

Mirado Black Warrior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced article without any indication why this pencil is notable, per WP:N - no significant coverage in independent reliable sources Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It does exist and there is lots of references... but to have an article just for this pencil seems a bit over the top... --Pmedema (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Two short sentences and no references whatsoever. Also, I think it is a little ridiculous to have an article on a "popular brand of pencil".   jj137 ^♠ 21:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.   jj137 ^♠ 19:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC) Note: Talk:Wendy Wu 2 re-created and updated. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Wu 2[edit]

Wendy Wu 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

procedural nomination—version at time of AFD nomination: This was previously deleted via expired PROD 29 Aug 2007; that version has been restored as a subpage of this one to allow non-admins access to the content. The present version has at one reliable source versus 0 in the earlier version (the movieweb article is republication of the Variety news item). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing Admin: please delete the subpage when closing this discussion
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until the movie actually exists. Production companies change their minds all the time, and Wikipedia is not into the speculation business. Keeper | 76 21:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as crystalballing.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. Spellcast (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meer Abdullah Harun[edit]

Meer Abdullah Harun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A reposting of Abdullah Harun, which was speedily deleted on 16 December. No assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO. The creation of BdJewel (talk · contribs) a single purpose account Victoriagirl (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's the same page speedy delete it again. Why post in afd? --Neon white (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It was my understanding that the recreation of a speedily deleted article could not also be speedily deleted. If I'm wrong, I'm all for a speedy delete.Victoriagirl (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Victoriagirl is right; G4 (recreation of deleted material) only applies to pages that were re-created after an AfD. It does not apply to re-creation of previously speedied material. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, not at all a notable person, fails WP:BIO in every way. Possibly an A7. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Possibly counters WP:AUTO as this edit appears to indicate. Victoriagirl (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable as everyone has said. Comment - just thought I'd point out here that an anonymous user deleted the AFD template from the page. (I've restored it and warned the user.) --Dawn bard (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I note that the author has blanked the page and requested that it be deleted. I have placed a speedy delete tag. Victoriagirl (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result Was delete --JForget 01:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grabber Tees[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. No outside sources. Created by User:Grabbertees (WP:SPA account. Speedy tag removed Keeper | 76 19:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nominator note. Another user, User:Yoko ono lives, (also spa) has been removing tags, including the AfD tag from the article

• Speedy Delete as per WP:SPAM. The sole reference in the article may not even exist; no hits for the reference in Google or Amazon for title or publishing company. -- GJD (Talk to me|Damage I've done) 19:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Strong delete G11 as spam, so tagged, didn't notice the phrase "speedy tag removed". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no way this classifies as advertising/spam. only can see a delete on basis of sources in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Into everything (talk • contribs) 20:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is User:Into everything's first contribution to Wikipedia.

• Delete, no indication of notability. Speedy was contested but creator has added an apparently bogus book reference (publisher doesn't seem to exist). --Dhartung | Talk 20:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User "Into everything" has made his second contribution. Copied from my talk page: you're nuts, delete the page for all i care. the faster the better. User:Into everything. Keeper | 76 20:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - spam, not notable. JohnCD (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of bass roles in musicals[edit]

List of bass roles in musicals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vocal roles in musicals are almost never concretely defined nor is there a set standard for what is a bass, alto, and so on. These lists will accumulate original research and could become quite unwieldily. --omtay38 19:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These other articles are also included in this nomination (for similar reasons):

List of bass-baritone roles in musicals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of baritone roles in musicals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of tenor roles in musicals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of contralto roles in musicals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of mezzo-soprano roles in musicals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of soprano roles in musicals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Strong Delete Listcruft. Maybe list notable rolls in Bass (voice) Mr Senseless (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I think these lists stem from the Bass (voice) lists (and the other respective ones. Therefore, adding them back might not be the best idea. --omtay38 00:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is no widespread agreement as to which roles in musicals fall into which voice categories, and I don't see how any of these lists could be useful. In addition, they are entirely OR and dubious, and they are entirely unreferenced because there are no reliable sources for this information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Roles in musicals are very hard to categorize. There are no real references and no one really agrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broadwaygal (talk • contribs) 20:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Anyone can sing anything in musicals. I've cast Sopranos as Judas; I've re-arranged entire shows to cater to specific voices. These lists are just going to invite original research and points of view. —  MusicMaker5376 19:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Singularity 07:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kansai Time Out[edit]

Kansai Time Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete contested prod; no independent sources to show that this newspaper is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete short article with little or no context (A1) and/ or no assertion of notability (A7), tagged. Mr Senseless (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't count being a foreign-language newspaper in publication for 30 years an assertion of notability? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, A1 doesn't apply, because you can figure out that the article's about a publication. It has little content, but that's a different word, and being short is not a crime. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A google search of the japanese title yields 50 hits. Not enough. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is not a deletion criterion --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, actually, it is. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I removed to CSD tag, since this debate was all ready going on, had just opened today, and doesn't seem to have consensus yet. I agree with Mr. Senseless that the article in its current condition could have been tagged, but I thought we may as well weigh in on it since it was brought to Afd. Having said all that, I agree that there's no showing of notability here. The article is quite new (created 3 days 2 weeks ago) so I'm not surprised its short. I would endorse deletion (weakly) but I hope that the author or others can find sourcing. If so, I'd be open to changing my position. Xymmax (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I'm changing my position. a proper Google search ("kansai time out" -wikipedia) produced an excerpt from successive years of a travel guide calling it "an excellent resource for information about Kyoto and the Kansai area."[5] There also is a reasonably in depth article in the Japan Times here. There are many, many other hits that I just don't have time to go through right now, but this publication appears to host film screenings [6], participate in journalism conferences [7], and just generally act like a major publication [8]. I now believe that this organization is notable. Keep. Xymmax (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Google gives me 250 hits Fg2 (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counting Google hits is not research. Research involves actually reading the things that Google finds for you, and determining whether multiple in-depth published works from independent sources exist that cover this subject. Uncle G (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thank you for that comment. I wish you had directed it to the person who based his vote on the number of Google hits, rather than to the person who made a nonvoting comment on it. Fg2 (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking through the sources Xymmax found, I believe we've enough to demonstrate notability. Keep, with the hope that Xymmax will at least copy those references to the talk page so that others can work on the article over time. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment References added to talk page as requested. Xymmax (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the newly found references assert notability. matt91486 (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this really the best we can do on KTO? I really don't see anything useful in the stub, although I know there must be sources out there that can turn this into an article (they may be mostly in Japanese). Dekimasuよ! 10:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on the newspaper being in publication for over 30 years, and the information found by Xymmax. Yes, the article can be made better, but that can be discussed on the article's talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per last two keeps-if the big dogs in the Japan project say it's notable, they know. Chris (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above, thankfully this prod was contested. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singularity 07:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Millstone[edit]

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

Subject meets none of the criteria for biographical notability and the reference cited doesn't even mention the subject and I can find no external verification. This looks like a hoax and should be deleted. Isotope23 ^talk 19:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:V, probable hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 20:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hoax, I can't find any reliable sources on this guy. The only thing that comes up in a google search is this wikipedia article. Mr Senseless (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to be a hoax to me. The link has nothing to do with this guy, as well.   jj137 ^♠ 21:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even if Doug is real (and I'm pretty sure he isn't), he is still non-notable. Keeper | 76 21:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball delete as hoax - let's not waste our time.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tyrenius (talk) 03:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John O'Bryan[edit]

John O'Bryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete contested prod; unsourced article about someone who, it is claimed without evidence, has some writing credits but is more like a writer's equivalent of a bit-part actor. Fails WP:BIO. So nn that we don't know when or where he was born, red flags of non-notability in modern biographies: we are an encyclopedia, if anyone wants to read a biography here one should expect to see the minimal core biographical details that are missing in this article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Regardless of the missing bio info, even if it were here, Mr. O'Bryan would not meet the notability guidelines. Adding his date of birth will not help that. Keeper | 76 21:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable sources, and writing credits are rather thin -- Whpq (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tyrenius (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Salfia (Pakistan)[edit]

Jamia Salfia (Pakistan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced article about a nn school or mosque. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Places are not subject to notability criteria anyway --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, would be keep if it was a place but it's not. Punkmorten (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Places generally have a very loose standard for notability, as their existance is generally sufficient. However, they still have to meet Verifiability, and I can't actually prove that this place or organization or university or whatever it is actually exists. With sources, I'd be happy to keep, but I'm not convinced at this time that the article is sourceable. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tyrenius (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don 2[edit]

Don 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

procedural nomination—This has been PROD-deleted twice since the last AFD. However, the present version is more polished and has a citation versus being rough and without references for the article at the second AFD-deletion. Recommend that if the article is deleted this time, the talk-page be retained with AFD-record attached. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete again and salt. Wikipedia is still not a crystal ball and its already been deleted four times. Even the first movie article makes no mention at all of this supposed sequel. If movie is actually released, it should be created under the proper title of 'Don 2 - The Chase Continues'. Collectonian (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but don't salt. Maybe this movie is made? Maybe it isn't. We're not fortune tellers, but this may very well be a very valid article in the near future. Keeper | 76 22:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lack reliable sources and, IF there is any reliable sources whatsoever, it should be added as a section to the Don - The Chase Begins Again article until the movie is actually released. -- Loukinho (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Singularity 07:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brownsburg Community School Corporation[edit]

Brownsburg Community School Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete No encyclopedic notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Really?. You want to delete an entire school district? I say Keep. It exists. It's an entire district. WP:OUTCOMES says we should merge non notable schools into the districts' pages. You want to delete the district page? Am I missing something? Keeper | 76 22:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep We have extremely clear consensus that school districts are inherently notable, this one is no exception. Alansohn (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this should be a no brainer, school districts are clearly notable. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep duh. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tyrenius (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Littletown Breadmill[edit]

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

Non-notable self-published book; article written primarily by book author, who admits that he wrote the article in an effort to get the book made into a movie. Only alleged (and unreferenced) claim to notability is that the book won an award in a writing contest based on the number of words written. Russ (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slight correction. The article does contain a reference to the National Novel Writing Month website. Following the FAQ link on that site reveals that everyone who writes 50,000 words or more during that month is presented with an award, so this really can't count as an assertion of notability. --Russ (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not published, not reviewed, not notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not surprisingly, no independent sources to establish notability. Maralia (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam. And not notable. And spa. and everything Wikipedia isn't. Keeper | 76 22:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the more I look into this it appears to be spam or at worst self promotion. Very poor argumentation for retention. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With all do respect, this is not a spam nor an effort for self promotion. When i created this page, i had in my mind that wikipedia needs to handle more Filipino stories. Also, the award is real to those who really made their novels. I believe it needs to be noted not for self-glorification but for further classification of the quality of the work and what makes it special(not all winners finish their stories and not all are off to getting them published). Not published(yet), not reviewed(no professional reviews yet). If the basis for deletion is copyright, everything is copyright. even what you just typed is copyrighted by you. copyright is not the certificate but rather an intangible thing that occurs between the product and the maker in the instant of it's creation. setting the technicality aside, i wish to point out that the excerpt section will have to be renamed to a more appropriate title. this is somewhat of an overview of what the story is roughly about, readers need to know what a story is roughly all about. Thank you for your concern to this article, whether it be positive or negative. My main goal here is to inform searchers that this is a story that had been written from the Philippines and the NaNoWriMo. I'll try to place the titles of some of the big titled stories that had won the NaNoWriMo event on a new section of the page if you guys think it could help. It's hard to prove to you this is no advertising feat but i would like to tell you that it's not and i if it's starting to sound like one with all the editing, please assist me into making it work more for the interest of wikipedia. Thank you very much. Xrecent (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the basis for deletion is not copyright. The basis for deletion is what you said yourself -- "Not published(yet), not reviewed(no professional reviews yet)." Wikipedia is not a listing of every book ever written, only the notable ones. I invite you to follow that last link to see the criteria explained in more detail. --Russ (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Russ and everyone here for the links you have provided. I have in fact followed the links you gave me. I can see that this article may be posted too soon and because of that I would like to ask when will it be most appropriate to post this article if ever it should be deleted. Since it has already been proposed for removal, upon its likely deletion, when will it be most appropriate to possibly reposting/reconstructing it. Again I will further emphasis that my goal here is to populate the category for Filipino novels. I’m already researching for published works but so far, this is the entry that I am having much issue with. I am learning a lot of things from this and will surely take those into account for the next articles that I will be contributing. Also, is there no part of this that can be possibly salvaged rather than deleted? Upon reading the section of notability, I can see what you mean by not being notable enough. And true, it currently is not 'yet' that notable. I think I may have to conform to your suggestion but I am still hoping some parts of this may be salvaged or possibly reconstructed, retained or rebuilt...presently or on a later date. Thank you very much. Xrecent (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability in the form of independent book reviews etc. -- Whpq (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. GlassCobra 09:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper kill[edit]

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

Independent production with no third party coverage. Fails WP:ATT. Nv8200p talk 18:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Probably non-notable YouTube-style material.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a search for "Hyper kill" and "Kane and Hamilton designs" together yield no reliable sources. In fact the only results are this wiki article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tyrenius (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mavis Manor[edit]

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

This seems to be an unnotable hotel MSGJ (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable. RMHED (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cannot find any relevant, independent source that show that this particular bed and breakfast is notable. A fantastic candidate for Wikitravel. Keeper | 76 22:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A pretty building in pretty surroundings, I think. But very unlikely to be notable (there are many millions of buildings and structures around the world, and only a very, very small percentage of them are truly notable).--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bootny Lee Farnsworth[edit]

Bootny Lee Farnsworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana 01:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hwang Jin[edit]

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

Unreferenced for more than eighteen months. Apparently original research. Mikeblas (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Duplicated work from within Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598). --Pmedema (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm inclined towards Keep. A few minutes searching found a couple of refs which I have added to the article. Seems to be a notable figure in Korean history.--Michig (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Michig; notability for 16th century Korea would have been on a par with David Petraeus. Pity the Koreans didn;t have the interwebs to write us reliable sources. Skomorokh ^incite 17:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Sources, significance, so Keep. Cool Hand Luke 20:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kre8tiveworkz[edit]

Kre8tiveworkz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Spammy article on a company with iffy notability. Article creator has removed advert and coi tags without improving the article. He has claimed here that he is not Todd Edwards, CEO of the company, but had signed previous posts here and here under that name. The same editor has also repeatedly created the spam article Reality Rhyming® about the company's main product. Reference list does contain a valid reference or two, but most links are irrelevant. If the article is kept, it should be stubified. --Finngall ^talk 18:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. This article follows all of your guidelines exactly. Everything can be verified, it's all factual, significant to the world and not self promoting. The Hallmark Greeting Cards article was even used as a guide to write this one. Please advise and thank you. BHammycurls (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails our guideline WP:CORP (notability for businesses). Fails the primary notability criterion. Google News Archive search turns up only press releases. --Dhartung | Talk 20:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a notable business, considering that this company created a new writing style of the written language and rhyme methodology, its cultural popularity has gone way up in society. Celebrities have even picked up on it. Google News Archive search turns up press releases, but other reliable sources as well. Keep it as a stub if anything. --Fantasyfest (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Fantasy — Fantasyfest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. By the book article - verifiable, good cites, etc. prove corporate notability. Needs cleanup for tone, but otherwise, it's a fine stub. Am I missing something? Bearian (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete as most of the sources seem to be media releases and independent coverage seems to be short. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I did a Google search and found a few more reliable sources. Meets notible criterion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.129.144 (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC) — 65.3.129.144 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep per Bearian, hopefully additional sources of a non-promotional nature can be dredged up soon, but I think this is notable enough. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I just heard him on an NPR Radio interview. It ran a few times this past Friday morning. — 98.203.19.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was Keep. Hut 8.5 11:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frogs in popular culture[edit]

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

Nearly all unsalvageable trivia that's hard to read. Hardly anything is referenced. Anything we might want to keep can be easily incorporated into the Frog article. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles and Wikipedia:Trivia sections. Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 17:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How "unsalvageable" is it? Has an effort been made to source any of these statements? I'm seeing Talk page complaints, but not salvage attempts. I'm also seeing a former AfD that suggests no progress is being made on fixing what was wrong 4 months ago. I would suggest sourcing what can be, removing what cannot be, and trimming the IPC lists to items that demonstrate something (other than "I saw a frog"). This may be a case of WP:PROBLEM. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC) edg ☺ ☭ 18:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, hardly any effort has been put towards fixing it, to be honest, but I strongly doubt we'd be able to find references for most of it--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 18:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and Delete. A good article could be made on this topic, which seems notable enough, but there is no sign this article ever will become encyclopedic. I have merged Frogs and the French (sourced), Frog proverbs and Frogs in Egyptian mythology (both unsourced) into Frog for consideration by editors there. The rest, if kept, can only be the foundation for a rambling IPC list. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no such action. Uncle G (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you insist. Delete. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Proverbs are also merged to Wikiquote. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'll bet this can be tidied up to resemble Cultural depictions of spiders. Articles like this would be a good start. And this book has a chapter about frogs in folklore. Frogs: Art, Legend and History sounds most helpful, although I can't get a good description of it online. Zagalejo^^^ 19:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and execute Zagalejo's suggestion. Lots of dross in this ore, but with the refining fire of sources, this is at least a nugget, if not a full bar, of a cool, interesting, and useful article. I note, btw, that WP:NOEFFORT is an argument to leap over. Ribbit! —Quasirandom (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it contains prose and is referenced. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These references don't really make a case for this article. Of the 5, only Why do the French call the British 'the roast beefs'? (now merged to Frog) applies. An article for boiling frog exists elsewhere, and the IMDB link documents a spotting, but is otherwise uninformative on the article topic. The other two are science links not relevant to "Popular culture". / edg ☺ ☭ 20:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • David P. Badger's Frogs (S.l.: Voyageur Press, 2001) includes chapters on "frogs in popular culture, their physical characteristics and behavior, and environmental challenges." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there'll be independent refs to add. Will get to this. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - largely in poor shape currently, but there is referenced material and it is patently salvageable, contrary to the nom. --Dweller (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The Continuum Encyclopedia of Animal Symbolism in Art (ISBN 0826415253} devotes pages 188 to 191 to frogs, beginning with Neolithic representations, and including Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek, Aztec, Olmec, Moche, Mayan, Japanese, Hindu, and Christian frog symbolisms. Wikipedia should be no less of an encyclopaedia than that. An administrator hitting the delete button is not required to make that so. What is required is that editors hit their edit buttons and make the article better, using ordinary editing tools in the ordinary way.

  And yes, renaming the article to Cultural depictions of frogs is certainly the way to encourage editors to stop thinking that a collection of examples of frogs in 20th/21st century pop culture somehow magically forms a coherent article when it exceeds some critical mass. Administrator privileges are not required in order to rename articles, either, though. Uncle G (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The references being Googled up in this Afd could surely help one write a very good article on Frogs in popular culture. Not like the trivial fork nominated for deletion here. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An administrator hitting a delete button is no part of the article improvement process that makes poor articles better. Editors actually hitting their edit buttons is. We all have an edit button. AFD is not cleanup. Uncle G (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's lots more to be said on the subject. Frog Went A-Courting, Ethel the Frog and more. And, by coincidence, I bought two Frog bicycle lights today. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Comment - This is a clearly notable topic and deserves to be included. I've changed the title to fit in with most other pop culture pages (Cultural depictions of spiders & Cultural depictions of lions to name a few), and this also makes it sound more sophisticated. JSYK. Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 03:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I know this is a poor argument for this article, but...I like reading stuff like this. It's kind of fun and enjoyable. I like going to bed at night knowing there are cool articles like this waiting to be read in Wikipedia. Ozmaweezer (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A horrendous and purposeless trivia article. Un-fixable. Just nuke the whole thing, and start afresh, perhaps using the new title.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, guidelines state shouldn't be dleted on quality alone. Thanks for noting one should start afresh. Suggests you think topic notable. :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Can't tell if it's still up for AfD, because the template was removed from the article. But keep obviously. AfD is not clean-up and what's there now is a better start than an empty edit window. --JayHenry (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable subject, terrible article presently. Lawrence Cohen 07:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was a fairly good page,and almost everyone here realises it. Even if it were "Nearly all unsalvageable trivia" the salvageable parts could be salvaged; being" hard to read." is not cause for deletion and "Hardly anything is referenced" is a reason to reference, not delete. So all parts of the deletion rationale fail. But the article is referenced, and there is by now consensus even at WP:FICTION that material can be sourced from the fiction itself. DGG (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While any given example of a frog in fiction can be sourced from the fiction itself, it would be original research to source statements like "The theme of transfiguration of and into frogs also features prominently" or "pop culture tends to portray frogs as benign, but ugly, and often clumsy, but also with hidden talents" to fictional examples.
    Also, the factoid that a book entitled Frogs has a chapter on "Frogs in popular culture" (added during this AfD) is unencyclopedic; its presence in the lede section is comparable to writing don't delete this article it is very notable in the article text. Perhaps a guideline on what "salvage" means can be written to discourage article space wikilawyering of this kind. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I agree that I wouldn't have placed a chapter entry like that but it serves to highlight that material is out there, and hence challenges the whole idea it is non-notable. There are vast amounts of material out there than many people here are not aware of. Edgarde have you been to any cinema/film bookstores or humnaties libraries (at university not municipal that is). Much of this stuff is out there. No need to stray into OR as it will be able to be sourced. And please don't use words like unencyclopedic as it doesn't mean anything in context here but WP:IDONTLIKEIT cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, "unencyclopedic" was pretty vague. What I mostly mean is unhelpful filler posing as information. If someone needs to learn about Frogs in popular culture, the fact that an otherwise-unknown book has a chapter about Frogs in popular culture does not really tell them anything about Frogs in popular culture. A Google book search is not a substitute for information on the subject. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky then that I have a couple of books on my bookshelf with info rather than just relying on google. However a positive google search highlights the fact there is secondary source information around. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, the statement that such information exists does not create an article. And there have been comments about how this article will be improved for close to a year now. The good material has been merged back to Frog. If someone wants to write a scholarly article on the subject of Frogs in popular culture (by whatever title), the resources clearly abound, but there is nothing here worth retaining in a separate article. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Do not delete information that is probably true, that people will want to read, and that isn't causing a problem. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We have no idea whether it's true or not due to its lack of references. As for people wanting to read it, it's just useless info that people won't care about. It's causing a problem because of the last two points.--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 13:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion regarding what is useless info. For any real assessment of trivia's popualrity just look at any newsstand and see what the biggest selling magazines are. There are references coming so both points are invalid. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are an encyclopedia, not a collection of random info. That is an extremely badly presented collecion of random information.--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 21:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK so its messy. We don't delete on article quality. And there are cohesive sources, so that doesn't apply, and consensus seems to not agree with you. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There a four references for the whole article.--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 13:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and? Better than none, and the sort of material which qualifies for RS would not often be in an average municipal library but more fine arts bit of uni library or specialist bookstore. One day someone will trot down and find some nice stuff to slot in...maybe it will be soon, but at least google etc. shows that the subject is notable :)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if it isn't referenced, we don't know it's true. And what do we do with information that isn't true? That's right, delete.--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 15:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really any doubt that The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County has a frog in it? We don't need a outside reference to make that conclusion for us. Zagalejo^^^ 17:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix-wiki, we don't delete information that's unverified. We delete information that's not verifiable. There's an enormous and extremely important difference. --JayHenry (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KDEN (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation page for only two uses. Need has been eliminated on target pages, and nothing links here anymore.

• Delete Pithily put. --Dweller (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:HEY as Obesity in India. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian states ranking by overweight people[edit]

Indian states ranking by overweight people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#IINFO. You help me decide if I'm right. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Encyclopedicity is borderline, if you ask me, but I wouldn't mind a full article Obesity in India (or any other country where it's a significant problem). --Dhartung | Talk 17:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I go with Dhartung that a real article wouldn't hurt. There is just too little here to make it encyclopedic. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I looked through Category:Obesity, and couldn't find anything relating to obesity by country except for a single article - Obesity in the United States. If we have articles on LGBT rights by country, then obesity by country could be a perfectly valid topic for a range of articles.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should clarify that my idea has a basis in dietary and health care differences that are likely to be substantial at a country level. There actually is a good deal of at least popular literature around the idea that places like Italy, France and Japan have better diets and less obesity than the US, for instance. --Dhartung | Talk 20:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we have lots of almanac-y type lists ranking various countries, states, whatnot by various factors; this is sourced, health (and hence obesity) is encyclopedic, so this is ok by WP:LIST. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep First of all, I have to reiterate the points Carlossuarez46 made. Second, I am making these article linked to an other article which also I have been making titled Indian states rankings. It makes more sense when it is linked to that article.128.231.88.4 (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's just a list that is not actually well sourced. If an article could be written that identifies trends and rates of complications (diabetes very common in India) I might defend its inclusion. JFW | T@lk 00:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From your rationale it appears that you have completely skipped over the Further Reading section of the article, as well as the two stub tags. Uncle G (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It would be wrong to delete the article based on a hastiliy made opinion of JFW. He is absolutely wrong to say that the article is not well sourced.. He needs to visit this website http://nfhsindia.org/nfhs3_national_report.html and click NFHS-3 fact sheets and verify all the informations by each state. Secondly, I agree that diabetes is a major problem in India. But it would be wrong to say that you cant make an article about obesity just because diabetes is the problem. Thirdly, I would like to reiterate the point again which is that "this statistics about obesity" is a part of a major article I am writing Indian states rankings and in a larger context, it all makes absolute sense. Finally, information is an information, whether it is about diabetes or obesity.Fair and Honest_India 00:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I actually think it's a valid stub now thanks to the help of Dhartung and others. Nom withdrawn.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for everyone who participated int his discussion. I guess I can remove "deleteion" tag from the article now. I will be very happy if somebody explains some of the terms used here, for example, AFD and nom withdrawn. Fair and Honest_India 02:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcpkumar (talk • contribs)
• AFD means an articles for deletion debate, which is what this is. Nom withdrawn means that I'm withdrawing my nomination for deletion, meaning that I want the article to be kept. If you're new try reading WP:WELCOME, Help:Contents/Getting started and learn more.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 17:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saur Revolution[edit]

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

I think this article should be deleted and the page name "Saur Revolution" become a redirect to this location People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan#The Saur Revolution. As you can see, currently this article has a 1 sentence summary and a weasel worded, non-neutral, unreferenced statement attempting to approximate why the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Obviously it would be better to improve this article, but I can't do it and if anyone else was gonna, they'd of done by now. Far better for anyone who types in "Saur Revolution" to be linked to informed, referenced account on the PDPA page, than this, plus if someone in the future comes along and decides they wanna make the Saur Revolution into a full article, they'll be well within their rights to do so :) Ryan4314 (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why not merge the PDPA section with this article and tag for better referencing? Seems the revolution was not a part of the history of the party but the history of the country, so shouldn't be buried. --Dhartung | Talk 17:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point, then it'll simply be a reworded version of the section in the PDPA with nothing extra. Don't worry it wouldn't be "buried", all of Saur Revolution's links will be redirected to the PDPA section, which will actually be an improvement to Wikipedia, coz at the moment people who search "Saur Revolution" only get to see the article with 1 sentence. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: D'oh, silly me, I probably should've just replaced all the text on Saur Revolution with a redirect to People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan#The Saur Revolution, would been a lot simpler than starting an AFD. I am starting to feel tired lol...Ryan4314 (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, of course. This is an incredible nomination. Are you going to propose redirecting October Revolution to Bolshevik? Everyking (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I don't think you understand. Have you seen the Saur Revolution article in it's current state? It's 2 sentences! If we redirect it to it's subheader on PDPA it'd be much better for the community, they'll actually be able to learn about it for a start. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can click a link from this article to that one; there's no meaningful benefit to redirecting it. We need a proper article on this subject, and by redirecting we substantially reduce our odds of getting one. Stubs need to grow, not to be eliminated. Everyking (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub hasn't grown for a year now, are you gonna do it? Also I don't think anybody actually knows about the sizeable entry on the PDPA page, hence the problem; Anyone who types in "Saur Revolution" will just get linked to a 1 sentence article, and won't be able to find out anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan4314 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: Valid, genuine and notable encyclopedic topic. Article nedds expansion.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, pretty obvious OR. GlassCobra 09:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Networking[edit]

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

I read the article three times and I still don't know what Visual Networking is. I am, however, pretty certain that this article is almost completely original research. CIreland (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I don't think the proposer's own lack of comprehension for the subject is sufficient to warrant the article's deletion. Although unsourced and generally untidy, I am sure that sources could be found for it (quick google search returns some valid referencing material). Although it looks like it has been copied from somewhere (from a quick glance), it still needs a tidy up of prose and layout, with references being a must. The article looks valid to me, and although I have no knowledge of the subject, can't see a valid reason to delete it. It's only had a week - if in a few weeks nothing has changed with no references added or notability of the subject asserted, then by all means deletion might be warranted. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an essay, and smells very much like a copyvio, and is POV regardless. The term is most often seen as an entry point to visualization for network analysis, or outside computing, for making network charts (e.g. company-to-company relationships). I am not finding a good primary source for this topic as "visualized" by the creator. --Dhartung | Talk 17:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This reads like a college writing assignment or corporate presentation. It's all padding, written in theoretical terms and with no actual information. The subject's notability is also highly questionable: search engine searches for the phrase return unrelated results. I suspect this subject may have been made up by the author.
  Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:31, 12/19/2007