< December 20	December 22 >

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:22, December 27, 2007

Keepers of the Light[edit]

A song co-written by the barely-notable-enough-for-Wikipedia Prussian Blue (duo) but not recorded by them nor available on any of their albums. It was recorded by the completely non-notable "Battlecry" who don't rate a Wikipedia article. Neither does this song. Delete. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete The only relevant link I can find for Battelcry I can find is web interview with them, and it doesn't really say much about their music as it does their personal politics. The song is only tangentially related to Prussian Blue (duo), and it's not worth mentioning in that article. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should be deleted, but maybe Prussian Blue's involvement with the song is still worthy of note in the artists' article. Ikasu (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per NickPenguin Tavix (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines; specifically, it has not received significant coverage. Note that Wiki guidelines state, "A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." This seems to be the case here; the fact that it is mentioned in an interview close to a year ago doesn't constitute significant coverage. Tanthalas39 (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dating of the Exodus[edit]

The original edit on this article seems to consist entirely of uncited original research; it has not been cleaned up much since then. In addition, no other articles link here. Perhaps a page should exist on this topic, but not with this content. ArthurDenture (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Essay/OR. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and stubify while cutting the OR. Has some good cites. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep because: (a) this is a well-known, legitimate and serious subject of both traditional Torah study as well as of Bible study; (b) see the many Ghits for this topic that shows its scope and the interest in it; (c) the article cites adequate sources; (d) shoddiness of style is not an excuse for deletion. It may need the ((Wikify)) or ((Cleanup)) or ((Refimprove)) templates and serious trimming but not removal. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Agree topic is notable. Article contains a substantial amount of original research which needs to be cut. However, enough material appears sourced that what's left may be more than a stub. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and stubbify Notable topic--important enough question in both history and religion to be notable separately of the Exodus in general. But the article its totally unacceptable--OR and synthesis based on mostly wildly inadequate sources. I would be quite surprised to hear IZAK (or Bearian) telling us the sources are adequate after they take another look at Rabbi Wolpe's web site, or custance.org, and read his bio there. Then there are Campbell's speculations on cross-cultural mythology. the rest is from a single page of a chapter in a popularized book by OUP--that might be a start in making a decent article. I analyze them further on the talk page of the article. I personally think some of the article might be correct, but that's based on my memory of old reading, and is about as reliable and well-organized as the rest of it. DGG (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Hi DGG: It is the topic that is important, even though much of the content is not up to par. IZAK (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This is an important subject, which has been controversial among biblical scholars. Arguments can be made from the Bible placing events in the 1200s or 1400s BC. The present article is not well-structured, but that calls for a clean-up, not for deletion.Peterkingiron (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. The article The Exodus has a *long* discussion on the subject. I would also note that part of the reason this article may have seen very few edits is that it is not linked from anywhere in the main article space... The only links to it are from talk pages and userspace etc. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Seconded. The Exodus has not only a long discussion on the same topic, but a discussion that has undergone several years of revisions. As you point out, this article is too orphaned to have seen much work. Since deletion seems unlikely, once debate is closed I will be bold and either replace this article with a redirect or replace the content with text moved from The Exodus (unless there are other suggestions). --ArthurDenture (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong Delete - What is not OR is covered in the Exodus article. There is nothing here to benefit anyone. Springnuts (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:22, December 27, 2007

Melvin Ezell Gorham[edit]

Not notable subject, an entirely self-published author, no references outside of two Usenet posts and none exist, much of article is original research and speculation about the author's motivations and possibly a hit piece. Delete. KleenupKrew (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines. These are the two criteria I look for regarding authors:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

It is clear this article's subject meets neither of these. References in article reveal a couple email conversations - nothing more. A Google search shows that his books are sold from several venues, but this in itself does not show Wiki notability. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 20:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

M.R.Sreenath[edit]

Declined speedy. Article concerns Indian academic, contains no references and is written in a promotional tone. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Looks like a copy of his CV.... No real grounds for notability are given. --Crusio (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article strikes me as a claim of notability that could be used to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, as it is a verbatim copy of his profile from his place of employment. [1] (Note that you have to actually click on the 'profile' text to view the text) Tanthalas39 (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Blanked by author and deleted per WP:CSD#G7 ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lakewood Commons[edit]

Non-notable housing development in a small town.ˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete G7, author blanked page, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 20:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scott Newton (Mississippi politician)[edit]

Per WP:NN. Lost the only election he was in so he's hardly a "politician". Reads like a PR piece. -- ALLSTARecho 23:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Major party candidate for a major state office. Corvus cornix_talk 23:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete one-time defeated candidate and lawyer - will open a pandora's box. Shiva_eVolved 00:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - one-time defeated candidate for a state office. Ceased to be notable enough for an article the day after the election. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was he notable enough the day before? Notability is not temporary. Rigadoun (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are we reading the same Notability is not temporary? It reads: A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest. He received a short burst of news coverage back in 2003, but nothing present so he loses that notability argument twice. And since no long-term coverage has been demonstrated, he loses that notability argument as well. He simply is NN. -- ALLSTARecho 07:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak delete. I found coverage of 2003 and 2007 races and a couple of local articles in 2006. He's not quite there with sustained or recurring coverage for WP:N. • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete as there is no assertion of notability. Losing candidates for political office and Reality shows are not notable per WP:BLP. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:23, December 27, 2007

Mehul Patel[edit]

Insufficient notability: sourced only from his own projects. See also this recent, related AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amit_Patel) Sancho 23:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Shiva_eVolved 00:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines. Google search reveals only an interview in a marginal website that is related to his work (he created the game Utopia; this website is dedicated to it); other references are his own projects as noted above. Going through all WP:BIO criteria, I fail to see how this article meets any of the guidelines.

Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aquaretics[edit]

I've tagged this article for deletion for a number of reasons:

Most importantly, aquaretic is almost never used as a noun. It's usage is much more similiar to that of natriuretic (an adjective) than diuretic. As a result I believe it merits a wiktionary definition, but not a wikipedia article.
As the folks on this articles talk page have already pointed out, the current article content is both unverified and apparently inaccurate. I don't claim to be an expert, but the increased renal perfusion -> increased GFR -> increased H2O loss argument seems very unlikely without some kind of interference with ADH or some additional diuretic effect in the distal tubule/collecting duct.
With the greatest respect to its original author, I do not believe there is any content currently in the article worth preserving. If you disagree, however, perhaps it would be better merged into the diuresis article? Or used in the creation of a new aquaresis article?

Thebagman (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A couple other factual inaccurancies I noticed

The statement 'Since these preparations do not increase elimination of electrolytes, they cannot be correctly labelled as diuretics' is false - diuretics are any substance which increase urine volume.
Aquaretics would not help treat hyperuricemia as, if they increase water excretion, no excess uric acid would be lost. If anything they would worsen hyperuricemia by depleting fluid volume!

Thebagman (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep and redevelop. Shiva_eVolved 00:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remember that we have no reason to trust anything that a pseudonymous editor calling xyrself "Thebagman" says. We have no way of knowing who you are, and no reason to care. You are a pseudonym. The rest of the world doesn't trust you, and doesn't believe "It's wrong because I say so." arguments coming from you. Sources are what we trust here at Wikipedia. So stop making bald assertions of falsehood and start citing sources. And then start using them to write articles. Sources! Sources! Sources!
Once you've done that, please go and read our Wikipedia:Deletion policy to see what problems do not require an administrator to press a delete button and that ordinary editors like you can fix with the tools that you have available. Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox. Uncle G (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your feedback guys - I'm new here and am not familiar with wikipedia etiquette, sorry. I did read the deletion guide before I slapped a tag on this article - I'm not here to vandalise other people's work. However, I did get caught up in the factual inaccuracies of this article, so allow me to reiterate my argument: aquaretic is used as an adjective, not a noun. Therefore I believe this word deserves a wikitionary definition but not a wikipedia article - as described in the what wikipedia is not article.
Note that natriuretic, an equilivent term, exists only as a disambiguation page, and then only because the word occurs in several hormones.
Uncle G, I notice you've created a stub of an aquaresis article (good idea by the way - I'm sorry, it simply did not occur to me to do so. I'm happy to help out with expanding this). As this is the concept aquaretic describes I believe this is correct entry to cover this topic, perhaps with aquaretic redirecting to it. However, I disagree with your statement 'aquaretic is class of drugs.' If so, it is not mentioned in either my pharmacology textbook or medical dictionary - you could certainly argue such a class of drugs exists, but would that be original research?
My sources, for the record, are Medical Physiology: Boron & Boulpaep, and Pharmocology: Rang et al. I'm sorry I can't offer you links.
Thebagman (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- comments Baggie is right in that a diuretic is defined as anything that increases wee volume [ttp://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7103]. However the amount of urea in the body isn't necessarily worsened by water being wee-d out, as hopefully unless the kidney filtration function is poor, some urea will come out with it. Aquaretics do seem to be a real product though [2] .Merkinsmum 01:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - There's not much doubt about it. I've found three books on herbal medicine talking about them already. Uncle G (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I can. They are ISBN 0721632564 and ISBN 0443072027, respectively. My source is the one cited in the article, which says that there is a new class of drugs called aquaretics, in pretty much those very words, on the page given. It would be original research if I were advancing that as a novel idea of my own, but I'm not. It's not my idea.
  If you want to learn more, go and read page 189 of ISBN 0781795958.
  This is why we cite sources. You don't need to take my word for things. You can go and check for yourself, in the sources cited. And there are plenty more where those came from, it appears. Uncle G (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, I am now suitably chastised and much more familiar with Wikipedia policy for citing textbooks as sources. I don't have my BNF with me and so can't check in there, however, I'm not sure a single reference to a book on palliative care and supportive oncology is sufficient evidence for a class of drugs called aquaretics.

In any case, I still have reservations about the notability of this article - I feel 'plenty', especially, might be pushing it. A search on PubMed (www.pubmed.com) shows 23 published articles containing the word 'aquaretics' i.e. which use it as a noun. 23 may sound impressive, but not compared with 68,313 results for 'diuretics', the term you are arguing aquaretics is equivilent to.

Anyway, I believe I have made my case as strongly as I can. I'll be interested to see what decision ends up being taken. Thebagman (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: WikiProject Pharmacology has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Needs rewriting. Conivaptan and tolvaptan, amongst others, are V2 antagonists in development as aquaretics. They are very different from natriuretics as they increase free water clearance by inhibiting AVP. Last month an entire supplement of Am J Med (21 pages) was devoted to the indications for their use. JFW | T@lk 22:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I don't believe that objects need to adhere to the same guidelines as people; classes of drugs do not need to win awards or be repeatedly cited by mainstream periodicals. In the WP:Note summary "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", the only word here that can really be debated is "significant". I think that Oxford University Press is significant and reliable, and the others aren't easily dismissed. Tanthalas39 (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of counties in Utah. Singu larity 08:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Utah county seats[edit]

Redundant page considering List of counties in Utah already contains this info. Crzy cheetah 22:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as redundant. JohnCD (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Chris! _ct 02:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Same as above. Tavix (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Kannie | talk 03:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why not just redirect this to List of counties in Utah since this might be a reasonable search query? --Polaron | Talk 15:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect per Polaron. Neier (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am fine with redirecting. --Crzy cheetah 20:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a combination of our Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies. Prior deleted versions of the article give this person's date of birth. I am therefore deleting it as a wholly unsourced (auto)biography of a minor who has not been confirmed to be a public figure. Moreover, this account has created other articles about xyrself that have already been deleted as quite transparent hoax vandalism; and the prior deleted autobiographies differ from this one in what they claim this person to have done. Uncle G (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cameron Tate[edit]

Created by User:Cameron Tate, clear conflict of interest here. Was speedied before ~~apparently~~ under A7 but now includes claims of notability. A PROD would likely be declined, so here we go. No notability. Google search brings up absolutely nothing, so no references exist to establish notability. Possible hoax. Tagged as such.NF24^{(happy holidays!)} 22:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Only claims are to have appeared as an extra and in commercials, and "will appear" in future movies. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong delete. Author has instances of vandalism [3] [4] and of adding his name [5]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forgot to add in my !vote: Delete as nom. NF24^{(happy holidays!)} 23:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. And when you look at the guy's talk page, User_talk:Cameron_Tate, it becomes clear we've been down this road before. Why do people write articles about themselves when they've used their own names as their user names, and then have the balls to re-create their autobiographies when they've been deleted? Beats me. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Agreed. I tagged the article for speedy deletion twice in three hours and they *still* recreated it. Makes me wonder what they're thinking sometimes. NF24^{(happy holidays!)} 00:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nothing to say it meets WP:MUSIC. BLACKKITE 11:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History (Tenacious D song)[edit]

This article about this song was brought to my attention in another AFD. Before I did the initial edit, it contained the song lyrics - these were removed as a copyright violation. Without this, there's not much content, other than describing where this song has appeared. It doesn't explain why it's notable, and I see nothing notable about this particular song. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment There's enough stuff out there on this song to satisfy WP:N, but there's not much of an article right now so I won't say "keep". Go head and delete if it bothers you. Rocket000 (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Being a stub is reason for expanding the article, not deleting it. Tag as a stub and let someone who cares expand the article at some point in the future. Rray (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep with no prejudice against a future move. Cool Hand Luke 22:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Songa Mercur[edit]

No Notability Latulla (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep seems to get a lot of google hits, I guess the news community for drilling technology is well-wired. I added some much-needed context to the article (I for one didn't really know what it was about) and provided some simple refs. If not kept, some content can be merged to Songa Offshore. Rigadoun (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: WikiProject Engineering has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - I would liken the name Songa Mercur to a ships name. They need to follow the lead of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships, moreso than follow the lead of Wikipedia:WikiProject Engineering, and I would suggest Hull #'s in the Article Titles. no derogatory inferences were ment in this opinion Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - has third party sources. Could possibly be merged in future, however keep for now. Addhoc (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fails WP:V which is non-negotiable. No prejudice to recreation if suitable sources are found. Tyrenius (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jacques Dallaire[edit]

This was an expired, deleted PROD that User:Redfive77, the major editor on the article, contested post-deletion. The PROD reasoning read "Self-promotional article that does not establish the subject's notability". The primary editor has countered with "Dr. Dallaire is a pioneer in human performance and has contributed much to the NASCAR and F1 communities over his long career." I am of the opinion that a broader airing of the article here would be beneficial. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. While the article is poorly referenced with far too many external links peppering the promotional prose, this page on the Canadian Motorsports Hall of Fame web site provides clear evidence of notability. The article needs cleaning up, but shouldn't be deleted. -Amatulic (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: WikiProject NASCAR has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Did Jacques Dellaire receive "significant coverage" on that single webpage, as the notability guideline requires? And there are NO reliable sources for any of the other information in the article - not the birthdate, the not the occupation, not the clients, nothing. No newspaper or magazine has written an article about this person. How are we supposed to verify any of the information in the article? UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and strip down article to verified content from reliable sources. Has notability as a member of a major Hall of Fame. There should be plenty of other reliable sources (besides the HoF) since he has achieved that level of notability. All of his listed clients are major motorsports drivers. I would be happy to strip down the article if the closing admin would notify me. I don't want to do it yet to cloud this discussion. Royalbroil 01:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While all of the "clients" listed in the article appear to be notable, barring disclosure from either the purported clients or one of Dallaire's many businesses, we cannot actually verify the claim that they are or were his clients. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, provided we go through with Royalbroil's plan. matt91486 (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Article is an autobiography--User:Redfive77 is Dallaire's Wikipedia account. The article has been flagged as spam by several users and Dallaire has sought to cover up any objections via anonymous editing (see Special:Contributions/74.99.198.36). Additionally, the article largely serves to promote Dallaire's consulting business. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please provide some diffs/evidence/proof that Redfive77 is really Dallaire. How do know/relate 74.99.198.36 to Redfive77? Royalbroil 19:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will second that request. You can't simply sling around accusations like that without hard evidence, Daniel. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did y'all even bother to look at the article's history??? User:Redfive77 authored it to include trivial details that only Dallaire himself would know, or be motivated to include, including:

"He enjoys digital photography and working with computers, and is looking forward to learning more about video production in the coming years."
"Dr. Dallaire received his [...] Degree [...] and headed west later that summer"
"Throughout his [...] tenure [...] Dallaire assisted his academic advisors by serving as a technician."
"While the sport of motor racing represented the lion’s share of their early clientele [...]"

It also included unabashed self-promotional gems like:

"[T]he experience launched Dr. Dallaire down a path that would see him work directly with more than 500 high-performance racers from 35 countries and just about every form of racing on the planet… a passion that continues to this day.
"Over the past 30 years, Dr. Dallaire has been exposed to the application of a great many sport science and medicine strategies and techniques within the high-performance sport world and has been in an excellent position to monitor what has been effective and what has not. Over this time, he has refined his understanding of what is missing in the performance enhancement equation and continues to focus on addressing these perceived needs."

User:Redfive77 is also attempting to legitimize his consulting businesses by cross-linking his article and attempting (unsuccessfully) to create [[Category:Performance Consultants]], including the ersatz category in Bain & Company and Accenture,

As for the anonymous IP address, connect the dots. You've got a Toronto-based anonymous editor frantically cleaning up the article days after it's been flagged with ((advert)) and ((Cleanup-spam)) and these are the only anonymous edits made under this IP address. If that ain't quackin' like a duck and walkin' like a duck, then I'm at a loss to explain it.
He's also submitted his own promotional photo and left this nastygram when someone had the good sense to see that this article is an advertisement masquerading as an article.

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep If he's in the Canadian Motorsports Hall of Fame, then he's notable, no debate. If the article has problems that's an editorial problem, not a delete problem.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question. No debate? I thought that's what AfD was for. ~~The Canadian Motorsport Hall of Fame is not even notable enough for someone to have written an article about it (notice the redlink).~~ I thought notability was about sources, and this article has none. Yep, I just checked again, notability is still about sources. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well put. Even their official web presence is less than impressive. Maybe I should open my own domain-specific "halls of fame" and start handing out "awards" to help business owners establish "notability" (for a fee, naturally). -- DanielPenfield (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't consider that message to be a "nastygram". User:Redfive77 does appear to have at least some type of relationship/special knowledge of Dallaire's activies. I don't see how that necessarily means that the article needs to be deleted even if it is him editing the article. Should I make a subpage with only verified material to help further this discusssion? Royalbroil 22:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To me, it's a stretch to posit that there is some individual who is not Dallaire writing blatantly promotional material for Dallaire and including specific details about his personal life and business contacts going back thirty years or more. Assuming such a person exists (distinct from Dallaire), he ought not be editing anything even remotely related to Dallaire under the WP:COI policy, "Close relationships" subclause. The trouble with keeping any reference to a spammer, verifiable or not, is that it encourages the spammer, IMHO. We ought not allow Wikipedia to devolve into a platform for free advertising. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Content matters are to be considered after the decision of whether or not to keep this article is rendered. The question at hand is and should be strictly (considering all the contentious bantering here) "should the article in any form be kept on Wikipedia?" COI issues and POV issues and personal trivia issues can all be dealt with editorially if the article is to be kept. Now let's get on with making the keep/don't keep decision, shall we? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close. Withdrawn by nominator. Bduke (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ormskirk Heelers[edit]

~~Per WP:N and WP:V.~~ Billscottbob (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am creator of this page. Firstly I'd like to voice my opinion on the way you handled this article, simply sticking notes to it after just 2 minutes of me creating it. Do I no longer have the time to post what I have done, look at what I have done and then try and improve it a little more? Or do you moderators seem to want to give off the impression that you are watching our every move. I am not trying to a go at you, I am simply saying that you could have given me more time to improve the article.

In regards to the verifiability of the content, you will find that I have now included my references and sources. They comprise of five references, mostly made up of other teams websites who write match reports and type up the results. You'll also find two external links to more sources and articles about the club.

In regards to your notability, have you even read the article? This team was a member of the Rugby League Conference. If you'd have followed my link, that was put under "See Also", and scroll down to "2007 Structure" then you'd see that there are many rugby league clubs at the same level as Ormskirk Heelers who have their own page. Surely it isn't fair that some teams have notability over others despite them being in the same league and therefore playing at the same level.

If there are any other ways that you wish for me to improve the article, please contact me. Although I would prefer it if you were to actually talk to me about more specific points. Poiuytre (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you don't want your article critically reviewed as soon as it is posted, please use the ((underconstruction)) template. As for your points about the articles notability, since it has already been listed for AfD, other editors will decide whether your points are valid. I apologize for under-estimating the article's notability based upon insufficient reading of the article. Other editors will be able to have their say during this process, and it is no longer up to me to decide whether the article is worthy or not. Billscottbob (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Question to Nominator~~ ~~The main AFd page states:~~

Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.

~~In which of the two minutes of this articles existance did you take this step?~~--Cube lurker (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please address the nomination and not the nominator. Corvus cornix_talk 00:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appologies if i've stepped out of bounds, I felt the nomination and nominator were intertwined. I don't see how there can be a valid afd on a 2 minute old article. On reflection it was probably bad form. I'll strike through the question.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Striking my wrongly directed comments. I appologize. However I suggest that the article be given a moment to grow based on the directions listed on the main AFD page.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. I would like to apologize for my poor nomination. Thank you for all of your advice. I will keep the advice I have been given in mind for the future. Billscottbob (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Withdraw Nomination on the basis that I incorrectly marked this page for AfD and I am the only one who has voted. Billscottbob (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Inexplicably, he does appear to meet the notability guidelines.--Kubigula (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ole Henriksen[edit]

Non-notable Skin specialist who is friends with Ricky Martin. Maybe I'm missing something? Smashville^BONK! 21:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I don't understand fame either, but this article is referenced with five independent citations from online magazines, and #1, 2, and 4 are pretty extensive, implying significant nontrivial coverage. Rigadoun (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, probably - I don't recall the exact reason why; but, somehow he was notable enough in Japan that my wife made me search out his spa while in southern CA on vacation a few years ago, and buy creams or whatnot as omiyage. About as far from a WP:RS as you can get, but, combined with the references already noted, I think he surpasses our bar of inclusion. At a minimum, re-frame the article to be about his line, and not him. Neier (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn by nominator. Bduke (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nelle Wilson Reagan[edit]

Deletion nomination This is an article someone has put much work into, however I see no evidence of the subject as passing WP:BIO, in that they are a major part of reliable sources. The entire article here is about her importance in relation to her son (President Ronald Reagan), and it is referenced entirely to biographies about President Reagan. It does not appear that she has any notability on her own. It may happen that a relative of a President recieves independent coverage, but I see no evidence that this woman has. Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Well, we have Dorothy Walker Bush, mother of President George H.W. Bush; Gerald Rudolff Ford, step-father of President Gerald Ford; Lillian Carter, mother of Jimmy Carter; Virginia Clinton Kelley. mother of Bill Clinton -- we have all these but Ronald Reagan's mother cannot be kept? I do not know that Dorothy Bush, Gerald Ford, Sr., and Virginia Clinton were notable except that they were the parents of presidents. But Nelle Reagan actually was notable on her own. The book God and Ronald Reagan by Paul Kengor (2004) devotes the first 48 pages to Nelle Reagan; in those 48 pages is Nelle's life story. It clearly shows that she was extremely influential in Dixon, Illinois through the workings of her church. As I wrote (and cited) in the biography, some members of the congregation actually wondered whether or not she had the power to heal because of her strong convitions in prayer. Although not extremely famous today, Nelle Reagan left her mark on the town and was a very prominent person in the raising of her son. There would be a double standard if this article is deleted. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Here we go again. The tendency so far has been to recognize that being the parent of an American president (or other important historical figure) is, in and of itself, notable, if for no other reason than because of the influence that they had on the person's values. There are, of course, some who believe that parents had no influence whatsoever in why they are who they are, but I think that's a minority viewpoint. Mandsford (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I disagree with the claim that notability of a son travels backward through time and makes the ancestors notable. She fails WP:BIO. My grandmother had a greater influence on her town than this lady did and is likewise non-notable. Another poor argument for keeping is that "Other stuff exists." Each article must stand on its own merit. Edison (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then Dorothy Walker Bush, Gerald Rudolff Ford, Lillian Carter, and Virginia Clinton Kelley supposedly fail WP:BIO too, among others (again, double standard?). As Mandsford said, there was a concensus that decided to keep articles of presidential parents. Plus, as I've stated above, Nelle Wilson Reagan is notable within herself and I find it plain rude to say your grandmother had more influence; though it is sarcasim, it is not topical and therefore has no impact on this woman's notability. Happyme22 (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, all of those articles except Clinton were put up for deletion. Carter passed as keep but Bush and Ford were closed as no consensus. So I wouldn't say there was a consensus that they are notable. Rigadoun (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a false comparison. Ron's mother died 18 years before he was President, and years before he was even a Governor. Therefore she received no press coverage or interviews as a "Presidential mother," unlike the present President's mother (who was also a "First Lady") or Clinton's mother, who also lived into the Presidency. Mrs. Reagan was non-notable during her lifetime, and after her death is (so far) only referenced in a couple of books by opr about President Reagan. Lillian Carter received much press coverage as a President's mother (and for her Peace Corps work) during her lifetime. Please do not resort to the "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" argument to try to keep an article about a non-notable person. There is no such consensus as claimed that all Presidential parents (or children,or siblings, or grandparents, or grandchildren, or nieces or nephews) are inherently notable. Edison (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are not trying to say that children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces or nephews of presidents are important; again, not relevant to this discussion. This is Reagan's mother, not aunt, uncle, neice, nephew, grandmother, grandfather, grandson, or granddaughter - it's his mom. And in the books The Raising of a President and First Mothers, Nelle is featured on the cover of both. As stated below, she does pass WP:BIO in that there are things written about her. And just as Lillian Carter recieved media attention, Nelle Reagan recieved media attention when she lived in Dixon; it was not television as the TV did not exist, but she was written about in the newspapers and on radio due to her work with the church and charity (see Paul Kengor's God and Ronald Reagan, pages 6-11). Happyme22 (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. No notability of her own, and being related to someone notable doesn't transfer notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason to keep. Ravenna1961 (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, but have you not read my points above regarding her own nobility? There are plenty more in the article. Happyme22 (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep She does pass WP:BIO. In addition to what Happyme22 mentioned, she has profiles in this book and this book, and I'm sure there's a slew of material available elsewhere. True, historians wouldn't have cared about her if it weren't for her son, but plenty of information about her exists, so why not let people have that information? Zagalejo^^^ 04:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep There appear to be plenty of reliable sources available. JavaTenor (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Withdraw Nomination I withdraw the nomination, though with the qualification that it is NOT because of her status as someones mother, but rather due to the additional references provided above. The article SHOULD BE EXPANDED to include the information in those references. While her status as a president's mother MAY HAVE led to the existence of sources, it is the EXISTANCE OF THOSE SOURCES, not her status as Reagan's mom, that leads to her notability. There may very well be other mothers of presidents with reliable sources that discuss them, and there may be other mothers of presidents that LACK THOSE SOURCES. If those sources do not exist, being the mother of a president does not make them exist. However, this one particular person has the references to write an article from, so I see no reason any more to delete the article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will He Wish[edit]

Non-notable racehorse. No evidence to notability...as far as I can tell, the "handicaps" mentioned in the major wins are actually allowances. Smashville^BONK! 21:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Steve Gollings as non-notable bit of horseflesh. --Lockley (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: WikiProject Thoroughbred racing has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete No strong assertion of encyclopedic notability. Xoloz (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep or redirect all verifiable info like this to Steve Gollings. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Under 90,000 pounds in winnings? You are kidding, rigfht? Bearian (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hoax proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Xoloz (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tizzy's Dragon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tizzy's Dragon

WP:HOAX. La Ville Rouge is the dam of Barbaro. Her 2004 colt was named Man In Havana, was sired by Quiet American and was retired before racing. The 2006 Champagne Stakes were won by Scat Daddy. The 2007 Blue Grass Stakes were won by Dominican. The 2007 Queen's Plate was won by Mike Fox, who was ridden by Emma-Jayne Wilson, the first woman to win the race. The 2006 Sovereign Award winner for Canadian Horse of the Year was Arravale. In addition, the Breeder's Cup registry, which all horses who run in Breeders Cup races must be registered to, shows that this horse does not exist. Smashville^BONK! 21:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that Twinkle didn't put the AfD notice on the article, so I just templated it myself. --Smashville^BONK! 09:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: WikiProject Thoroughbred racing has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, no one is commenting...but...I'm going to throw in some references to prove it's a hoax...
More...the article was written in February, but claims that Tizzy's Dragon won the Blue Grass Stakes (run in April) and was withdrawn from the Kentucky Derby on Derby day (first Saturday in May). --Smashville^BONK! 17:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong delete. I think Smashville is right. No need to relist, just delete it. Cool Hand Luke 22:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:24, December 27, 2007

The Dead Report Podcast[edit]

Non-notable, unless anyone cares to prove otherwise. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as non-notable. No sources, and there isn't even really an assertion of notability here. --Dawn bard (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete nn podcast, 1,170 ghits, no assertion of n. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 18:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:24, December 27, 2007

Jennifer D. Smith[edit]

Non-notable. Appeared on a single episode of Wild and Crazy Kids. Lost. --- RockMFR 20:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. Tavix (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close as blatant copyright violation of this article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobu stowe[edit]

Delete No notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Non-notable autobiography. KurtRaschke (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I think the artist could have notability based on the sources I found, however during the attempt to cleanup the article I came across a clear copyvio from [6]. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additionally, talk a look at the discussion page, the original editor seems to have commented there rather than here. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:25, December 27, 2007

Corpse flip (skateboarding)[edit]

If you've ever wanted to know what the "one foot 180 switch pop shuv it" is, this is it. Sadly, very sadly, this article seems to fail Wikipedia:NFT. Helpfully, the author points out that the 'corpse flip' "is named due to its creator Ashley Cutter nicknamed 'Cutta Corpse'", but regrettably, the author of the article is the similarly named Cuttaaa, also the author of an article entitled Ashley cutter, deleted last January [7]. Google searches turn up absolutely nothing about the 'corpse flip' other than rip offs from this article. Ah well. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as OR Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I'd have tagged it for speedy deletion with db-nonsense, but I suppose it isn't nonsense if you know the skating jargon. -Amatulic (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:26, December 27, 2007

Uncle Gamer Radio[edit]

Podcast and forum started 18 months ago, with no claim of meeting WP:Notability or WP:WEB in article, or independent sources in article. First half dozen pages of non-wiki ghits are blogs, forums, etc, and don't show notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, no hits at all in Google news archives. Delete. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nominator as non-verifiable and non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for reasons of nominator, but everyone please refrain from WP:GHITS. Fangz of Blood 22:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:26, December 27, 2007

Yeek[edit]

Non-notable fictional race with no out-of-universe content and no secondary sources to establish notability, as required by Wikipedia:Notability. Pagra shtak 20:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 20:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:FICTION Tavix (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nomination as non-notable cruft, if we're still using that word. --Lockley (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, as the article subject does not exist beyond its shared gameworlds in any meaningful fashion (lack of third-party coverage, and so on). Someone may also want to look at Quylthulg, which is of similar make-up. D. Brodale (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Easily fails notability guidelines. But, consider that as they first appeared in Moria, yeeks are about 25 years old, and still present in modern roguelikes under active development. They are not notable or newsworthy. But it is just possible that one may stumble across the term and look it up.Feezo (Talk) 05:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect and reduce to an entry in Angband (computer game)#Terminology. User:Krator (t c) 19:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I'm not sure that's a solid fit, as a Yeek isn't really a term (as applied within that section, phrases players use when discussing the game with other players), being a monster. If a merge seems reasonable, it should probably form a new section entirely. D. Brodale (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - True. My stance in this debate, is that 1) this subject is not worth of an article, but that 2) we should have information on what a "Yeek" is in Angband somewhere. User:Krator (t c) 13:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:26, December 27, 2007

Crowz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article was redirected before and since the page has been re-editted and I have the same issues with it as the first nomination for deletion. I am a big fan of the band and the only time I have read and/or heard about this is by rumour or on an unreliable website. I have 3 books on the band, they do state the band were working in the studio on new material before they got signed to Roadrunner records and subsequently released their debut album but it never states any names of this demo or album or any track lists and this article cites no sources at all. Rezter (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, unreleased album that fails WP:MUSIC with only source being a fan site. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per verifiability issues unless someone can provide some reliable sources. Someone may want to put the articles on the Bulgarian, Russian, and Swedish wikipedias up for deletion for the same reason, they don't offer any reliable sources either (and have three different track listings). Rigadoun (talk) 07:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:27, December 27, 2007

Megabeat[edit]

I've been drumming for seven years, and I've never heard of this term. Also, what it's describing is nothing particularly notable or rare. Pretty much any fast rock or punk uses this beat. Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 20:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Probably a neologism, I couldn't find any other reference on the web. It maybe should have an article if there is an accepted name for it (used in reliable sources), but I'm not aware of one. Rigadoun (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: WikiProject Punk music has been notified of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin close per misunderstanding of AN/I thread by nom. Rephrase nom and reopen if you feel this closure is in error. Avruchtalk 20:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arash Markazi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Arash Markazi

Does not appear to be fully notable for inclusion. Subject also apparently asked for deletion. Lawrence Cohen 19:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Regular writer for one of the most popular publications in the US. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 20:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: This AfD was apparently done without reading this important point of conversation from the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard. Other than the notability question, which I agree is not the case since its a columnist for a major national magazine, all that was left was the email that I received but mentioned I was going to first clarify with the subject. This AfD nomination was hasty and did not take into account the facts. --Bobak (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Keep, per Bobak, and the fact that he writes for sports illustrated. R. Baley (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - was a hasty nom, considering. Avruchtalk 20:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep if people can request deletion of articles about them, then wikipedia will become a collaction of CVs for self=publicists. Lobojo (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Xoloz (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NZPWI Invitational[edit]

Non-notable professional wrestling event. Dav nel 03 19:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:Reply[reply]

IPW:Nightmare Before Christmas 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IPW Unleashed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete all - They lack sufficient independent reliable source coverage to satisfy the notability guidelines of WikiProject Professional wrestling ... these belong in a sandbox until then ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 22:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all, no notability established. Nikki311 03:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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_(recall) 04:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Down the throat[edit]

Per WP:NOT#DICT, "stubs with no possibility for expansion". (Unless you think we can establish the cultural signifcance of torpedos shot at a 0 degree angle). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBilly (talk • contribs) 19:37, 21 December 2007

Comment. The article's badly written at present, but in itself that's no reason to delete, and a Google search brings up plenty of hits. Have a look at these, for example: [8] [9] [10] Perhaps something could be made of it. I'll say keep and we'll see what happens in terms of improvement in the future. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, assuming this is a valid term, as stated. It will probably always be a small article but one which adds to knowledge and is more than just a dictionary definition (or can be in time). --Interesdom (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: The maritime warefare task force has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - as wargaming cruft from the examples given above. Or a neologism. Or just a phrase - but in any event not a notable topic. Springnuts (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep; [11] suggests it is neither a neologism nor wargaming cruft - military tactics are often poorly covered on the internet. Not sure if there is an appropriate article to merge this material into; if there isn't, the article should be kept until it is expanded or there is somewhere to merge it to. The Land (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If it can be proven to me that there is merge-worthy information in the article, it can be provided upon request. Wizardman 02:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

George Galloway's appearance on Celebrity Big Brother[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a POV content fork. Wikipedia is not news, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Above all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Last AfD had a consensus to merge, but this still hasn't happened several months later. Either include some of this information in George Galloway or Celebrity Big Brother 2006, or just get rid of it totally. Also, this is a lot less notable than the Celebrity Big Brother racism controversy as a stand-alone article.h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - if editors want to expand the prose in the main article they obviously can, however commentary of this nature isn't encyclopedic. Addhoc (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Tavix (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - merge useful stuff back to the George Galloway or Celebrity Big Brother 2006 articles.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge - into George Galloway Doc Strange (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per Doc Strange, but someone should actually do it this time. There should be some kind of rule about articles not merged following AFD consensus to merge. ^anemone│_projectors 18:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: WikiProject Big Brother has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delege G3 by User:Starblind, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fat and Obese People Who Are Either Gay or Lesbian[edit]

self explanatory Bstone (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy Delete Not sure why this needed to go to AfD, I placed a CSD G3 tag on the page previously. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Sara Thornton[edit]

The result was a non-admin WP:SNOWBALL close as a keep, with consensus endorsing notability having been established by references that satisfy WP:V. SorryGuy Talk 08:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - unnotable police woman, requests for references since feb 07. Alternatively, merge with Thames Valley Police. Step13thirteen (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - malformed nomination. Article clearly states the subject is a Chief Constable, which is the highest rank in the UK police force. Added a reference. Addhoc (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - additional references added, notabilty already established with the awarding Queens Police Medal in 2006. 82.11.63.20 —Preceding comment was added at 19:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, pending the addition of some more citations, particularly of the existing references. Even if sources are cited at the bottom of the article, they should be cited in the text itself to show that the content is verifiable. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, Subject being Chief Constable is notable (along with the Queens Police Medal). Master Redyva ♠ 20:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Chief Constable, Queen's Police Medal and three references, hardly an "unnotable police woman". Nick mallory (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Had it not been for the Queen's Police Medal I probably would have suggested otherwise, but this person is apparently notable and the article does no harm. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Any relevant info can probably go in his wife's article.--Kubigula (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adam Beason[edit]

This is a non-notable production assistant. Nothing in the article goes to show that he is in anyway notable. Djsasso (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. Addhoc (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. References cited do not show much of the information in the article. A quick Google search for "Adam Beason" found no hits in reliable sources, so I doubt much of the information is verifiable. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:28, December 27, 2007

Mulgarath[edit]

Unnotable fictional character that fails WP:FICT. Completely unsourced, mostly plot with original research and editor opinions about the character. Already adequately covered in the Spiderwick article. Collectonian (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Might I just point out that the other characters in the Spiderwick Chronicles, namely Jarred, Simon and Grace have articles so why can't Mulgarath? --Illustrious One (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll reconsider if you add secondary references. Addhoc (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see WP:WAX. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge and redirect to The Spiderwick Chronicles: The Wrath of Mulgarath.--Addhoc (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Nonnotable fictional character, per nom. Lacks sources to verify content. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reviews of the books rarely mention this villain except in passing, so unless something comes out of the reviews of Nolte's performance, this character doesn't pass the notability guideline. (The protagonists do, however, get noticed, and thus their articles.) OTOH, movie reviews should be coming out Real Soon Now. Merge into Spiderwick (the encompassing series article, as he appears in more than one book). —Quasirandom (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and redirect back to the parent article. This appears to be largely original research; no sources independent of the work of fiction itself are cited, no real-world context OUTSIDE of this article appears to exist. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which parent are you suggesting as a target? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mentioned him in my review of the book on Amazon. I thought he was a fantastic villain. Anyway I think we should wait till the film comes out before we delete it just to see if we can get any primary sources from reviews with Nick Nolte or whatever. --Illustrious One (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Non-notable and no real world context. Ridernyc (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nonsense And Addhoc, The Wrath of Mulgarath is a stub, unlike this article which is long, well-written, informative and provides a broad range of information on a variety of subjects. --Illustrious One (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of fictional psychopaths and sociopaths[edit]

Completely unsourced, highly subjective list that appears to be full of WP:OR and WP:NPOV violations. Collectonian (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not really. It's for characters who exhibit behaviour consistent with psychopathy or sociopathy. Users need only go to the respective articles for said mental disorders to find out what the criteria for them are. Most if not all of the characters on the list also exhibit behaviour with them. --Illustrious One (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - unsourced and dubious assertions. Addhoc (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Certainly fails WP:OR. Althought the characters in the article may be notable, their psychopathy/sociopathy by itself is not (notability is not inherited). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For prior related discussions, see List of fictional psychopaths (AfD discussion) and List of fictional sociopaths (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Entirely original research, and also unmanagable; there are likely thousands of characters that could be characterized as such; and which ones would be open for interpretation. No way to either limit the list or to verify its contents. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose. --Illustrious One (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I imagine that there are articles in journals, or even Psychology Today (if that still exists) that might have this type of diagnosis for fictional characters. This, however, is armchair psychiatry. Mandsford (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete to broad an inclusion criteria. Doomed to original research. This list will also grow out of control with basically every fictional villain being added. Might as well just call it List Of Fictional Villains. Ridernyc (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom, completely objective and originally-researched. •97198 talk 11:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Blatent original research. Nuttah (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You misspelled "blatant." --Illustrious One (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Diagnosis: "sociopathic misspelling" Mandsford (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forgive me if I'm being dense Mandsford but I don't get it. --Illustrious One (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a reference to Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid. Carlotta was the type of town where they spelled trouble "T-R-U-B-I-L"... and if you tried to correct them, they would kill you. Mandsford (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And what are you insinuating? --Illustrious One (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm insinuating that I'm obviously a psychopath or a sociopath, what with all of my cryptic remarks. However, I may be a narcissist too. I can't be sure, which may mean I have multiple personality disorder. Or not. Mandsford (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh I see, fascinating. Most sociopaths and psychopaths are also narcissists. I'm a narcissist myself but I don't think I'm a psychopath or a sociopath. I don't think I have Multiple Personality Disorder either. --Illustrious One (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. I recall that in the past the categories for 'fictional psychopaths' and 'fictional sociopaths' were deleted for the very same reasons.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Unmaintainable, unencyclopedical. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the parent article (and the relevant template fixed). BLACKKITE 11:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bearcat Heavy Fighter[edit]

Non-notable fictional spacecraft. The article has no reliable secondary sources to establish notability in the real world and fails Wikipedia:Notability. It consists mostly of a list of specifications, as one would find in a game guide, which Wikipedia is not. Pagra shtak 18:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 18:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge whatever valuable content there is into Wing Commander IV: The Price of Freedom. Otherwise delete. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and redirect to Wing Commander IV: The Price of Freedom. Addhoc (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DeleteNon-notable and fails WP:Plot. Ridernyc (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; original research. jj137 ^♠ 03:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11th and 7th millennium BC[edit]

Contested Prod - prod was removed by article's author without comment or explanation. This is an original research paper, and as such, should be deleted. Dawn bard (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete apparently original research, even recognizing it as the author's hypothesis. Rigadoun (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
speedy delete - not even close to being an encyclopedia article. Addhoc (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Delete. Entirely original research, though it's possible that some encyclopedic contribution on the subject could be made. But not with this article, not in this manner, nor with this original research. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. This isn't a speedy candidate, but it is pretty clearly original research. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Definitely Original research. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Delete OR, per above. Chris! _ct 02:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bart Hendrikx[edit]

Subject appears to be non-notable. Page was PROD'd; tag was removed in questionable faith. Note that Bart hendrikx (with a lowercase 'h') has been deleted recently. Note also that there exist indications of edit-warring, either vandalism or bad-faith editing, and COI. An editor whose user name corresponds to the subject has been blocked in connection with this page. Note finally that this nom is on basis of non-notability and that other details are given here for context, not in support of the nom. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Borderline delete. The references are a mess, but many of them (basically from the same feed) are a genuine, non-trivial, apparently independent coverage in the Dutch press. The Rolling Stone mentions are genuine but largely in passing, and everything else seems questionable. I'd say that doesn't pass WP:BIO but he may be the sort who would pass it soon. The article is a disaster, though, and if kept should probably be stubbified. Rigadoun (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep. Yes, the formatting is a mess. O the horror! I'm trying to fix it up. The references hold kernels of notability. Very marginal case. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and stub - multiple Dutch sources. Addhoc (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep per above. The article has potential, and it appears that the subject passes WP:N and WP:BIO. Cleanup is certainly in order. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Doesn't look notable to me and the author certainly appears to have a conflict of interest. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
keep. The article has potential, and it appears that the subject passes WP:N and WP:BIO when I look at the Talk page. Regarding apparently independent coverage in the Dutch press, I can say that this subject had mayor coverage in Dutch Press and that they all are credible articles. I cleaned up the article.

-- toos53 (Talk) - 16:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - appears to be a hoax. Addhoc (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Malang International Airport[edit]

Appears to be a hoax, Google search comes up with no hits, no sources. V-train (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. The only thing turned up through a search on google were references to the currently existing airport (MLG) in Malang. Seems like a hoax to me, if not than its deffinately looking like a crystal ball is around. Mr Senseless (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as hoax, I couldn't find a single Google hit either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy A5 if you're certain of the sockpuppetry. I couldn't find a reference to it, has it actually been investigated? Rigadoun (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Sorry, I was thinking of a different user that got banned recently. There's been such a rash of hoax airport pages recently and I got mixed up. Although I wouldn't be surprised if he is a sock of Vitrox92/ Arkanov92/Arkanov15, who's been creating hoax articles for Indonesian airports. V-train (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of teen idols of the 2000s[edit]

Version at time of AFD-nomination: This is another PROD-nominee with an extensive (>500 edits) history involving multiple editors. The PROD nominator stated "this article is still inherently original research, and a magnet for POV pushing; there are also major issues of cultural bias". I agree that "POV magnets" need special watching over and I also agree that cultural bias is an issue here, but neither of these are reasons for deletion. The term "teen idol" might seem nebulous, but there is a definition in the teen idol article, which is referenced by the list and which serves as an inclusion criterion. My closing thought is that this requires cleanup and careful sentry work, but not deletion. However, I am unsure if that is the consensus endpoint - which is why I have converted the PROD to AFD rather than simply removing the PROD tags. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 17:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- ? Nom didn't endorse deletion, but cleanup, and was seeing if that was consensus. Rigadoun (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Comment: By my bringing it here, I am effectively asking for a broader consideration of whether or not the article should be deleted than the PROD pathway provided. I hope that clears up your confusion (as indicated by "?"). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Yes, I understood that, but didn't understand what "delete per nom" would mean in such a case. Rigadoun (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Ahh, my apologies. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - the article Teen idol(another page with its own issues) contains some of the same list. The problem is that there will be way too much bias to maintain the page. It is also nearly impossible to meet the WP:V requirements. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - per my original statement on the prod (not that I'm quarreling with the conversion of this to an AfD), and the concurrence of Gtstricky. It's a mess, it's inherently a mess, and there's no way to make it work. Look up idoru sometime; the concept is unstable, and incredibly vulnerable to bias, not just cultural but recentist bias as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep this is a valid topic and is worth keeping in some way shape, or form. With that being said, there are serious issues needing attention, most of which are articulated above. Anything which isn't verifiable, is original research, or POV needs to be removed or refactored and the page needs a good lead-in section. If what remains is substantial enough for its own article, let it be, if not perhaps merging or making a sub-page of Teen Idol might be more appropriate. Mr Senseless (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong KeepI put into a lot of effort to cleanup this article. Please don't delete it. Sure, this article needs some more serious work, but an outright deletion is not inappropriate.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Delete This article is completely an opinion. Some people could be viewed as an "idol" to some but an idiot to others. See WP:NEUTRAL Tavix (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The only way to establish that a member of the list truly meets the inclusion criteria (being a teen idol), is to source a poll which shows them to be highly idolized by teens. And then an arbitary limit would have to be set, which is against current policy and guidelines. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete totally POV and unmanageable. RMHED (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - unencyclopedic. Addhoc (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Delete. First define teen idol. Second, where would these idols be from (I'm sure that Japan has different idols than the UK or US). And third, it's WP:OR. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment: The definition of "teen idol" is available at Teen idol#What makes a teen idol?. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete when I think of 50 Cent the first thing I think is teen idol. nothing but POV original research. Ridernyc (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Delete Why not add every single professional athlete, as I am sure they are idolized by somebody? This really is a stupid article 68.162.132.205 (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Title and article doesn't make it clear whether it is talking about a decade, century or millenium. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nominator, this one is not salvageable. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as inherently POV. Just because one news report referred to a given singer as a "teen idol" doesn't actually make it a true, verifiable fact about her that she is a 'teen idol' - it makes it a true, verifiable fact that that news report called her a 'teen idol'.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment: That is the case for any news item, whether it is a label applied to a person or a temperature recorded during a snow storm - we are at the mercy of the validity of secondary sources because we are not at liberty to use primary sources; in this case, a primary source would be a poll that Wikipedian's ran to determine who is or is not a teen idol today while the secondary source is a news reporting of such a label. Unfortunate, but true. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep because it satisfies Wikipedia:Lists. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's Swing Again[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Let's Swing Again

Article violates policy at WP:CRYSTAL and contains many unverified claims with only one reference. The album's title, Let's Swing Again, is not even mentioned in the referenced article, nor is the album's release date, or the 13 producers listed in the infobox. The article has been tagged for cleanup since February 2007 and has yet to meet Wikipedia standards. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. STORMTRACKER 94 17:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom (or redirect to the main page for the artist) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for now, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Hold off until sources can be found to verify the title, track listing, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete doesn't even exist yet. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom, no objection to creating a redirect. Addhoc (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. When we get more info. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong delete as violating WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL totally.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete by WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pakistani lawyers rankings[edit]

Disputed prod. this is unsourced, unencyclopedic, and a complete mess. UsaSatsui (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 17:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Macy's 123 19:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - subject adequately covered by Category:Pakistani lawyers.--Addhoc (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Per Addhoc and Nominator. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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→Slipknot (album); after a merger, my understanding is that the old article should really be kept about as a redirect tagged with the R-from-merge template so the history is retained. In other words, 'Delete' and 'Merge' are not compatible outcomes; let me know if you think otherwise. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eeyore (song)[edit]

Non notable album track. Thundermaster^TRUC 15:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete and Merge content to Slipknot (album). Wikipedia:Notability (music): Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete and merge per above. STORMTRACKER 94 17:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and merge per above as well. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and merge per Jerry. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:28, December 27, 2007

Carolyn Howard-Johnson[edit]

Non-notability per WP:BIO

The credentials look considerably overstated. Her books that are listed as central to the notability, This is the place and Harkening, are both from Star Publish LLC - i.e. self-published. Red Sky Press Award appears to be extremely obscure, with the majority of hits relating to this book. WordThunder is a personal website. "Woman of the Year in Arts and Entertainment by members of the California Legislature" looks highly obscure and only appears in Google hits for this author [12]. "Pasadena Weekly named her to their list of women of the San Gabrial Valley who make life work" looks a trivial credit in a regional newspaper. The Military Writers Society of America looks a fairly obscure organisation. USA Book News seems to be a small company, and The Compulsive Reader is a personal website. The Irwin Award is not for the quality of the book, but awarded by a promotional organisation, the BPSC, for members who conduct the best sales/promotional campaign [13].

There also appears to be a potential WP:COI: Googling the subject and article creator together [14] finds a number of mutually promotional review and link exchanges. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 17:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. From my Google search, all of the content in the article appears to be factual, but I doubt that truly reliable sources can be found to verify much of it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not that is isn't factual: it's just that awards and credits from such small outfits don't come up to WP:BIO's test of "significant recognized awards or honors" or "significant critical attention". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete as verifiability is not the same as notability, and she's just not notable - no evidence of "significant awards", major press reviews, etc. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:28, December 27, 2007

Richard Lawrence (attorney)[edit]

Delete No notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Nn lawyer, fails WP:BIO. STORMTRACKER 94 17:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:V Macy's 123 19:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12. Appears to be mostly a copyright violation of this page from the subject's law firm. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Now that that problem's been fixed, weak keep. It looks as though winning the awards he's won, as well as the other statements in the opening paragraph of the article meet WP:BIO requirements for notability. However, I would still like to see more sources. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment -- I added a couple of references, and fleshed out this article.
- Does publshing half a dozen articles in professional jounrals, a couple of chapters in textbooks, merit coverage here?
- Does winning the Wiedemann Wysocki National Finance Council Award merit coverage here?
- I dunno. I reserve judgment until I find out the significance of the award.
- "...he has concentrated on representing those who have been catastrophically injured by bad medical care." -- Sounds like he is an ambulance chaser, like John Edwards.
  - Sooooo. Does that make him more or less notable? --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Okay, the Wiedemann Wysocki Award doesn't seem very exclusive. Fourteen were given out in 2007. References to it differ on who awarded it, and its exact name. Some references don't bother to record which year it was given to awardees. If he merits coverage it is going to have to be for something other than this award. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment -- How does, "he has concentrated on representing those who have been catastrophically injured by bad medical care" make him sound like an ambulance chaser? Even so, why does this merit a deletion? Being a published author on a specialty of law and garnering some of Kentucky's largest tort verdicts merits an entry. Whatman77 (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - No more notable than about 50% of the lawyers in the U.S. Publishing and receiving recognition within the legal community is pretty common. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus for deletion, nor for merger, but the move to Pea-shake house seems ok to implement (i.e. not contraindicated by comments after its suggestion). I'll make the move momentarily. I'll also add a ((mergeto|Numbers game)) to encourage continued discussion on this front. I will also remove the ((notability)) tag as the outcome of this AFD indicates that the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia in some form. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pea shake[edit]

No assertion of notability, no verifiable information or sources. Delete TheRingess (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with numbers game. "Pea shake" itself seems to be an older term generically referring to a dice throw, but "pea shake houses" are specific to Indianapolis, Indiana and environs. Other than some local news stories, we have Jesse Sheidlower as a taxonomic source, but this isn't really diferent enough from any other type of illegal gambling to be notable. --Dhartung | Talk 05:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge although I don't know what with, numbers game seems to be related, but a different thing. It doesn't seem notable enough to warrant a page of its own, but it does seem notable enough to warrant some mention somewhere on Wikipedia. Anarchia (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep needs better referencing, but seems notable to me. -Drdisque (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I added a ref, and an external link that has some photos of the equipment. It seems specific to Indianapolis, but to have had ramifications in state politics, and to be a well-known phenomenon there for some time. I couldn't find many RS online, possibly because one of the best sources, the Indianapolis Star, doesn't keep its articles long enough. Anyone with access to paper editions may well find quite a bit useful there. There was significant enough discussion in blogs and so forth to imply that it has been the subject of considerable debate, though. Rigadoun (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Another possibility is to move to Pea-shake house, which seems to be the center of the debate. The game itself is fairly similar to numbers games in general (I think), but the debate in Indianapolis seems to center on the establishments (which are sometimes associated with other crimes). Rigadoun (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I would concur with a move to pea-shake house. The game, however, seems indistinguishable from other numbers games. --Dhartung | Talk 08:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coral Calcium Claims[edit]

This article is a fork of Coral calcium and is based on text that has been the subject of an edit war at that article. There really is no good reason for a separate article here; any content should be discussed at Coral calcium rather than being forked out at a separate article. I'd say this should be Deleted and inclusion discussed at the source article.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a historical note, I originally boldly deleted this article, but a few editors expressed reservations about this at deletion review, so I've undeleted and listed it here. Isotope23 ^talk 16:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response: My contention is that coral calcium itself has become a content fork of calcium, and to avoid confrontations with the creating editors, I created an article specifically to hold the POV content in a neutral setting. Please consider that WP:CFORK allows for this: Content_forking#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV. Magnonimous (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete POV fork of Coral Calcium. STORMTRACKER 94 17:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Clearly a POV fork, going so far as to copy text still existing in Coral Calcium.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I originally removed all the POV content from the original article, and transferred it to the new article.

Delete per nom and above. Also looks a bit look some original research to me, since it cites sources to help prove its arguements rather than citing sources that say the content of the article. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above, POV fork laden with original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom Macy's 123 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as a textbook example of an inappropriate POV fork. MastCell ^Talk 19:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"POV fork laden with original research" Please keep in mind that half of this article has gone uncontested on the original Coral Calcium Page. Magnonimous (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also note that content forking specifically allows for articles about points of view, as long as the article as a whole is balanced by containing all notable views. Magnonimous (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus tending towards trainwreck. Not suitable for mass nom. I suggest reviewing and renominating the weakest to start with to gauge consensus properly. Tyrenius (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eliza Allen[edit]

Non notable. Nominating the list of similar people below.

All of these articles have no notability asserted and few (if any) references. And before anyone accuses me of WP:POINT, note that I have nothing against the other 31 articles in Category:Female wartime crossdressers. These articles in that category just don't quite reach notability standards. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Keep. Non-notable to you. But notable to the transgender community and Mexican-American War historians. Kingturtle (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep'. Important because published her memoirs. Asarelah (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elisa Bernerström (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hazel Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keep. Non-notable to you. Notable enough to be archived by the National Archives and Records Administration. Kingturtle (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep For the reason stated above. Asarelah (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep for Hazel Carter in particular. She has a 1917 New York Times article written about her as well as the NAR record. — ERcheck (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Keep' Kit Cavanagh is one of the most famous and well-documented female wartime crossdressers in history. Asarelah (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lizzie Compton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brita Hagberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ann Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anna Henryka Pustowojtowna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keep. She has an article to herself in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, and has been the subject of a 500-page book in Polish. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep - The article on the Polish Wiki looks to be thorough; perhaps a translation should be done and the article as it is replaced with that translation, but I think notability is met. matt91486 (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep for the reasons stated above. Asarelah (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zoya Smirnow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Delete. Even googling "Зоя Смирнова" turns up nothing (unless she's the same person as the 1940s film actress ...) --Paularblaster (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Laura J. Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

- Keep She raised and led an entire company of confederates. Isn't that a notable feat, especially for a female wartime crossdresser? Asarelah (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Delete all Per nom. They are all just stubs that aren't very notable. All they did was cross-dressed during a war. Tavix (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
comment. Being a stub is not cause for deletion. Kingturtle (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all per above. STORMTRACKER 94 17:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep All They didn't just cross dress, which is obviously not notable, but they disguised themselves as men to fight in wars and multiple independent sources do think that's notable. Eliza Allen's article has two sources already and the other articles I checked are also sourced to books so I don't understand the nomination rationale. There's no rationale for deleting 'stubs' for the sake of it either. The phenomena of women disguising themselves as men to fight has been discussed in many books [15] and academic papers. It's not always a 'transgender' issue either, many of these women simply wanted to fight for a cause they believe in, or support their loved ones in that fight, and so donned male garb to do so. Their exploits have attracted press, literary and popular attention throughout modern history and I don't understand the 'per nom' arguments that these people are simply 'not notable' for no very good reason. Has the nominator searched for references and added any himself in addition to the ones already there? I don't understand why he believes 31 to be notable but these people, who did exactly the same thing, are not. Nick mallory (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: The only one on the list that has two sources listed is Lizzie Compton. Of the others, about six only have:

Salmonson, Jessica Amanda.(1991) The Encyclopedia of Amazons. Paragon House. Page 236. ISBN 1-55778-420-5

as a source. Being listed in "The Encyclopedia of Amazons" doesn't make you notable.

To your comments, Nick, I'm not debating that the concept -- going through what must be a harrowing ordeal (changing genders, for all practical purposes) in order to fight in a war -- that certainly is notable. On the level of individuals, though, these people aren't necessarily notable. If any of these people meet the criteria of Notability, I'll be happy their AfD failed. In my view, though, they don't meet Notability simply by going through the ordeal. Not everyone that climbs Mt. Everest gets their own article, either. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Divide into separate discussions. They are all about the same length and use some of the same sources, but I don't see that they necessarily have the same notability. As Nick points out, some have two independent sources listed and thus are probably notable. Others I glanced at didn't, and their notability may be more difficult to establish, or perhaps fit better in a simple list. Since they cover a huge range of history and place, I don't find it helpful to consider them as a whole. Rigadoun (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Keep as per Nick Mallory. Edward321 (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong Keep Not only for the reasons stated above, but the fact that this phenomenon is so rare and subject is so unexplored by researchers that I think any female wartime crossdresser is notable. However, if the consensous is that these women are notable enough to warrent their own articles, they definately should be merged into the main article of Crossdressing during wartime rather than just being deleted. Asarelah (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into something like List of female wartime crossdressers. This is good encyclopedic information, but as each of these stubs is tiny, they can be merged easily, maybe using a table. If someone wants to expand a particular one into a full article, it can be linked from the list. Aleta (Sing) 19:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a list of female wartime crossdressers in the article Crossdressing during wartime. Asarelah (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep all and, on the basis of the discussion here, consider renominating any of those for which, after a real investigation, there truly are no additional sources. The careers of these people are often notable, for the public interest leads to books and articles about them. I wouldnt say any female wartime crossdresser is notable--there might well be thousands who have never been recognized or publicised; but if there are sources, then they are notable. We can't say it's rare, for how can we actually know that? . (And the popular culture section of the article about them could be much expanded--I can think of a number of folk ballads) DGG (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep all as outcome of trainwreck - My impression is that the merits of the articles vary widely enough as to make them unsuitable for a multi-nom AFD, unfortunately. I concur with DGG - renominate individually those that merit renom based on notability and verifiability criteria. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep all. per WP:HEY, and allow time for the stubs to be expanded. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I have also salted it. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shawn Schmieder[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shawn Schmieder

Article appears to be about a non-notable freshman athlete. No sources are provided to establish notability, and I believe the article may be premature as a result. The article has been speedy deleted 4 times, per the article's deletion log, but the CSD tag was removed by an anonymous IP. In lieu of re-adding the tag, I'd recommend that the article be deleted and salted until notability can be demonstrated. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)))Reply[reply]

Speedy Delete as nom. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. cf38^talk 16:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Delete This article is just spam. The guy probably wrote it himself. Tavix (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Nn football player, possible autobiography, fails WP:BIO. STORMTRACKER 94 17:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Non notable. Paste (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Also has POV issues. I doubt salting is necessary, however, since this is the first recreation since September. Salting then would have been appropriate, but unless it is create and deleted again there's no reason to do it now. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Keilana_(recall) 04:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charles Strickland (General Superintendent)[edit]

This guy isn't notable enough to merit his own article. According to the article, he was affiliated with the Church of the Nazarine, but that article doesn't make any note at all about Charles. A Google search of his name doesn't even bring up any information about him, which leads me to believe that this guy isn't important enough for an article. Tavix (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition, I am asking for Charles Strickland to be deleted when/if this article is deleted and have Charles Strickland (Town Planner) to be moved to Charles Strickland. Tavix (talk)

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 17:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: WikiProject Church of the Nazarene has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Keep- I believe this and this refer to the guy, although beyond his position title, there is not much more available on him. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep as the head of a small, but influential denomination, who lived pre-Internet. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. A mention in the Church of the Nazarene article should suffice, as there is not much else to add about him. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Polaron | Talk 18:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Broad Street (Red Bank, New Jersey)[edit]

Non-notable street that has been orphaned for some time. Son (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Nn street in small town. Not every street can have its own article. STORMTRACKER 94 17:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Red Bank, New Jersey. Maybe this could be the one street that doesn't have an article. Then it would be fine for all others to be included. Alansohn (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge/redirect to Red Bank, New Jersey, since it appears that the article already has pictures and content relating to the street. On a similar note to this AFD, there's also Monmouth Street, another local street within the area. That should probably be merged as well. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge and or Redirect to Red Bank, New Jersey as there is the perfect place for it.^Mitch32^contribs 20:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was} Delete non-notability product no independent reliable sourcing, redirect to Self checkout which covers the topic (also lacks sourcing). Gnan garra 11:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NCR FastLane[edit]

The individual product appears to be insufficiently notable in and of itself. If not a straight deletion, perhaps a merge with either Self checkout or NCR Corporation would be appropriate. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge With Self checkout. STORMTRACKER 94 17:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge Macy's 123 19:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. What makes it insufficiently notable? Google gives me 7100 results for "ncr fastlane", which seems like quite a lot, especially considering many more sites probably refer to the product merely as FastLane (without "NCR" prepended). Without quotation marks, i get 26,500 results. TheCoffee (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep as a notable product, but needs some cites. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The Self checkout article is fine as it is and doesn't need this article in the merge. It is a non-notable product and should be deleted. Tavix (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:29, December 27, 2007

Anwat gar[edit]

Non-notable fictional place. No real-world relevance. Fancruft. Evb-wiki (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Not notable, and badly written at that. Tavix (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 17:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Macy's 123 19:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, OR, not well written, and most importantly probably fails WP:FICT. Where is the third-party reporting or research on this done if it exists?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Throw this in the trash bin and run the compactor on it. Then incinerate due to failure of WP:NOT and lack of real world context. Pilotbob (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:29, December 27, 2007

MSTS: Dorset Coast[edit]

A route for the Microsoft Train Simulator. Is it notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge or Delete This article could be merged into Microsoft Train Simulator with a bit of editing. If not, than deleting the article would be logical. Tavix (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Nn expansion made by a fansite. STORMTRACKER 94 17:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - non-notable fan item. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kane and The Big Show[edit]

Non-notable WWE tag team. Only were together for several months.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reason above:

Dav nel 03 15:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. Dav nel 03 15:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete both They didn't even do a whole lot together. If anything, all they need is a section in their personal pages. Tavix (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete both, there is a big difference between two people who happen to team together and an actual tag team. These two articles represent the former. Nikki311 16:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 17:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Speed CG ^Talk 17:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete both Neither we're together for even a year. Definitely not-notable enough. 24.191.218.83 (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete NiciVampireHeart (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was 'keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fingerskate[edit]

PLEASE NOTE. Fingerskate has been moved to Fingerboard (skateboard)

Article version nominated here: This was nominated for PROD-deletion with an extensive reason (see PROD'd version). In my opinion, if an article has >500 edits, I really think it should be considered here, as that indicates a significant interest from multiple editors over an extended period of time. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: The article was moved in the middle of this AFD. That was a poor decision on the part of the mover. The article is now located at Fingerboard (skateboard). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Didn't realize that moving articles should be stalled until an AfD had run its course. Benjiboi 00:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment It is not forbidden, but it can confuse the issue and there is usually no pressing need to move it, no reason not to wait until the AFD is over. Moving is sometimes part of an AFD outcome; for future reference, I would encourage placing a comment suggesting moving as part one's input to the discussion rather than boldly moving during the discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:AfD I've noted it at the top and bottom of this page to avoid any confusion. Benjiboi 17:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CLOSING ADMIN. Please note article was moved so AfD discussion is correctly linked to talk page. Benjiboi 00:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. This just seems to be an advertisement for a couple companies. Tavix (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

* Delete Reads like spam, seems to be just an advertisment for Tech Dech. Changed to Keep per article being rewritten well. STORMTRACKER 94 00:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I put the WP:PROD there and I stand by my reasoning. I should have counted the edits before prodding it, however. Looking back at the edits, I see that a disturbing number of them are summarized as reverts ("rv," "reverting edits by... to...," etc. esp. of vandalism), and a large portion of the edits are IP addresses. Also note that at the present time, the article has no talk page (old talk page was deleted). These are not rationales for deletion, for those see the old revision above. --Thin boy 00 @867, i.e. 19:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Addendum I feel that the tips and tricks book with a high page rank (see the old revision with the prod) is not a reliable source, as it contains little information about the subject itself and instead focuses solely on quirks and, dare I say it, advanced usage instructions. Or at least that's what I infer from its title and editorial review; the latter describes it as a "step by step, illustrated guide." --Thin boy 00 @879, i.e. 20:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment: I've restored Talk:Fingerskate to accompany the article through AFD, as Thinboy00 pointed out it had been deleted. I should have considered doing that when I brought the article here. Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Comment I reverted the last two edits to the page because they replaced some of the comments with "judge is a retard". WP:NPA and talk page refactoring, of course. --Thin boy 00 @680, i.e. 15:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Thinboy00 and his PROD. Appears to be advertising Tech Deck and Finger Flip Inc. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Advert and notability issues have been fixed. Still could use a little work, but it's just fine now. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - These were a relatively popular fad a few years back. There might be able to be enough sources to put together a non-advertising article. Obviously the article as it stands now is in poor shape. I think if deleted, there should definitely be no prejudice against recreation should it be written in an unbiased tone. matt91486 (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment I second that. --Thin boy 00 @671, i.e. 15:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would also agree that finger skateboards should be notable, as I do seem to recall them being somewhat popular when I was a teenager. If third party sources can be found, I would say keep. This article is a total mess, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article about finger skateboards if they are a notable phenomenon, which they may well be.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've notified WP:RESCUE.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete without prejudice. We should have an article about fingerskating (the subject is notable) but this one just isn't it. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per gatesr494. This article has a bunch of advertisments and should be deleted right away. gatesr494 (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2007 (EST)
Comment. I feel that with work, this could be a WP:HEY. It just needs that work. I found a patent for fingerboards using a Google Scholar search.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I certainly may regret it but my hunch is that any article transwikied into ten languages has some merit that is currently overlooked. Seems like this was a fad that is still going but the article could certainly use some work. To me this is exactly what wikipedia should cover, some obscure hobby or toy (maybe it's both) that has a devoted fan base. I would hope wikipedia would cover it in a fashion befitting learning about the subject even if I never bother with it again. Benjiboi 02:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least one of those is a mechanical translation of a previous version of this article. No !vote, but you should regret basing an argument on other Wikis. I would also like to add that we have had simultaneous AfDs on en: and fr: before. (You should be able to find the one I have in mind by looking at my contribution history on fr:. I just linked the AfDs; I don't think I started either.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment No comment except to say there are a lot of videos on youtube. E.g. [16] TableManners ^U·T·C 04:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Version now current is substantially improved and an asset to Wikipedia. I would urge all previous commenters to look at the article again, since it is much improved from nomination time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Still working on it. Benjiboi 04:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Good lord! It looks like these things go back to the 1970s and became collectible toys around 1999 with all manner of accesories. This is really quite a developed world and I will try to do it justice but it will have to be piecemeal as it's getting late. If anyone wants to help the trick seems to be using the words "finger board" with one of the manufacturers. These things are regularly sold on Ebay as well. Benjiboi 06:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Comment. Article re-written. Benjiboi 23:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - the current version is immensely better and this should not have been nominated in the first place, there were plenty of decent versions to revert to in the history, almost all of the problematic content was added in the past couple weeks. Mr.Z-man 20:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - I didn't see the version that was nominated for deletion, but the current version is an obvious keeper. Well sourced, interesting reading. Very informative to somebody who had never heard of the subject. Jeffpw (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep - Nominating for deletion is not an appropriate response to a recent history of poor quality edits. Please read the guidelines more carefully. The topic is highly notable: I remember kids playing with these stupid fingerboard things all the time in jr. high and highschool TheBilly (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Snowball keep now, obviously. Great work!--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:N and WP:V. It's been mentioned in mainstream business magazines and is manufactured as toys by major manufacturers like Mattel. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Surprisingly well sourced. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - to those who say that the article is notable but that this article is inappropriate, could you clarify your objections, perhaps on Talk:Fingerboard (skateboard), so that editors can make it more appropriate? :) Cheers, Iamunknown 17:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. I think all those comments predate the article re-write, although any constructive comments are certainly welcome. Benjiboi 17:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I'll second that; the rewritten article is quite appropriate for inclusion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CLOSING ADMIN. Please note article was moved so AfD discussion is correctly linked to talk page. Benjiboi 00:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. east.718 at 00:30, December 27, 2007

Felony Records[edit]

Music label that fails WP:CORP. Also covered by this AfD are the following related bands:

Like their record label, they have no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Notability to come. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all All nn bands fail WP:BAND, record label fails WP:CORP. STORMTRACKER 94 17:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all, since the bands fail WP:MUSIC, the label fails WP:CORP. Also, will the closing admin please make sure that each artists' albums (and album covers) are deleted too? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all per Stormtracker94 Tavix (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12 as copyvio by User:Spellcast, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carroll Center for the Blind[edit]

It is written by User:CarrollCenter4Blind who I strongly suspect is someone involved in Carroll Center for the Blind. And so does not conform to WP:NPOV, and it is written like an advertisement. Harland1 (^t/_c) 15:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:33, December 27, 2007

Animalism (personal identity)[edit]

This page appears to have been unsourced for a few months now. I would suggest it is not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Also, the supposed origin of this theory (the two named individuals) themselves do not have articles. I have checked around and can find nothing of quality to source this article. Anber (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Actually it has been unsourced for two years. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 17:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: agree with all above.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The assertion that the gentleman's article lacks reliable sources is unrebutted. The supporters of retention here make weak arguments aimed at the Italian government, and do not speak to Wikipedia guidelines or policy. Policy, thus, demands deletion of this article on the basis of strength of argument. Xoloz (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carmelo Bertolami[edit]

Stub article on an Italian man who is claimed to have lived to the age of 107, and whose claim to notability is that he was one of the last surviving Italian veterans of World War I. However, that claim is not recognised by the Italian government because he served in the army for less than six months before being captured (which, to be honest, seems rather mean of them, but apparently that's their criteria).
There has been a low-level edit war over reports of his death, with unsourced claims of his death in November being repeatedly added and removed; they appear to originate from material circulated by an Italian on the Worlds Oldest People mailing list run by indef-blocked User:Ryoung122 (see discussion on my talk page), and now referenced to a French site on military veterans which does not look like a reliable source, and which I guess may have used the same informant as the mailing list (see also discussion at Talk:Carmelo Bertolami).
Apart from the unreliability of the death reports, the only other reference is a 400-word note about his 105th birthday on the website of his local commune (roughly equivalent to a parish in England). This seems to me to fall well short of WP:BIO's requirement for substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject: it a bit short to qualify as substantial, it's arguably a primary source, its independence is questionable, and there is no evidence that Bertolami's death even got a mention in a local newspaper.
Since there is nothing to say about this man other than "107-year-old-army-verteran", it seems to me to be quite sufficient that his name be recorded in the relevant lists (Veterans of the First World War who died in 2007 and Deaths in November 2007), and I have referenced his entry in both of those articles.
So I suggest deletion, possibly followed by a redirect to Veterans of the First World War who died in 2007. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete The claim of reaching 107 does not appear to satisfy WP:V and in general the requirements of WP:BIO and WP:N do not appear to be satisfied. Edison (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Wish I knew what rank he was for living veterans. I guess for World War I veterans, we would have a standard equal for all countries, so I'll ignore Italy's 6-month policy unless all the other countries are like that. Neal (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]
- Reply The Italian 6-month policy is not the issue at AfD; we're not discussing his inclusion in Veterans of the First World War who died in 2007. Even if he was confirmed as the last surviving WWI veteran from any country, it doesn't alter the fact that he lacks the substantial coverage required by WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regretful delete I've been trying to make Good Articles out of all the last remaining World War I veterans, but my searches indicate that there just aren't the sources to support an article for this individual. It's not a language thing either - I found plenty of sources, English and Italian, for Carlo Orelli. Nothing, aside from what the nominator has already pointed out, can be found for Bertolami. Would gladly change my !vote if sufficient sources could be found. Cheers, CP 17:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep. As per user "NealIRC". Extremely sexy (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reply Bart - The Italian 6-month policy is not the issue for this AfD. This is not about his inclusion in Veterans of the First World War who died in 2007. Even if he was confirmed as the last surviving WWI veteran from any country, it doesn't alter the fact that he lacks the substantial coverage required by WP:BIO! Neal (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Delete per nomination. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 ^♠ 02:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

International islamic relief organization[edit]

Delete No notability proved by which it can be said that this organisation can be a separate encyclopedic article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete Already exists as International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) --JustaHulk (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- There is no such speedy deletion criterion. Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. The correct action when one sees duplicate articles is to follow the procedure at Wikipedia:duplicate articles. Uncle G (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - OK, point taken. Simple error, not "abuse". Thanks for the correction. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above. This is a duplicate article, making it not needed. STORMTRACKER 94 14:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to International Islamic Relief Organization. There is (unsourced) information here that may be useful to the article if anyone can source it, so it may be better to keep it in the history. Also, no reason not to have more Category:Redirects from other capitalisations -- people looking for information don't always get that right. Rigadoun (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guillaume Dasquié[edit]

Delete No notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The template needed for refs to show was missing. I fixed that. Seems notable though I would like to see more refs like secondary sources. This AfD is a bit premature given the existing refs; under WP:AGF, they should be verified as inapplicable if someone wants to AfD. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Yes, it needs secondary sources, but there are several on the French version of the page (as well as quite a bit more content), so it passes the multiple independent sources test. Rigadoun (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Being sued for libel by Khalid bin Mahfouz would be enough for me, but there's also his detention and questioning about his sources by French domestic intelligence, as reported by Le Monde, Libération, La Croix, and Reporters Without Borders. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. per Paularblaster. —dima /talk/ 03:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Refs were there all along to establish notability - just needed a reflist. You should check things like that before nominating for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. To me his notability is well demonstrated by the French-language wiki page. --Lockley (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The notability is a non-issue here. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 editorially as a simple and obvious solution. Xoloz (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kryptonite (Mario song)[edit]

The third single has been changed from "Kryptonite" to "Music For Love."--FSX-2007 (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Go! (Mario album). There was a recent AFD for another song off the same Mario album (5, maybe 6 days ago?) and that was the result there. EDIT Found it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music For Love --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Considering the few contributions of the nominator, suggests questionable policy knowledge and also maybe AGF nomination, but that does not lessen the fact the the article is well within guidelines, i.e it being covered by reliable sources; consensus also being apparent at the last AFD. (Non-administrator close) Rt. 15:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LED_circuit[edit]

AfDs for this article:

article restored after DRV attended by none. The concerns raised in the original AfD have not been addressed. A blitter (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Close this nomination. This renomination is premature. The last AFD was only a few weeks ago (and ended in a conditional "keep"). The decision was reviewed in a Deletion Review discussion which endorsed the closure. Contrary to the nominator's claim, the deletion review discussion was well attended. I see no new evidence in this nomination that would substantially change the prior decisions. (That said, it would be nice if more people joined the merger-proposal discussion on the article's Talk page.) Rossami (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tornado myths[edit]

Wikipedia is not a FAQ. This article is decidedly unencyclopaedic in the present form. Cú Faoil (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep and Rewrite This is a tough call, because although you are correct in saying that it is written in an unencyclopaedic form, a quick Google Search establishes that the topic is notable and has plenty of reliable sources (including US gov [17]). I agree that this should not be in a FAQ format (or more specifically Myth - Debunk - Myth - Debunk...), but I don't doubt that it can be salvaged into a more standard format. Joshdboz (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Well-written, informative, sourced. Rhinoracer (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep even in present form; I don't see any unencyclopedic content in there, and the form is not even that bad. Tizio 15:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Keep - As per Joshdboz. Needs a substantial rewrite, with that editor needing to cite more sources, and make it compliant with MOS. Rt. 15:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: unencyclopedic in form does not mean uncyclopedic in content. AfD is not cleanup. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rewrite There is a lot of good information in here, the only problem is it isn't written well. Tavix (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and rewrite per everyone else. The article seems notable enough and more sources can be added as needed, it just needs rewriting to be more encyclopaedic. Just because an article needs cleanup is not a reason to delete. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep Does anyone else get the feeling that this is lifted from somewhere else? It's a great article, but a little bit too great. Mandsford (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep AfD isn't for articles needing cleanup. It's for articles that need to be deleted. Rray (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. This is a pretty decent, useful article. It is clearly notable and has some reasonable sources. More polished writing would be nice, but that can always be added. Tim Ross·^talk 20:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. per Mandsford's comment above, I just checked out some of the language from the article for originality. Large parts seem to be identical with <http://www.alamance-nc.com/Alamance-NC/Departments/Fire/Emergency+Management/Weather+Terms/Tornado/Tornado+Myths.htm>. I don't know if the wording on that site is original or if it derives from some other source. Looks like a problem, in any case. Tim Ross·^talk 20:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:33, December 27, 2007

Icrossing[edit]

DELETE (Wehberf (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)) This entry fails WP:Corp The problem is that the entry has no significant third party sources to merit a Wiki page. There are 10,000 firms like this in the industry this one isn't notable. My fear is that once we start listing SEO firms like this one, Wikipedia will become a SEO haven for firms trying to spam the index. Once we list this one, then 10,000 others will want their listing.Reply[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Does not establish notability except in a trivial sense, i.e. community paper mention. Wikipedia:NOT a directory. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. No notability and no independent references shown. A non-notable web search engine manipulation business contrives a Wikipedia article about itself. Surprise, surprise, surprise! - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. A non-notable company. Tavix (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This appears to be a case of bias against a smaller company. Several sources are sited from reputable 3rd party articles. Including Adweek, Mediapost and OMMA which are highly respected within the online advertsing space. Jcsquardo (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

COMMENT (Wehberf (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)) If Wikipedia started listing every SEO firm that got written up in some trade magazine it would turn into a spamfest. I disagree with you that the firm is notable. The exact same services can be purchased from thousands of firms in the US alone. If Google flips a switch, companies like icrossing vanish as the SEO's/SEM's entire business model surrounds Google. Trust me on this.. if this entry is allowed to stay, Wikipedia will get thousands of these submissions and arguments in a matter of days from thousands of SEO firms touting their press saying they are notable.Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Xoloz (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sting: Moment of Truth[edit]

This was PROD-nominated with the reason "Non-notable wrestling DVD movie that can easily be covered in Sting's article". Prior AFDs on a similar article (1st and 2nd) suggest that this is a potentially controversial deletion, which makes it eligible for AFD discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Dav nel 03 15:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best of the Bloodiest Brawls, Vol. 1 where another Sting DVD was deleted and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric Flair and The Four Horsemen where other similar DVDs were also deleted. Nikki311 16:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further Comment - also note this similar AFD. Dav nel 03 17:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another further comment here is a later AFD in which the aricle from the previous AFD was deleted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric Flair and The Four Horsemen --70.48.110.56 (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete ancient advert, which has not been improved, cited, or proved notable. Cool Hand Luke 22:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Twingine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

procedural nomination—version of article at time of this AFD nomination: This was previously kept as 'no consensus' in an AFD in Sep-Oct 2005 and is being brought here as it appeared as a PROD nomination. Prod nominator states: "Does not establish notability". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Does not establish notability. Wikipedia:NOT a directory. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Per above.TheRingess (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Tyrenius (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brion Vibber[edit]

Yes, he's useful, has a day named after him and so on, but I really don't think he's notable. I very much doubt he would have an article if he wasn't working for Wikimedia. Seriously guys... what's next, an article about Rob Church? The article isn't even any good. This should redirect to either MediaWiki or Wikimedia Foundation. Yes, I realize I could point it to either of those things without listing it here, but you know full well that drama would ensue – Gurch 13:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Did you let Vibber himself know? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, though I assume he isn't concerned about whether or not he has an article, since it's been there for several months and he hasn't made any comments on it. Perhaps he isn't even aware of it... or he avoids it so as not to be accused of creating a conflict of interest, which I know some other people (e.g. Jimmy Wales) have been accused of a few times (whether fairly or unfairly, I don't intend to comment) – Gurch 15:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have left a message – Gurch 15:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. No redirect needed. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I think leaving a redirect behind may be a good idea simply because redirects are very effective at discouraging re-creation – Gurch 15:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Note that the page was originally a redirect for nearly a year, and then only created a month ago. I'm not sure how effective such a redirect would be in the future. Rigadoun (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Names of people famous for one organisation and nearly unknown outside them are usually redirected to the organisation's article, because that would serve the reader searching on the name best - David Gerard (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep being the CTO of Wikimedia seems notable, and this person has been at the forefront of other notable projects as well. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep It seems common here (and quite reasonable) to include the primary authors of notable free software. It makes sense--if the software is notable, why shouldn't its creator(s) be? There are articles on folks like Eric Allman (sendmail), Rasmus Lerdorf (PHP), etc. It's pretty hard to argue that these guys are notable for something else. I anticipate the argument that free software is often written by hundreds of volunteers, but just as in the above cases, there are usually a small number of initial creators and/or primary authors that are really the driving force behind the software. Certainly Mediawiki is a notable piece of software--it might not have been if it hadn't been used by lots of other websites, but it has indeed overtaken other wiki software and is now a pretty major part of the infrastructure of the net. I think at least its primary forces--Me, Magnus, and Brion--merit articles here. We may not be RMS or Guido, but certainly one doesn't have to be a "celebrity" to be an important author/inventor/scientist. Yes, I realize that I am arguing for the inclusion of my own bio, but with full disclosure at least. --LDC (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- You're a redirect to MediaWiki at least ;-) For comparison, look at someone like Thomas Dickey, who has an article as the maintainer of several minor but notable packages - David Gerard (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Borderline keep - Brion's getting increasingly noted and doing press and talks and so forth. Failing that, back to a redirect if he's not famous enough this year - David Gerard (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I have zero competency to vote on subjects in this field, but as a matter of simple logic, I find Lee Daniel Crockers reasoning sound, if his characterisation of the situation is accurate. It should be noted though, that it is not known what Brions own view on the matter is, and that should have some (don't know how much) influence on the decision. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why? Unless a biography's subject wants the article deleted (and Brion would have informed us if this were the case) their opinion is not normally taken into account; I don't see how this is any different 86.139.87.58 (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect. It is practically empty anyway. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. east.718 at 00:33, December 27, 2007

Ogmo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ogmo

procedural nomination—version at time of AFD start: This was previously deleted back in January 2005. The game associated with this character has been deleted previously. This article has improved since its initial deletion, but still fails WP:NOTE though it passes WP:V User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I placed a PROD on the article since I couldn't find a record of AFD on the talk page or in the edit summaries. Thanks for listing for me. Considering that the game in which this character appears has been deleted for non-notability, this should be a clear-cut case. Pagra shtak 13:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, given that the game itself is gone. Would probably be a delete anyway, as there appears to be practically nothing to say about the character in the first place. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus article is in need of attention and the line between the language and the company needs to be addressed. Sources provided are borderline 2 mentioned here look like primary sources and the third is very weak. COI and adverstising content should be addressed but afd isnt a cleanup process. Gnan garra 11:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zlango[edit]

Cleverly disguised spam. This article is heavily self-referenced, with extensive mentions of the company name and product, and was probably created to generate maximim Ghits. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, just citations from the company website. Gavin Collins (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - spam. Author creates an article with "refs" in their only 3 edits? Special:Contributions/FerventTomato an experienced spam artist. --Jack Merridew 13:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Excessive use of product/company name throughout article sure makes it read like spam. More importantly, no independent sources; 'references' provided are all self-provided, blogs, or both.

Keep per sources provided by Wikidemo; I must not have hit the archives when I searched Google news. Maralia (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obvious keep. Any tech company receiving $12 million funding from front tier VC is more or less inherently notable, and it would be a hole in our attempt to cover the field to omit such articles. Plus, here are two independent reliable sources with substantial articles about the company.[18][(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/technology/article_21225439.shtml]. Suggest using google before nominating articles for deletion.Wikidemo (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment IPO's come and go, and the references you cite are clearly PR pieces to promote the company and its products, and cannot be considered reliable. It seems they used some of the their start up money to garner publicity; just like they have created this article as a Ghit farm. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh? Those are newspaper articles. "Ghit farm" does not compute. What does an IPO have to do with anything? Jerusalem Post is a major newspaper, not a PR wire. And United Press International is a significant reliable wire service, to say the least. Having major substantive coverage in these two reliable sources obviously satisfies corporate notability. If we are going to have such criteria we might as well use them. But if you want to go to underlying utility of this information to an encyclopedia project, as I said you can't cover tech without covering the top tier VC funded startup companies. Wikidemo (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Article is about a product, not the company itself. Be sure and watch for that to appear… —Jack Merridew 07:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment — See the six other languages inter-wiki-linked from the English one; they all have the same basic pattern of creation by a single purpose account; mostly in the username Candaro which does exist here but with no edits: [19]. --Jack Merridew 10:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Sorry I couldn't find better sources. I specifically used the references that link to Zlango Ltd.'s blog strictly to show the products Zlango released and where it released them, which can be seen by where they were positioned in the article. I'm new in Wikipedia (long time reader, short time contributer), and I'd appreciate any insight on how to improve the article. I tried to find as many things needed to use in a brand new article, but I guess from from the page history I missed quite a few... FerventTomato (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - There's an AP article that briefly mentions Zlango by Matt Moore. I can't help but note that the arguments for delete focus mainly on the author and on reference issues then on the article itself, though... Should the article be about the language or the company, or both, if it is to exist at all? DukeEGR93 02:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AFL 08[edit]

Blatant hoax article including phrases such as "published by software giant Activision for the next-gen systems Commodore 64, Atari and Game Boy Color." as well as multiple BLP violations such as "The game is said to cause debate with its hidden sex tape of Lawrence Angwin and Karl Norman only unlockable when you win a premiership with Carlton." The game itself, ignoring all the vandalism, is itself in no way whatsoever in development. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong delete. This article will be deleted by the first admin that reads it. I'm only glad I was around to see it during its brief life. Heading back there now for another look while I still can. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I actually am the first admin to read it, but unfortunately hoax articles, even some as blatant as this, are not speedy-able if the overall concept (the game AFL 2008) has a chance of being real. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong delete Hoax, should be a speedy. STORMTRACKER 94 13:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete per nom - hoax. cf38^talk 13:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question The Original stub was created with this text.

AFL 08 is game currently being developed by Melbourne-based company IR Gurus and published by software giant Activision for Windows Vista, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and possibly Playstation 2, It will be out by round 2 of the AFL Premiership Season 2008.

Are we sure that it's a hoax and not a valid article that's been ripped up by vandals.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did some looking around and the results came back with either the game does not exist in any way, shape or form or that "IR Gurus" have announced they have no intention of making the game. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I reverted the article back to a version from before December 10th. It had been vandalized heavily. I'm still not sure if the game really exists, but I'll try and find some sources later. --Cyrus Andiron 13:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL as it has not been released. we are talking about a product from the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtstricky (talk • contribs) 17:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete unless someone comes up with a source that this game will in fact be released. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here, articles about future video games are generally accepted if they are confirmed to be in development by reliable sources, so if we find such a source, I'm not against keeping the article. Bleeding Blue 20:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Is sheer nonsense or a hoax. Mbisanz (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even the unvandalized version is to spammy and future-looking for me. Mbisanz (talk) 07:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Somebody is determined that this article should remain in its vandalised state: [20]. Who knows why. I have reverted the change back. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Lankiveil (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, probable hoax. If the game comes out later, we can easily recreate, especially given the questionable quality of the current article. Lankiveil (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Comment It's worth noting that the same developer named in this article, IR Gurus, has produced three previous AFL titles: AFL Premiership 2005, 2006 and 2007, so it's not improbable that a 2008 game will be released. I cannot, however, find any evidence of a 2008 version in development. Bleeding Blue 14:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 05:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fabuolous G[edit]

Apparently the subject is the "main man" in a Swedish reggae act who are in themselves insufficiently notable to warrant an article. The creator of and only substantial contributor to the article, Trinity Crew, also sees it desirable that we should know this: [21]. I'd say the subject is non notable and the article unverifiable, as other than the group's own website, Google searches turn up next to nothing. And, lastly, I believe his name is Fabulous G, not Fabuolous G. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as non notable Mayalld (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I'm not convinced that being "soooooo cool" necessarily makes one notable. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Indeed. And what, while we're about it, is a 'boggle-head ball'? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Mmmmmmm . . . . Swedish reggae! - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nominator as non-notable biography. --Lockley (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Red Hand of Doom[edit]

Non-notable RPG expansion pack, with no reliable secondary sources to indicate that this "generic" supplement has any significance outside of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise. Gavin Collins (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 12:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Enworld article is trivial, so there is not multiple non-trivial independent coverage. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment You do realize the enworld link is a link to two different non-trivial reviews (scroll down). Hobit (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete — Not notable, no significant coverage. --Jack Merridew 13:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Addendum — Closing admin should read the closing statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwellers of the Forbidden City for an excellent summary of the issues. --Jack Merridew 12:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - True, but I wouldn't go assuming that the closing admin at that AFD is a deletionist's friend either. BOZ (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge - There's probably a List of Dungeons & Dragons Modules this can be put into. If not, there should be. Everything deserves to be on Wikipedia, but not everything needs it's very own special article. Howa0082 (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everything deserves to be on Wikipedia? — see WP:NOT#INFO --Jack Merridew 14:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sum of all human knowledge, pally. Thanks for Wikistalking me immediately after reading my comment, by the way. You're a real charmer. Howa0082 (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep or Merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons modules per Howa0082. BOZ (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Gavin & Jack. Eusebeus (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment From Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons#Articles proposed for deletion: Red Hand of Doom: Listed to establish a precedent as to whether modules without decent references from independent sources are deletable or not. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC) .... WP:SOAPBOX I still think there is abuse of the deletion template going on rather than actually working to fix documents. Rather than trying to set a precedent for deleting articles how about fixing them or adding the tags to get people to include proper references. I get a feeling a personal agenda is associated with all the RPG related AfD's since the "help" by Gavin is counter productive. All articles are deletable. The question is should they be deleted or should these articles be fixed? shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is apparently far, far easier to delete them than it is for anyone to bring them up to a standard that some people will find acceptable. BOZ (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gavin has recently been involved in disputes on several articles regarding the use of the notability template. (He doesn't like it when someone removes this tag, and adds multiple "cease and desist" messages to talk pages if you remove one of his tags.) This article is one of the articles where the notability tag that Gavin had added was removed, and Gavin didn't agree with its removal. It seems as if this AfD might be retaliatory, which is a poor reason for an AfD. Rray (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It strikes me as a retaliatory AfD as well on his part.Shemeska (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment There are links to two reviews in the page itself, it's just that there aren't any footnotes to the reviews. I fail to see how this means that there are "no secondary sources" on the subject of the article however. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strongly Agree with this comment. AFD shouldn't be used because the referances aren't properly formatted, only if the subject is not and never can be proved to be notable.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, out of spite.--Robbstrd (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Nominator seems to not have read the article. Secondary sources are provided, including a rather large set of reviews. It isn't an expansion pack as nom claims. It is an adventure module which is a form of fiction and reviews constitute the type of secondary sources you'd expect. Finally "Red Hand of Doom" produces 63,200 ghits. While ghits aren't the end-all, be-all, they do indicate that people are interested in the topic and it may well be notable. Hobit (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as per Hobit. Edward321 (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Notable D&D module. Article includes secondary sources but needs a refimprove tag added. The article is also a stub that should be expanded. Being a "generic" product isn't grounds for deletion either. None of these are valid reasons for deletion. Articles shouldn't be nominated for deletion in order "establish a precedent" anyway, but lacking references isn't a deletion reason either. Deletion is for articles which can't possibly be sourced. Rray (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coment Any reason why you think this game supplement is notable other than your opinion? --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coverage from secondary sources indicates notability. Rray (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment The secondary source are not reliable, they are trivial comments about the game (see above). --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How are they trivial? All three reviews are anything but trivial. Quite long, and involve both summary and analysis. Hobit (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per Hobit & Rray —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cube lurker (talk • contribs) 20:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Hobit & Rray as well. Secondly, the AfD is questionable in the first place. That said, the article can be improved, and I strongly suggest actually improving articles rather than just adding templates en masse or going for deletions.Shemeska (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as part of one of the most notable RPG game series. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep notable expansion of notable game. Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Per Alansohn. Gavin, please get a new hobby. This one is boring. Iquander (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules for now. As it is, there isn't significant content to warrant a separate article but has potential for future expansion. --Polaron | Talk 15:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep notable expansion of notable game. Will have had independent reviews etc. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and improve. AfD seems to be spite-motivated. The article should be improved, not deleted. Iceberg3k (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Additional comment Gavin does not seem to care enough about the subject of the article he is nominating for deletion to be able to articulate what that subject is. That smacks of a bad-faith AfD to me. Iceberg3k (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Comment I think a lack of knowledge of the subject matter is present, and a little more research into it would solve a lot of issues. D&D for example, does not have "expansion packs", as it is not an MMO like WoW or Everquest, nor is it a board game. Use of proper terminology such as "campaign setting", "adventure module", etc would probable add a bit of credibility to the AfD's; and learning that might also give insight to the game itself and its materials to understand the significance of some of the articles. Such as I am undecided on this article, because it falls AFTER my prefered D&D edition and am still doing research on it other than I have heard its name mentioned and of its popularity, but word-of-mouth does not fall under wikipedias sources. therefore I am of mixed feelings on whether to say keep or delete since there is but such a short time with which to rationalize these thing out here amongst researching things over the holidays... shadzar|Talk|contribs 13:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - the nominator should be working to improve articles, not deleting them because he does not understand them. That being said, there is much that can be done to improve this article if there is time given to do it. The recent policy of using AFDs to "force improvements" needs to stop. This article should be retained to allow time to improve it. Web Warlock (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 05:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tasos Kostas[edit]

No RS's available that establish notability. The show itself doesn't even have an article. Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 11:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Nn radio host, no reliable sources. STORMTRACKER 94 12:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete per nom. cf38^talk 12:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete - no claim of notability. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article had no claim of notability, no third-party sources. — Ocatecir ^T 14:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Omair Sana Welfare Foundation (OSWF)[edit]

Advertising, but for a non profit organisation if the consensus is keep it should be rewritten by someone who knows something about it. Harland1 (^t/_c) 11:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete not a notable organization from what I can see and seems to be more spam/self-advertisement. Only web hits for it are for its own site. As a side note, original article was up for CSD for copyright infringement and the creator removed the CSD tag and changed the wording slightly. Left him a warning but didn't undo since its already here now. Collectonian (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Nn orginization, fails WP:ORG. STORMTRACKER 94 12:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Delete not notable by any stretch of the imagination Mayalld (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Star Trek: Starfleet Command: Orion Pirates[edit]

Non-notable expansion pack for defunct game. This article has no primary or secondary sources, and fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Gavin Collins (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep A quick Google search shows plenty of coverage from various game sites. Sources can be added, but the subject of the article is notable enough for inclusion. Rray (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment This statement is a little to sweeping to go unchallenged. Which of these sites are specifically related to the Starfleet Universe? Are the sources simply a restatement of the primary sources? What is the quality of the source, and what real-world context do they provide? Ghits alone are insufficient evidience of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, but 13 reviews on Game Rankings [22] is sufficient evidence of notability. Please perform a search there before nominating any videogame articles for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My statement isn't sweeping at all. Anyone can browse through those ghits for themselves to see if the article has sufficient real world coverage. Lacking sources and having too much plot information are both issues for improvement of an article. They're not deletion reasons. Rray (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment This is not a review at all just a product listing. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to Star Trek Starfleet Command II: Empires at War. Notability of the game does not automatically extend to its expansion packs. Expansion packs are rarely notable enough for a stand-alone article and this one provides no such claim or evidence to support breaking away from the main. Collectonian (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not an expansion pack, it's a standalone game. --Pixelface (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Adequate notability and sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Since there aren't any primary or secondary sources cited, I interpret this assertion as an argument for deletion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Please don't try to put words in other people's mouths by saying you're going to "interpret" their arguments to keep as arguments for deletion. Rray (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I am tiring of people advancing arguments for the retention of articles that aren't accompanied by actual sources demonstrating notability. These AfDs are taking on the look of a desperate rearguard action. AnteaterZot (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment The article cites and references several sources which I consider adequate. I am not desperate as I have no special interest in this game. Please assume good faith. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I find AnteaterZot's comment offensive. What you're "tired of" is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not this article should be deleted, and just because you disagree with someone else's argument doesn't suddenly make it okay to not assume good faith. Your comment borders on a personal attack, and it surely doesn't assume good faith. Rray (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Seems notable, also has good sources. Delete, looking it over again, it does not have good sources. STORMTRACKER 94 12:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Um, there are no sources at all used in the article, so how can it have any good ones? (External Links != sources) Collectonian (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete non-notable game. --Jack Merridew 13:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, it's a notable game and I think I've improved the article considerably. --Pixelface (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The proposer describes the game as defunct. Having looking closer, it still seems to have an active online multiplayer community. Either way, this shouldn't matter for the AFD as it would just an aspect of the proposer's dislike for the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Moreover, being "defunct" is not a reason for deletion. We have plenty of articles on things which no longer exist, or which are no longer commonly used. We delete things because they never mattered, not because they no longer matter. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commment When is day defunct, I meant to say it has no notability now and will not achieve any in the future. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since that's not the standard meaning of the word "defunct", perhaps you could be clearer in the future. Rray (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree, no offense, but that's a real stretch of the language.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep May not have had sources before, but now it does. I'd say those reviews back up it's notability.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Article has multiple independant sources. Edward321 (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and close GameSpot + IGN + GameSpy reviews = reliable sources = notability. Game Rankings = seconds to use, MetaCritic = seconds to use. AFD =/= clean-up. AFD = last resort. This entire discussion could have been avoided by a few seconds searching and a cite tag. Someone another (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - multiple reviews by reliable sources present to demonstrate notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as per above .:Alex:. 17:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

keep Article is in reasonable shape now wrt sources, and of course "defunctness" has nuthin' to do with deletion. — brighterorange (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as it is a notable game with good sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep whoa. User:Krator (t c) 19:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Notable enough to have several published reviews. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep or Merge to Star Trek Starfleet Command II: Empires at War. quite a bit of work has been done to this article in last few days. It seems borderline keep, but adding it to the source article would make that article much larger only to spawn it off again at some point and we are back here. Let's keep it and be done with it. Web Warlock (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment None of the "work" done since this article was created suggest that this expansion pack has any notability outside of Starfleet Command. Perhaps those wanting to keep this article would be better off trying to improve the entry on Star Trek Wiki rather than pretend this article goes anywhere near meeting the notability requirements for Video games. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - multiple reviews by reliable sources present to demonstrate notability, equivalent to numerous computer games etc. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yubiwa[edit]

Unnotable CD single that fails WP:MUSIC. No independent coverage and its tie to Escaflowne is already covered in the Escaflowne album and its soundtracks. Failed endorsed PROD. Collectonian (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Nn album, fails WP:MUSIC. STORMTRACKER 94 12:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Not sure you read the article, but it's not an album and does pass WP:MUSIC. Dekimasu よ! 12:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I pulled the prod, but I endorse prods too; this just wasn't one I agreed with. If it charted on the Oricon (the main national music chart in Japan), it is notable under WP:MUSIC. I agree that sources should be added, but I believe the Oricon result is verifiable. I have no particular interest in the connection between this single and any anime. Keep. Dekimasuよ! 12:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Here is the official Oricon chart showing the song in question. Dekimasu よ! 12:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Dekimasu. Looks notable. --Pixelface (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as it made the Oricion charts in Japan, so qualifies under WP:MUSIC. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep As above. Remember, systemic bias is bad mmkay. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 05:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of unproduced Toho kaiju[edit]

No valid assertion of notability. Copyvio images and a prod were previously removed from the article. By definition, these characters did not leave the planning stages and were not featured in any films; thus, I do not see what separates them from other unmerchandised items or characters in any other unproduced screenplays/video games. Dekimasu よ! 10:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete nothing notable about unproduced characters. Trivia at best, and poorly sourced from a single fan site. Collectonian (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nomination. cf38^talk 12:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above. STORMTRACKER 94 12:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete this is not a wiki arctice that is great nor good and is not needed. SG2090 (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 ^♠ 21:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Destiny's Child Fifth Studio Album[edit]

What's actually about Destiny's Child is crystalballing. The rest is actually about solo projects. Wikipedia is not Variety magazine. JuJube (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete quickly as tabloid nonsense, unsourced nonsense, and nonsense nonsense. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete source-free crystalballery. AnteaterZot (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong delete. In addition to agreeing with the above, I'd say this matter seems to be better covered here: [23]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Harland1 (^t/_c) 11:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. STORMTRACKER 94 12:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete completely unsourced and crystal ball. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per everyone above Mr Senseless (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong delete.Per everyone above.Master Bigode (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Gosh, it doesn't even have a title yet! •97198 talk 10:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hangzhou Xiaoshan Sports Centre[edit]

Non notable football stadium, which 'holds people'. Harland1 (^t/_c) 09:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Nn sports stadium, also not linked in Wikipedia at all except for AFD. STORMTRACKER 94 12:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probable keep. It's not an orphan anymore, and the page has been updated to add the home team. Are there precedents regarding sports venues? We have an awful lot of them (in lots of countries) that don't make a claim of notability greater than this. I'm not using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but rather asking if guidelines or common outcomes have been written. It seems to get some google hits in Chinese including some press coverage, so I think it probably meets the basic notability requirement. I would guess that that's usually true of facilities of this size, regardless of where they are, and that may be why we have so many. Rigadoun (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. If the team that it hosts meets the notability guidelines, then so does the stadium. Corvus cornix_talk 00:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Home pitch of a notable football club, seems to meet notability. matt91486 (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - I've no idea why it was objected when I wrote halfway. Then I thought I will update later. So It's unnecessary to refute. TRUTH IS TRUTH. --Dj nix (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:FRINGE, WP:HOAX, and WP:NOT, due to lacking verifiability and independent mentions in media. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Salvador Fernandes Zarco[edit]

This article describes a nonnotable (and far-fetched) theory about the true identity of Columbus, solely based on a web page by the author of the theory, a medical doctor. --Lambiam 09:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to main Columbus article if it's shown to be encyclopedic, otherwise delete. Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 09:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. A nonnotable theory – meaning that it has not been reported on in reliable sources, and therefore does not meet the requirement of verifiability – is almost by definition not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for fringe theories that otherwise would not get attention. --Lambiam 16:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per above. STORMTRACKER 94 12:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete original research per the nominator, and per WP:FRINGE, which states "In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively." Two web sites isn't extensive. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge and redirect (or at least redirect) to Origin_theories_of_Christopher_Columbus#Portuguese_theory, where this theory is already at least partially covered. There is not enough material here for a verifiable separate article, but it is reasonable that this be mentioned in a survey article as one among various theories. -- Visviva (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:FRINGE states: "Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects. However, if the idea is notable in some other way such as coverage in the media, the idea may still be included in articles devoted to the idea itself or non-scientific contexts." This idea has zero coverage in the media. --Lambiam 13:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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_(recall) 05:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Della woods racing[edit]

Completion of an incomplete nomination procedure. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 09:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete If an article needs to be made on her, it should be at Della Woods. Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 09:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong delete Non notable driver, no sources, non-encyclopedic. STORMTRACKER 94 12:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete for lack of notability, sources. No prejudice against recreation if the subject's career takes off. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - The woman held a record in drag racing (a male dominated sport) for 22 years, your suggesting that is not notable? user:John Reaves thinks it is as he removed the original ((db-nonsense)) template . I will always contend that we should Assume Good Faith, in that, articles will get Sources if they are not AfD'd within 1hour and 14 minutes of creation. Looking at User talk:Denichols shows no Welcome was ever issued to this new (now possibly lost) Editor, Instead after making their first edit to WP the article was taged for Speedy 4 minutes after creation. Is this how we welcome new users ? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep as notable, but needs sourcing. Can be verified easily. I moved it to Della Woods. I have welcomed the newbie. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - needs improvement, but notable. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as redirect done above; sources might be a little hard to harvest but not impossible and wikifying's not a chore. DukeEGR93 02:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete because it is non-encyclopedic. Tavix (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Although I personally find User:Alansohn's comparison of Mogadishu and Hiroshima a rather absurd hyperbole, the fact remains that notability from the film is a point unrebutted by deletion supporters. As the soldier's notability stems from Black Hawk Down, a merger there might be appropriate, but that is an issue for the talk page. Xoloz (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jamie Smith (soldier)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jamie Smith (soldier)

A casualty of the Battle of Mogadishu (1993). Although this is obviously very sad, I can't see anything in this article that asserts why he is particularly notable as a casualty. WP:MEMORIAL, etc. The medals do not carry inherent notability according to WP:MILHIST guidelines. Leith p 08:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —Leith p 08:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I would be inclined to a7 it myself, but this'll work too. Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 09:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete This soldier is not notable - the only claim to notability is that he died during a mildly famous battle. The circumstances of his death could be briefly included (with a citation) in Battle of Mogadishu (1993) if they're not already there. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I've just noticed that several other articles on non-notable US fatalities of this battle have been created - can Clifton "Elvis" Wolcott and Donovan Briley be added to this nomination? --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Per Nick Dowling. He is, unfortunatly, not going to get anymore notable. Best to include him in the battle article Narson (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 12:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, not notable Lordjeff06 (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, Winner of one of the country's highest honors, a casualty in a highly publicized military operation and portrayed in a major motion picture. Spot87 (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability. ALR (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I don't understand why Smith in particular has to be deleted considering that almost every soldier that participated in the battle have a wiki entry.Dibol (talk) 17:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The question isn't whether other articles that may or may not fail notability guidelines exist, but whether this one passes and whether it will ever be more than a permanent stub. Narson (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Article provides reliable and verifiable sources about the subject, who was also deemed sufficiently notable for inclusion in a major motion picture, meaning that he actually did get more notable after his death. The utterly foolish statement that "he died during a mildly famous battle" is like calling Hiroshima the site of a mildly famous explosion. Alansohn (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. --Polaron | Talk 18:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Janette Geri[edit]

Article was deleted in January 2007 and recreated a week or so later with some additional content. Main editor User:Halftonerecords appears to have a conflict of interest through username [24] and states he is Geri's husband. Article was proded today on the basis of it not meeting WP:MUSIC and contested by Halftonerecords. I believe that the subject is a non-notable singer songwriter according to our notability inclusion criteria. —Moondyne 08:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep It seems to me that [25] satisfies #11 on the list at WP:MUSIC. Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 09:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete seems to fail WP:MUSIC and a web search doesn't bring up much to support her being notable or "internationally acclaimed" despite the record company's claims. Mostly being promoted by their own sites, article is a promo/ad piece from husband/company. If kept, smack the creator with a COI tag or something and see if a neutral editor, maybe from the music project, will "adopt" to clean up and keep an eye on it.Collectonian (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Nn music artist, seems to also fail WP:MUSIC. STORMTRACKER 94 12:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Quite notable according to Google hits. Music is featured on Rhapsody.com which is Real Audio's music sales portal similar to iTunes and you don't just say "Hey! I want to sell my music on Rhapsody!" and it's done. Several other notable hits including the Australian government, numerous radio and TV stations, and several colleges/universities. While I got into issue with User:Halftonerecords over the spam links and promotional statements of the article, we eventually cleared that up and he knows what Wikipedia is not. The subject herself however, is notable. -- ALLSTARecho 17:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as per ALLSTAR. Dr.K. (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, meets criteria 11 of WP:MUSIC through rotation on ABC Radio National. The lack of Google sources is probably explained by the fact that she was big before the Internet came around, and also occupies a rather niche sub-genre. Lankiveil (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Comment No one said "lack" of Google hits. I said "quite notable according to Google hits". That means I found lots of Google hits for her. ;) -- ALLSTARecho 04:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

École du Pacifique[edit]

Primary school that doesn't meet any of the three standards at WP:SCL. brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this school deserve to stay on Wikipedia. Tell me what to change and I'll make sure to make this school meet the standards of Wikipedia.

--Sebnet (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. It is a member of the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique and it is mentioned in several secondary sources throughout the internet. I also briefly googled for more information and in my personal belief the article is notable enough although I believe that it should be properly categorized. -- Loukinho (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete unless sources appear demonstrating notability. AnteaterZot (talk) 09:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep if WP:N can be kept. After all, WP:SCL is proposed. Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 09:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per above. STORMTRACKER 94 12:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: it's a school with 95 students, and the article makes absolutely no claims about being historical or important. It's a part of Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique? Great; that means there's an article we can merge anything important to. We could put this article in the Conseil article, trivia and all, and it wouldn't be close to overlarge.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique has quite a few independent articles on already there as sublinks. Also, consider taking a look at Template:BC Francophone Education Authority Schools that has been added to the article. -- Loukinho (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The emerging consensus is that individual pages for many schools is a bad idea. It would be better to have a nice list on the district page with information on the number of students, principal, date founded, and so on arranged in columns. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per Loukinho, notable enough that it does not need to be merged. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're thinking about deleting École du Pacifique, how come you don't consider deleting other schools in the same school district. Having a page for each school include independant schools to be known on the world wide web by being search in Google for example. While being find in different search engine will bring more people in Wikipedia and I'm sure everyone from Wikipedia wants that! --Sebnet (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:38, December 27, 2007

Terry Alan[edit]

Self penned (by User:Terryalan) biography of someone who seems to be, at best, a non notable bit part actor. Following the links given in 'Film Experience' turns up nothing at all, despite the presence of full cast and supporting crew lists. Google searches likewise, and the external links go to his school and myspace sites. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete a7? Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 09:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Delete Autobiography (Which is a COI) of a non notable actor. CSD A7. STORMTRACKER 94 12:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:38, December 27, 2007

Mycon[edit]

This fictional race in a video game does not seem to be real-world notable. A Google search revealed quite a few unreliable sources for the game, but they mention this race only incidentally. It was in a mass-nomination for deletion back in August 2007, and has not been edited since August 2007. To top it off, the article is pure gameguide. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:N. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 09:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 12:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - normally I would say merge into the relevant merge target, List of Star Control races, per WP:FICT, but in this case, I doubt that notability can be asserted for that article either. In any case, this article consists completely of game guide and extraneous plot details. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll merge (eventually). I have had rewriting SC2 races on the to-do list on my wall since September, but was badly delayed by an ADHD test gone horribly wrong. I know of recognitions these races have received, and they are vital information for describing SC2. --Kizor _{is in a constant state of flux} 12:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edgewood High School (Indiana)[edit]

Article does not assert notability of the school. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 07:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Article was created 18 minutes before you nominated it for deletion. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. High Schools are notable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- There are no policies or guidelines on Wikipedia that say that, that is just your opinion. TJ Spyke 08:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Option 1. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - That is a PROPOSED guideline, meaning as of right now it has not effect. Next argument? TJ Spyke 09:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Whether its proposed or not, it's a guideline; it's not my personal opinion. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 09:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Proposed means it is NOT a guideline yet, so it has no say over articles; that means it IS just your opinion that schools are inherently notable (an opinion I strongly disagree with). That means you have to judge it by current guidelines and policies. Notice that even on that proposed guideline page there are more than proposals. TJ Spyke 09:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Yes, that's true. However, this school is now a bit more notable, see my sources added to the page. AnteaterZot (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability (which means it can be speedy deleted), no third party sources, no info on the article other than saying the city its in. TJ Spyke 08:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- NB: Almost no Sysop will speedy delete a article on a school, even if it technically does fufill a criteria such as A7 or A1 due to the heavy controversy surrounding the deletion of schools (except for pages obviously added in bad faith). With that being said, I don't feel this article meets criteria for inclusion (see my vote below) Mr Senseless (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per WP:SCL and as per brewcrewer. -- Loukinho (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- That's the same think, a PROPOSED guideline (meaning it's not actually a guideline right now, so it has no effect on Wikipedia articles). TJ Spyke 09:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per TJ Spyke Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 09:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, now that I went to the trouble of finding some sources. AnteaterZot (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Has refs, high schools are notable. STORMTRACKER 94 12:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Regardless on if there is a guideline stating it, it has been found that most high schools are notable. I endorse the removal of the speedy tag as it is not within the spirit of speedy deletion to use them controversial cases, and it is still disputed if schools fall under A7. Sources have now been added to the article making it a perfectly reasonable stub, and I am sure more can be found. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Sources added. And comment. This isn't just aimed at the nomninator, it's a widespread problem. The main afd page under Before Nominating For AFD states:

Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.

How can any of these steps be done when we're nominating articles minutes after creation?--Cube lurker (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy keep—We need a guideline on "ambush deletionism", because I don't think this is benefiting wikipedia in the slightest. (Not necessarily the case in this instance, but I do see brand new pages get AfD more often than seems random.) Unless a page is clearly a speedy delete candidate, the editor(s) needs some time to bring the page to early maturity. At least a month, say.—RJH (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Delete I'm not seeing how this school is notable, I don't feel the show choir or the bowl win nessacarially assert notablitiy. Mr Senseless (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Above and beyond the 19-minute drive by AfD that appears to clearly violate Wikipedia:deletion policy, in addition to the overwhelming general consensus and precedent on high school notability, the article as restructured provides claims backed up by reliable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Props to AnteaterZot for his efforts to improve the article. Alansohn (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep all high schoools are inherantly notable. None should ever be deleted for notability, regardless of the quality or sourcing of the article ATM. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I don't think sarcasm works well on the written page, Jerry. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - You incorrectly assumed there was sarcasm in my post. Reread it again assuming it is 100% sincere, as it was intended. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Well, then I have to disagree; I believe that nearly all high schools are notable, and that there are scenarios in which a high school article should be dəleted. I haven't seen one yet, but it could happen. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Is notable with sources, proposed policy makes all high schools notable Hobit (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - meets WP:N. Absolutely ludicrous to nominate minutes after creation, arguably an abuse of the AfD process. Yes it was inadequate; that's why we have tagging and stubs. TerriersFan (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as above, the article clearly articulates why the school is notable. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What? Why is there such a big discussion over whether the article is relevant? What people put up is accurate so I don't understand the big deal. I just don't get why even accurate and good things are constantly deleted by everybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiburns (talk • contribs) 05:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indianhead Mountain[edit]

Article seems to be unencyclopedic. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 07:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak Delete The article has no content except some images and an infobox. I think this is a non notable ski resort and it is impossible to find reputable references. Therefore, should be deleted. Chris! _ct 07:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Change to Keep since now the article has content and references.Reply[reply]

If this individual would have taken the extra five seconds needed to check the page history, he would have seen that it was in the middle of being uploaded and edited. Perhaps this should be a requirement before anyone can nominate a page for deletion - that they actually check the pages history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickdrew (talk • contribs) 07:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And again, if this individual would bother actually looking at the page, he would see plenty of content, references and information. Since when does a personal opinion "a non notable ski resort" qualify as a reason to delete an entry? It does not, and goes against what the Wiki is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickdrew (talk • contribs) 08:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Comment Please assume good faith. That is no need to be hostile. In response to your argument, please note that my notability assertion is not really an opinion. It is based on verifiability (see WP:N and WP:V). Usually, an article will require multiple references. I am sorry to overlook it, sometimes I do that, but a blank page without any references is not notable. Chris! _ct 02:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment We delete things that are notable all the time. See a7 in WP:CSD. Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 09:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's the WIKI's loss. Anyway, the statement that "the article has no content except some images and an infobox" is obviously incorrect. The WikiSki project is attempting to create a comprehensive guide to ski areas. I have reviewed all the reasons why a page would be deleted. This page qualifies for none of them. --Rickdrew (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. It's got some content now, and I can't see having an article on the subject undermining any of the policies or ideals here, minor though the resort may be. The article needs to be pruned though, as it kind of reads like a wiki-formatted mirror of their web page. We don't really need to have the hours of operation in there, do we? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Meets notability. And I agree with the poster who said this was nominated without enough checking. Jeffpw (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep: I haven't checked previous versions so I cannot comment on the actions of the nominator, however, the article, as it currently stands, seems to meet our notability requirements. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - appears to be notable enough. The article needs work, though, as it seems to lean towards promotional - the gallery looks to be a little more than really necessary for an encyclopedic article, for example. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep A bit on the promotional side per Tony Fox, but still meets general notability criteria. (Funny how often the otters tend to agree with a fox...) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Natural synergy. Besides, I bribe them with salmon heads. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The article has been improved since the nomination, as indicated above. Still some minor items to clean up, but that's a separate issue. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as above due to recent improvements to the article. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The article is about a notable ski area in the Upper Peninsula. I can't quantify how notable it really is, other than it's somewhere between Vail Ski Resort and Buck Hill in Burnsville. As an aside, I really wish people would lay off the "delete this article now!!!" button in WP:TW for articles that are only 12 minutes old. A little bit of checking would have revealed that Indianhead is a fairly major ski area in the Upper Peninsula. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indian cricket team in Bangladesh in 2007-08[edit]

I don't see how this is notable enough to have it's own article; I know the event is confirmed, but surely a play-by-play analysis isn't planned. I don't see why the results (India wins, etc.) can't be put into the India cricket team article.

Keep A 'play by play analysis'? Something tells me you're not familiar with cricket, or indeed the discussion on the forthcoming South African tour of India article. Cricket tours by test playing countries are absolutely notable as they're the highest form of the game. There's a lot to be said about individual tours, and test matches and even one day internationals, and it would be impossible to put them all into the article on the teams themselves. There are A LOT of articles about tours on Wikipedia, I suggest you have a look at a few to see [26] what the 'play by play' analysis looks like. I also suggest visiting the wikicricket project, after learning at least something about the game and discussing this further, rather than posting any more tours for deletion here. I'd be all for deleting any discussion of England's debacle in Sri Lanka at the moment, but it's not going to happen. Nick mallory (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I meant was a detailed breakdown of how the games proceed seems a bit unencyclopedic to me. However, if there's actually a substantial amount of information to be written on this subject then I guess I should withdraw this AfD. Thanks for the heads-up. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 07:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's ok. This tour is part of the 'Future Tours Programme' of the ICC so it is notable. I'm just trying to save you from being knocked for six here. Cricket is one of the major international sports, the fourth most popular search term on Google this year was 'cricket world cup' [27]. Nick mallory (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. ——Moondyne 08:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Even a one-sided series as this is bound to be is still the top tier of a major international sport. It's a confirmed future event, and given the sheer volume of coverage it will produce (trust me, if the Indian 12th man sneezes during the tour, it'll be headline news at home), a merge would be entirely counterproductive. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep All these tours are notable. Deleting it now will just mean it's recreated not long after that. Note that Alokprasad84 removed the AFD tag from the page before this discussion was closed. Lugnuts (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:38, December 27, 2007

Courtland Center[edit]

Well, I guess you can file this one under Category:Articles Wikipedians regret creating... Seriously, though, this mall doesn't assert notability in any way. The only press coverage I've found pertains to the relocation of an anchor store, which I don't think is enough. At <500,000 square feet, it's not a horribly big mall either. I could probably ((db-author)) this since almost all of the significant edits are by me (including the IP edits, made back when ~~my otters and~~ I had a bad habit of not logging in regularly), but I wasn't entirely sure, so I'm taking it here first. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems like an easy one to me. Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 09:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 12:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Definately not notable. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 00:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:38, December 27, 2007

Sorenson companies[edit]

Delete No notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete non-notable company Chris! _ct 07:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete though I would have tagged a7. Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 09:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Nn company, fails WP:CORP. STORMTRACKER 94 12:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:38, December 27, 2007

Neil Wilkes[edit]

Delete No notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per wp:bio Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 09:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Nn, per WP:BIO. STORMTRACKER 94 13:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No WP:V sources despite 3-4 months being tagged for them. Only sources are apparently not independent of the mall ownership. Pigman☿ 19:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Towne Mall[edit]

Non-notable mall in Kentucky, doesn't meet precedent for super-regional classification. Tagged for sources and notability since August with nothing added. Also written in a somewhat promotional tone. (P.S.: It's hard to find any sources for this mall since there are about eight million other malls that are either "Towne Mall" or "_____ Towne Mall".) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This link reveals that the Gross Leasing Area of the mall is 353,000 square feet, and the mall has about 60 stores, which would seem to fall below the threshold of notability, but if it is the only mall in an eight-county region, it might qualify as notable. Malls are always very hard to find reliable sources for, unfortunately. Horologium (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The article does not make the claim that it is the only mall. It appears to be another nn small US mall. The article is mostly about the area rather then the mall itself. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - What precedent? Please point out to me where it is written what you say is the precedent that has been agreed to by consensus ? Or that 353,000 sq ft, and/or 60 stores is an agree'd to 'threshold'? That argument is pointless after reading WP:BIG. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Just doesn't seem notable beyond the locale. RMHED (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By that logic, it is then notable to the locals, and since there is no 'local' clause in WP:N, it should stay. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Not clearly notable. Written in a promotional tone, as noted by the nominator. Dekimasu よ! 10:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Seems to be written like an advertisment and it isn't notable. Tavix (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:38, December 27, 2007

Uniontown Mall[edit]

Non-notable shopping mall in Pennsylvania. Seems to fall quite a ways short of notable size. My otters and I all did some hunting for sources; we found no decent third party refs, just trivial mentions in the local paper and another mention (also trivial) of one of its former anchors being converted to offices. (Big whoop. I can name plenty of malls with offices in a former anchor, including one less than an hour away from me.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 13:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The mall does not appear to be notable in any way, just another regional mall. If the article complied with the suggestions in WP:ANC, the article would be close to nothing. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 00:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mary Burns[edit]

Neither of these is notable, and the page should either be a dab OR be about one or the other. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I think the second Mary Burns is notable enough for her own article. Google Books provides some good sources: [28], [29], [30], etc. Zagalejo^^^ 05:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Mary Burns the Manchester mill girl and Socialist is definitely a candidate for an article. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, as the second one is clearly notable. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Responses to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case. Keilana_(recall) 05:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Group of 88[edit]

Article already created and deleted once. See deletion logs. Not notable enough for its own article - there should just be a link to the list of individuals who signed the ad, in my opinion. Topic already covered in Responses to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case in some detail. Topic can be expanded there if people choose to do so. Delete/Merge with Responses article. Bluedog423^Talk 04:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as per nominator. StaticElectric (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or Merge per nom. This minor group is not notable enough for its own article. Chris! _ct 07:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 10:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete a link is sufficient.DGG (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above. STORMTRACKER 94 13:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: I disagree with the nominator on several points. Request response from nominator and those who agree with him or her:

This group's notability, in terms of national media attention, exceeds that of most groups or people profiled on Wikipedia: This group has been discussed in the national media (examples: [31][32][33][34][35][36]) and given treatments in major books by credible academics and publishing houses^[1]. I request that the nominator make his or her case that this group is not notable. If national media attention is not sufficient to establish notability, please outline the standards by which a group is deemed notable. If this amount of national attention is not enough to establish a requisite level of notability, then does this set precedent for the deletion of all groups and people who have been mentioned less than this group?
This group is notable as they have elicited a range of debates on serious issues: This group's behavior in the Duke case has evoked questions about a range of serious political issues, including, for example, reverse-discrimination, respect for due process, or the political behavior of educators. These are weighty, non-trivial issues.
This entry has not been covered elsewhere. The article you cite is about the Lacrosse rape case itself, and does not discuss the members of this group nor present an adequate venue for profiling the issues raised in the public sphere about their behavior. To open up the issues noted in #2 on the page you cite would be off-topic. In addition, by not allowing this group to be profiled independently, you restrict opportunities for issues that pertain to these scholars and the implications of their behavior, net of the particulars associated with the rape case, to be developed on Wikipedia

I find the argument about non-notability to be dubious and unsubstantiated. Please make the case that it is less notable than the majority of groups covered in Wikipedia. For example, I challenge you to look through the 12,000 clubs and organizations returned in this search - [37] - and tell me which of these have received broader national attention or are associated with more serious, substantive societal issues than the group profiled here. Should all of these entries be deleted, or are they more notable than the Group of 88?

Furthermore, thirteen of the people who are part of this group are deemed notable enough themselves to merit Wikipedia entries. Will those who vote in favor of deleting this entry also support the deletion of the thirteen individual entries based on non-notability?

On the issue of duplication, this article is NOT about the Duke rape case. It is about the group of professors that initiated a media campaign against wrongfully-accused youths. There are issues that pertain to this case that stretch well beyond the "media fallout" of the Duke case. This entry deserves to be maintained so that this event may be better profiled. By deleting this article on the grounds that it is not independently substantive also opens the door to a range of deletions. Please clarify the criteria by which you judge an article to be sufficiently covered elsewhere as to merit its deletion.

Also, a quick procedural reminder. Deletion processes on Wikipedia are discussions, not votes. As such, I would appreciate responses from the five votes in favor of deletion that contributed no extra discussion or insight, but simply agreed with the nominator. -The kekon (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your logic for keeping the article is severely flawed because it is based on your 100% correct statement that the "article is NOT about the Duke rape case." You argue that "It is about the group of professors that initiated a media campaign against wrongfully-accused youths." I never said it should be merged with the Duke rape case article. It is, however, 100% about Responses to the case. The only notable action this group EVER did as a group was to be signatories of an advertisement (and a clarifying statement) as a response to the LAX incident. This is certainly covered in the responses article already and the "media campaign" that, you argue, resulted from this ad, can be expanded there. Every single news article you cite agrees with me and shows no other collective action concerning this group. "The Group of 88" is not an ongoing representative body, but rather some professors who signed an ad ONE TIME. This is most definitely within the scope of the responses article, and the resulting media coverage can be covered there too. You argue that the responses article "does not discuss the members of this group." Ok, what do you want it to discuss? It already talks about Houston Baker's comments - and those should be attributed to him, not the group as a whole. Certainly other comments can be added as well and feel free to do so. If you want to "profile members" about their contributions/curriculum vitae unrelated to the LAX case, do so on their own wikipedia pages if they are notable individuals (see Houston A. Baker, Jr.). If you want to "profile members" about their response to the case, do so in the responses article. You also put forth many arguments in your attempts to establish notability (e.g. "It is a group of professors that initiated a media campaign against wrongfully-accused youths"). I personally think that while what the professors did was clearly wrong and misguided, they are not so powerful as to "initiate a media campaign" themselves. The media is certainly responsible for its own actions, IMO. And some media outlets did behave appropriately such as The News & Observer (early coverage withstanding) and The Chronicle. Finally, your argument that 13 people in the group have their own wikipedia pages, so if somebody supports a delete of the group, they ought to also support the deletion of the individual articles makes no sense whatsoever. Is it not possible that these professors established notability in their own right (i.e. before being part of a group of an ad's signatories)? Houston A. Baker, for example, served as president of the Modern Language Association. This is something he actually did not related to the LAX case...I know hard to believe. Cheers! -Bluedog423^Talk 18:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an inadequate response. Your case is based on two premises: (1) that the group is non-notable and (2) that the issue is completely covered in the other article, and should not be treated as a central object of attention in a Wikipedia entry.

""The Group of 88" is not an ongoing representative body, but rather some professors who signed an ad ONE TIME." Your claim that they signed one ad, and engaged in no further action, is false. You are fabricating facts. This group has independently made cases in the public sphere justifying their actions on several occasions. Is it your contention that all collectives that issue less than two joint statements be deleted from Wikipedia on the grounds that they do not constitute a real group? Such a precedent justifies the deletion of all entries of many well-known, noteworthy groups that do not regularly issue joint statements. If I found you five similar groups who do not issue such joint statements, would you (and those who agree with you) initiate and support a deletion proposal on these grounds, or are you only evoking this principle to suppress discussion of the Group of 88?
Is it your contention that all groups that do not construe themselves as forming a "representative body" be deleted from Wikipedia on the grounds that they do not constitute a real group? If I found you five such groups, would you also initiate a deletion proposal on these grounds, or are you only evoking this principle to suppress discussion of the Group of 88?
Regardless of your opinion: "they are not so powerful as to "initiate a media campaign" themselves. The media is certainly responsible for its own actions, IMO." That is EXACTLY what happened. Wikipedia is not the place for your opinions on how the media works, IMO and by Wikipedia policy. They issues a paid media announcement that initiated discussions that continue today. That is established fact. The burden is on you to conclusively demonstrate that these patently clear events are not what they seem.
Journalistic news values deem the actions of notable people to be more notable. Are these people notable or not?
You do not assert a clear principle that explains your desire to suppress this entry. I make a case explaining why it merits its own entry, and I ask you to make a case why it such an entry needs to be suppressed, Your response only attempts to shift the burden of proof back to me, and asks only questions rather than providing clear principles that justify your attempt to suppress speech and an independent venue for discussing this patently newsworthy event. If you wish to suppress others' speech, particularly after having been given clear reasons for that speech, the burden is on YOU to justify your actions with clear, broadly-applicable reasons.

Frankly, I think you have real nerve to flatly deny the notability of a group that has so obviously attracted more national attention than 90% (if not 99%) of what is on Wikipedia. Furthermore, your position that it is MY job to prove this patently notable deserves an entry, as opposed to you assuming the burden of justifying your desire to suppress it, is destructive in Wikipedia, and in public sphere discourse more generally.

BTW, do you have any relationship or prior involvement with Duke University or this group that should be disclosed? I have none. -The kekon (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Should be a redirect if not retained and so deletion is not appropriate. I have just edited the article accordingly to demonstrate this. Take further debate to the discussion page. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You deleted this page and called it a "keep". You do not have the right to do this unilaterally. Please make your case on this board, rather than decide yourself. Wikipedia policy calls for five days of discussion, then a default to "keep". If you are an administrator with the power to do make unilateral decisions, I ask that you recuse yourself for violating the five-day discussion rule. Please keep this from turning into an edit war. -The kekon (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not an administrator. I don't have the power to delete the page and did not do so. I just edited the page, as you have done by reverting my edit. 00:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Your "edit" is tantamount to a delete -- it (1) made the page unavailable, (2) effectively reverts Wikipedia to its state before this article was created (you didn't even make an effort to migrate the information), and (3) is precisely in line with what is being asked by those who are voting for a delete. How do you figure that you aren't deleting the article? Because you say "keep" before you do it? Please participate in the debate before making major decisions about the fate of this article.-The kekon (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You (and they) don't seem to understand what deletion is. It is a quite specific and powerful action because it removes the article's history and discussion from view and so makes further editing impossible for non-admin editors. No-one seems to want that here and so that's why I voted Keep. Editing a page to make it a redirect is open to any editor and so well within my rights. By making this edit, I improved the Wikipedia because someone putting Group of 88 into the search box would be directed to a relevant section of a better article on the subject. They would not only learn who the group were, but would also have good context for their notability. The only downside is the loss of the long list of names. Since most of them are redlinks, this seems to be no big deal. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They aren't redlinks any more. Someone edited them (I thought it was you - heaven forbid someone actually contribute to the article rather than complain about it). Ultimately, the article is thin in substance now, but this is a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy, as no one is going to contribute an article facing deletion. The point is that this group merits their own entry, and not be relegated to a mish-mash page of miscellaneous responses to the Duke case. If anything THAT page merits being split up into independent pages and linked to the main Duke lacrosse case article. Besides the redlinks, which has now been resolved, neither you nor anyone else has made a case for denying the existence of this page that stands up. PLEASE attempt to reach consensus in discussion through discussion.
There are still many problems with the article. These include:

No sources
89 names are listed not 88. Is one a phony? How can we tell?
Elizabeth Clark died in 1978.
Turning the redlinks into no links doesn't help. The point is that the full list of names is not needed because most of these people are not otherwise notable.
This group did not and does not have a continuing existence. It is just a reference to a one-time news event. It is thus best covered as part of that event.

Colonel Warden (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, this is at least a productive contribution, rather than just an attempt to suppress the page.

Fine, this can be easily sourced. But no one is going to put a ton of effort into this page while it is subject to deletion proceedings
The 89 names are from a letter clarifying the signatories position on their letter (the so-called "second letter"). The link is here [38]. My guess is that someone who did not sign the first letter signed the second one, but I can look into that.
Obviously this is a different Elizabeth Clark. I'm sure the name is common. I've deleted the link.
The group itself is deemed notable by WP:N.
Your logic for deleting a group on the groups that they were only involved in one newsworthy incidentwould apply to many other historically well-known, and perhaps even important, groups. Would you be willing to initiate a delete proceeding on the same groups for the famed baseball Black Sox, for example? Did they self-identify as the Black Sox, or have some type of ongoing organization? Try and propose a deletion for that article. I could give you ten more, but I think that the point has been made.
Furthermore, which Wikipedia policy are you evoking with this "continuing existence" condition?

The sourcing and numbers list are substantial concerns, some of which can be addressed in the near future. There are easy and straightforward remedies, and they fall in line with Wikipedia policy. The last point isn't a Wikipedia policy, and thus isn't grounds for deleting the article.

And, by the way, redirecting an article while it is under review is a violation of Wikipedia policy[39] -The kekon (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or Merge Full Disclosure - I am a Duke faculty member and a Duke alum; I did not sign either the "Listening Ad" or the "Clarifying Letter." At present, this "article" seems to be nothing more than a list of people whose "group" identity is only notable in direct reflection of Responses to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case and which only existed insofar as they signed on to one advertisement in the student newspaper. If there is something else for which the group is notable - rather than for which some individuals are notable - then there should be a page. As it is, this is an entirely subsumed part of another page and should be treated as such. Individual contributions to the case which are notable should of course be properly researched, added, and referenced NPOV on individual pages and on the Responses page. DukeEGR93 00:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you people even reading the other posts?

- This group is deemed to be notable if “the primary subject of multiple nontrivial published works whose source is independent of the person.” (see WP:N). Here we go: Wall Street Journal [40], CBS [41], News & Observer [42][43], Fox News [44], San Diego Tribune [45], Buffalo News [46] and US News and World Report [47]. Is that enough?
- This "not an ongoing group" case is BS. Which policy are you evoking? The same can be said about the Chicago Black Sox, who also did not constitute a ongoing organization. No one would be willing to call for that entry's deletion on these grounds, which is telling about how poor a deletion criteria it is.
- No one is going to build the Group of 88 page while it is under deletion proceedings, and it was placed under such proceedings as soon as it was created. I'm frankly surprised about how many (Duke-affiliated people) really don't want this page to exist. -The kekon (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure who "you people" are.

I can assure you at least that I read the other arguments and rationales and also that I made an effort to remain as informed as possible on the case as it happened. Please note my statement is not that "The Group" is "not an ongoing group" but rather that their "notability" is wholly subsumed by another page. The Chicago Black Sox were quite notable in their own right separately from any other singular enshrined event - can a case be made for the specific collection in the so-called "Group"? The one act of the "Group" was signing onto an advertisement. I'm certainly willing to read information about other actions committed as a group, as nothing in my readings has produced such a finding.
Beyond that - if "No one is going to build the Group of 88 page while it is under deletion proceedings," can you or others at least describe what the presumptive independently notable contents might be? The sources you are cited include a letter to the editor, an article that mentions the "Group" once in passing, a guest column by KC Johnson whom I've met and like but would not exactly call "independent" in this particular case, a story about a web page built by other faculty members, a story about a lawsuit against an individual member of the group, an article I can't read without paying, and a column that, again, mentions "The Group" only in passing. The San Diego Tribune article would seem to be the one openly available "nontrivial published works whose source is independent of the person" - except it is not primarily about The Group but about faculty relations. DukeEGR93 18:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The group itself is notable by Wikipedia policy. Case closed -- read the policy youself.

If you really feel that no members of that group are notable apart from this incident, would you support the deletion of all individual members' listings? Several of them have articles, and I don't see you trying to delete them. So either cut the garbage with non-notability, or show that you really believe in these principles and are not just selectively evoking them to suppress this discussion. Like the Black Sox, this group has plenty of notable members.
Nice try on excluding these articles, but no dice. The editorial boards of all of theses authoritative outlets saw them fit to print, and they were thus in the media. Stick to Wikipedia policy -- your personal journalistic assessments qand judgments on particular scholars are opinions alone. If you want to develop some kind of journalistic standard, then agree to support deletion of other articles that do not meet these standards, then go ahead and articulate these standards and agree to apply them elsewhere impartially. I personally think that youy are looking for reasons to suppress this article. In addition:
- The onus is on you to establish KC Johnson's lack of independence. Was he directly involved in this incident somehow, or is he not "independent" because he was critical of this group and you don't like that? Is this the Fox News model of "fair and balanced"?
There was a variety of debates that were intensified by the actions of this group, which I set forth above: "...reverse-discrimination, respect for due process, or the political behavior of educators." I am loth to go into detail for fear that you will tactically demand I write the article to prove its worthiness to exist, only to have it deleted later based on your personal assessments of noteworthiness (which seem to operate apart from WP:N), have you cite this other, unspoken deletion policy that no one has yet identified explicitly.

Wikipedia has established guidelines for these issues, why am I the only person discussing this deletion in terms of actual policy? -00:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

...Delete ^Dlae│_here 15:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or Merge; these are people who signed one fairly minor, as the world goes, document. Far better to delete the list of names and merge this to the page on the case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a news source and in addition, it contridcts itself because 89 people are listed. Tavix (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by Kurykh per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heathen Girls. Tyrenius (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rose Whipperr[edit]

Non-notable lead singer of a band that is heading for deletion in another AFD. There is no indication that Rose Whipperr has any fame outside of her association with the band - and the band seems to fail our guidelines on band notability. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Nn music artist, fails WP:BAND. STORMTRACKER 94 13:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete nn. JJL (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close. This is Articles for deletion. Article merger does not involve deletion, or AFD, at any stage. If you want the article merged into Races in The Legend of Zelda series, then you have all of the tools necessary for doing so. Even editors without accounts have all of the necessary tools. Don't bring articles to AFD when an administrator hitting a delete button is not what you want. Uncle G (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yook[edit]

This seems to be an non-notable species and perhaps game-guide material. I would suggest merging the content into the species article for LoZ and deleting or redirecting this page. Marlith ^T/C 04:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or merge; isn't there an article with a list of minor Zelda races? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 05:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coombabah State Primary School[edit]

~~Advert-like~~ article that doesn't establish the notability of this primary school. Doesn't meet any of the standards at WP:SCL. brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, talks about "our school", seems to be using Wikipedia as a hosting service. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - They're not using Wikipedia as their hosting service; that's a lightly modified copy-and-paste from the school's own website, which is nicely done. Most of the article is copied from various parts of the website. ("Using Wikipedia as a hosting service" is the wrong issue.) --Orlady (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Apart from being promotional in style, it doesn't look notable even with cleanup. And the only external link is its own school website. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Delete Wikipedia is not a webhosting service. Keep Article has been rewritten and is fine now. STORMTRACKER 94 21:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep - This school, more commonly called Coombabah State School, seems to function as a significant community centre for Coombabah (based on miscellaneous items I turned up in Google). I have found and added one independently sourced statement that weakly suggests notability. I have a hunch that there are other indications of notability out there waiting to be found (ideally by someone who is geographically closer to this school than I am). If this is not retained, some of the content DEFINITELY needs to be merged into Coombabah, Queensland. --Orlady (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted my "weak" due to the good work on the article by TerriersFan. --Orlady (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge relevant content only into Coombabah, Queensland. The vast majority of this article is not independently sourced and there is no evidence of notability provided. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was asked to review my contribution here. As a result I confirm my merge above. While the article has improved markedly, the content is not independently sourced. The sources that are independent of the subject are to my mind trivial in nature. A mere mention of a school in an article does not suffice for that source to be used to assert notability. The source must address the subject directly in detail. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge per above. No indication that this is anything other than a garden variety primary school. Lankiveil (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep Article as it currently exists makes claims of notability supported by reliable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Kudos to Terriersfan for his work so far and looking forward to a vote upgrade as the article is expanded. Alansohn (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Update: The improvements to the article provide additional sources; notability is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Orlady, notability is sufficiently conveyed and hopefully the article will continue to improve. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - OK, I have cleaned out the advert content and added sources. The page now meets WP:N with multiple sources and notable features such as the Japanese classes. TerriersFan (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- How does having classes confer notability on a school? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge IMO the references are not substantially about the subject - one is about technology in classrooms and cites this school as an example, the others are similar wrt different subjects. ie does not meet WP:N. Having said that, this article is in quite good shape considering it's a non-notable topic. Ga rr ie 10:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep - This looks like a borderline case for me. Multiple secondary sources have been used; further references in the article to source other sections would be beneficial to make clear the topic can pass WP:N, if that is possible. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete/Merge I'm with Garrie on this one - yes, there are secondary sources, yes, but saying what? I could find similar RSs about any primary school in the country and it would not make any of them any more notable. However the text within it could be used to improve the article on Coombabah, Queensland. Orderinchaos 01:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This school isn't notable. However, the article does cite reliable-looking third sources, and lots of other non-notable schools with similar citations have survived AfDs so I don't see why it should be deleted, except as the first step in a long over-due clean up of school articles. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. User:TerriersFan has done a nice job cleaning-up the article so earlier concerns of editors have been addressed. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep - cleanup has made this article worth keeping. JRG (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Update article has been cleaned up and sourced, but the school is still not notable. Most of the sources are from its own page. As Garrie says, two mentions of the school in the local newspaper aren't enough. Those editors who try to rescue every school article when it comes to AfD really should consider the merge option. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Please refrain from characterising your fellow editors, particularly when such characterisations are false as minimal research would have shown. I know of none who "who try to rescue every school article when it comes to AfD". This is demonstrated by the fact that the vast majority of elementary school articles are merged or deleted and correctly so. It is but a small percentage of elementary school pages that can be sufficiently developed to produce an encyclopaedic article. TerriersFan (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really don't see how this primary school is different then any other primary school, except that this one has a well written Wikipedia article about it. Having said that, I don't think that you should take Fee Fi Foe Fum's statement as an insult. I think that an editor who attempts to rescue each school afd is undertaking a noble cause. I nominated the article for deletion, I still think that it should be deleted, but I greatly admire the work that TerriersFan had put into it. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with User:TerriersFan that I know of no one who has or could ever attempt to "rescue every school article when it comes to AfD", but I do have a tremendous amount of respect for those who do endeavor to find articles that are worth keeping and make the effort to "rescue" an article from deletion. An unfortunately high percentage of AfD votes come from a very small number of individuals who have turned voting on articles their chosen task in life, drawing great pleasure from voting to delete the overwhelming majority of articles, while spending little if any time actually creating and improving articles. Given that the average article up for AfD is an easy mark for certain deletion, the fact that there have been so many -- probably around 100 or more -- articles that have been sufficiently improved after an AfD has started to merit retention, is a testament not only to the general notability of many schools, but to the genuine desire among a small group of people to expand the base of knowledge and information on Wikipedia about schools. Rather than trying to discourage individuals from improving articles faced with deletion, it seems to me that Wikipedia would be better off if those people who devote their efforts to AfDs actually contributed to improving articles, rather than tossing them into the trash. Alansohn (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: I agree with that. How about working on improving at least one for every one you work on deleting? DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alansohn: Most of us would agree that you are one of the most valuable editors on Wikipedia. Your work on New Jersey is unparalled. But there are different ways of making Wikipedia better. You have to admit that without the afd, Wikipedia would look like a garbage dump. Not only would it be filled with nonsense, the borderline notability articles would be weak articles. As you youself admitted: "probably around 100 or more -- articles that have been sufficiently improved after an AfD..." Just look at the difference between this article pre-afd and post-afd. That being the case, if an editor would do nothing else but vote on every afd that comes through, they are contributing substantially to Wikipedia. Albeit, the contributions of deletionists aren't on your level, but they too, improve Wikipedia. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't want to stray too far, but as I see it, deletionists and inclusionists can be broken down into those who contribute by improving articles and those who don't, often spending great portions of their edits at AfD. 1) I would consider myself a contributing inclusionist. I hope to create and improve articles, and will be more receptive of retaining articles that others might question. 2) There are many contributing deletionists, who often do great work in building a narrow area of focus and may not be as accepting of questionable articles outside their field of interest. 3) Non-contributing inclusionists are often folks who participate at AfD with Keep votes that distill down to WP:ILIKEIT. Far less than ideal, but you can enjoy a book or movie, without ever having written or filmed one. 4) It is the non-contributing deletionist that can be the most disruptive. These are individuals who have decided that their "contribution" will be to decide what should be on Wikipedia. There's nothing wrong with not liking a book; if you don't like it, don't read it, but there's no reason to dowse all copies of the book with gasoline and burn them in a pyre. Genuine consensus can only be built if all parties have an equal stake in the result. Individuals who have never created an article and seldom edit and improve existing ones, but are willing to judge on the contributions of others by nominating articles for deletion and voting to delete at AfD, raise issues in my book. I've never heard of anyone browsing Wikipedia to make sure it doesn't have a particular article. If it was all up to inclusionists we'd end up with a lot of crap; If it was all up to deletionists we'd have nothing. Alansohn (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, meets WP:N after excellent job of improving. Noroton (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Addhoc (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hampshire Mall[edit]

Another non-notable mall in Massachusetts, falls way short of generally accepted size criteria for malls. A search for reliable sources found only trivial mentions (e.g. news-y blurbs on minor events there). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 13:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep What makes a notable mall? It's one of two major malls in its area. AND there are references. - Denimadept (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see any references, just external links to the official mall website and to Pyramid's website. Those don't count. Also, being one of two major malls in an area isn't enough -- it has to be the subject of several reliable third-party sources, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess I'm missing something. The project is shopping centers and malls. This is a mall. What kind of references do you expect for this? The only definite refs are going to be from the corporation that owns and/or runs it. - Denimadept (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many malls are the subject of several reliable sources; see Genesee Valley Center as an example. Local newspapers are a good place to start -- note that Genesee Valley Center has two cites from The Flint Journal. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Denimadept (talk · contribs) is canvassing for votes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shopping Centers. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

plz clarify - Do you mean to say that you believe informing the relevent wikiproject of a relevent AfD to be canvasing? I can point to several wikiprojects that have specific locations that editors are urged to list AfDs that are pertinent to each. Is that to say each poster to these projects, listing an AfD, is canvassing? Please, assume good faith when you apply this term to editors that have only really been posting for 6months and are not as skilled as yourself. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 20:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep and improve - Lack of information is no reason to delete an article. Attempts should be made to improve it. bob rulz (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that you are missing the point. Upon looking at the article, I noticed that it was a stub, and decided to set out expanding it. But I hit a dead-end since I couldn't find any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And it's impossible that anyone else might succeed where you failed. I see. - Denimadept (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't say that it was impossible; on the contrary, it is possible that someone could step in and find reliable sources where I've failed (see WP:HEY). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your actions speak louder than your words. By moving for deletion, you're saying that this article can not be improved, you are unwilling to let anyone try, and that consensus is likely to be for deletion, or you wouldn't have bothered to make that effort. If that's not what you meant to say, you should consider not making AfD proposals so quickly in future. For this and whatever other articles on which you've already made that suggestion, it's too late. You can vote "keep", but you can't retroactively remove the AfD motion, as I understand it. - Denimadept (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep This mall is quite notable. I have improved the article by cleaning it up a bit and providing some sources. Here are a few references (there were more):

Year brings unusual pause in Route 9 growth BY SCOTT MERZBACH STAFF WRITER Daily Hamshire Gazette

Scott Merzbach (2006, August 17). New stores on line at Hadley mall. Daily Hampshire Gazette,p. B1.

NONTRADITIONAL MALL OFFERS ENJOYABLE ALTERNATIVE, The Boston Globe, August 11, 2005, Thursday, 126 words

CAMERA; Young Photographers Get a Crash Course The New York Times, May 3, 1992, Sunday, Late Edition - Final, Section 9; Page 21; Column 1; Styles of The Times, 654 words, By John Durniak

Man charged with trespassing in hospital's infant unit The Associated Press State & Local Wire, February 6, 2006 Monday 11:12 PM GMT, STATE AND REGIONAL, 225 words

Developer Karp to sell 14 malls; Giant Simon Property to buy big portion of portfolio for $1.725b The Boston Globe, February 26, 1999, Friday, ECONOMY; Pg. E1, 1294 words, By Chris Reidy, Globe Staff

A MAN FOR ALL SEASONINGS; 3 RESTAURANTS, CHOICES APLENTY: BUSINESSMAN THRIVES IN EAST MILTON The Boston Globe, December 08, 2005 Thursday, GLOBE SOUTH; Pg. 1, 1121 words, BY SANDY COLEMAN, GLOBE STAFF

Sunday Shopping Gets Mixed Reviews The Associated Press, March 28, 1983, Monday, PM cycle, Business News, 534 words, BY FRED BAYLES, Associated Press Writer

Authorities dismiss threat of mall bomb The Associated Press State & Local Wire, State and Regional, 152 words Sprew (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for helping! The article needs a copyedit still, but the sources provided are good enough for me. Access to print articles can be useful at times. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have also rewritten parts of the article that were grammatically incorrect. Sprew (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - the 'search for reliable sources found only trivial mentions' seems to have been disprooven. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 20:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:37, December 27, 2007

Calpop[edit]

The article is a advertising piece for a company that fails WP:CORP. No source provided in the article besides the companies position on a list of "fastest growing companies". No good source found via Google (26,100 results total) BJ^Talk 03:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per WP:V. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP, reads like an ad. STORMTRACKER 94 13:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Promotional to the point of spam and does not assert any notability. --Lockley (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nominator has indicated that s/he is satisifed with the recent addition of sources to signify notability. The is only one other delete vote and has not given any particular reasons for deletion. --Polaron | Talk 18:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mountain Farms Mall[edit]

Cluttered page on a non-notable dead mall in Massachusetts which has been redeveloped as a strip mall. No sources could be found regarding either the old mall, or the new development in its place. Note especially the section that reads "The mall opened in 1975 with anchors ???". Also note that the links in the infobox are for Hampshire Mall, which is next door. I have a feeling that there might be a conflict of interest at work here, given the fact that it's placed in a non-existant category for W/S Development, and there are spamlinks to the official websites of every store in the mall. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 13:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And you can keep your sock puppet at home, thanks. - Denimadept (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You honestly think Stormtracker's a sockpuppet of me? (Also note that you didn't list the accusation on the main sockpuppet page AND you didn't inform either of us.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I pulled that proposal since you're seeming too reasonable for that to be the case. Still, the way Stormtracker94 seems to echo you made me start thinking that way. It might be helpful if he/she were to actually post reasons backing his position. "per nom" is unclear, at least to me. As far as notifying you, why, even if I didn't yank the idea back out? - Denimadept (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It still would've been common courtesy to notify. No matter. Anyway, that user just happens to say "per nom" a lot; it doesn't mean that Stormtracker94 is a sockpuppet of anyone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I only created the article yesterday. The bad reference link is gone, and you seem to have missed that the second reference link was the correct one. What's wrong with linking to the stores in the mall? They're relevant to the mall. - Denimadept (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:SPAM and WP:EL. We don't need a crapload of external links. There are already links to each store's Wikipedia page (except for Sleepy's, which has none); if you go to the Wikipedia page for Wal-Mart, that page already provides an external link to Wal-Mart's official website, so you don't need to externally link it from the mall page too. There are no third-party references either, which is another reason why I brought the page up for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So suggest deletion of those links, but calling for deletion less than a day after an article is created when there have been links pointing at the non-existant article is overkill. - Denimadept (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that requesting deletion of an article 24 hours after its creation is overkill if the subject in question doesn't seem to meet notability criteria. In this case, it seems that the mall in question is/was not the subject of multiple reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you're setting your standards for "notable" too high. Most malls are not huge things. And I see you're doing it in many places, too. What are you trying to accomplish?? - Denimadept (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not going by my standards at all; I'm going by WP:N, which is Wikipedia's general criteria for notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm reading WP:N for a reminder, and its related Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as well. You make a good argument for deletion, but I suggest that for at least the two articles I've looked at, not to speak of the other ~50 you proposed for deletion in the last day or so, what they need is time to develop, not get deleted out of hand like this. And I'm working on that. - Denimadept (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, good to know that you're understanding my rationale for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I try to be reasonable. I still feel that this is notable enough, though the references involved are largely not on-line. Most of the activity involving these two malls dates from the late 1970s through the 1990s. While there's activity today, it's low level and doesn't get a lot of reporting. The most recent story I'm aware of regarding the Hampshire Mall has to do with a bigger Wal*Mart proposed to go behind it perhaps to replace the existing Wal*Mart attached to the Mountain Farms Mall. Other than that, there's not been much going on for a while. Does that affect the notability of the two malls in the center of the Five Colleges (Massachusetts) area? These are a large part of their available stores. I realize that doesn't necessarily make them Notable. - Denimadept (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(outdent) That probably won't be enough, but I'm glad to see that you've calmed down. I'm sorry if I got you worked up -- after all, you do seem to be contributing in good faith. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then there's WP:NOEFFORT. This particular article is only 1 day old. As you noted in your original note, I had a place where I placed "???", which was more of a placeholder than a finished line. The unused category can be removed, though I added it because of the similar (but implemented) category under Hampshire Mall's owner Pyramid. I don't know, off-hand, what else they own, though they list such on their website. I've not got sufficient interest in following that bit up, honestly. My main interest on Wikipedia is bridges, not malls. It's just that I'm sitting right now across the street (42°21′36.83″N 72°32′55.32″W / 42.3602306°N 72.5487000°W / 42.3602306; -72.5487000) from the Hampshire Mall, which is inextricably linked to its competitor Mountain Farms Mall across a secondary street. So I took an interest. A reference to the Wal*Mart issue may be found at [51] though that link may not work for non-subscribers. There's also [52] but that article doesn't explicitly mention the malls, expecting the reader to know what they're talking about. - Denimadept (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's more. In the original version of the article, I had a "expand" template for the History section. This is not a sign of an article in any kind of final or stable state. - Denimadept (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Denimadept (talk · contribs) is was canvassing for votes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shopping Centers. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and improve - This has enough information to keep, and it has plenty of room for improvement. bob rulz (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that you are missing the point. Upon looking at the article, I noticed that it was a stub, and decided to set out expanding it. But I hit a dead-end since I couldn't find any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And it's impossible that anyone else could succeed where you failed. I see. - Denimadept (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't say that it was impossible; on the contrary, it is possible that someone could step in and find reliable sources where I've failed (see WP:HEY). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your actions speak louder than your words. By moving for deletion, you're saying that this article can not be improved, you are unwilling to let anyone try, and that consensus is likely to be for deletion, or you wouldn't have bothered to make that effort. If that's not what you meant to say, you should consider not making AfD proposals so quickly in future. For this and whatever other articles on which you've already made that suggestion, it's too late. You can vote "keep", but you can't retroactively remove the AfD motion, as I understand it. - Denimadept (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep As with the Hampshire Mall there are indeed many reliable sources that talk about this mall - making it notable. I shall begin to reference them.

Planet Fitness pumps up new home By Scott Merzbach STAFF WRITER The Daily Hampshire Gazette
Hadley draws national retailers By SCOTT MERZBACH, Staff Writer The Daily Hampshire Gazette
The Republican Homeless vets find champion Saturday, November 24, 2007 By NANCY H. GONTER
Mountain Farms screens go dark By SARA SAFRANSKY, Staff Writer The Daily Hampshire Gazette
Lawsuit challenges decision to approve Lowe'sBy Scott Merzbach Staff Writer Amherst Bulletin
Mall mania slowly turns to malaise; Empty storefronts plague area centers By Ellen Barry, Globe Staff METRO/REGION; Pg. B1 The Boston Globe

Sprew (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I have provided some reliable sources above. Additionally I think its important to point out that Mountain Farms Mall has actually been rejuvenated and been brought back from the brink to be a thriving shopping area. It was converted from a failed enclosed mall to an open format. There are no longer empty stores. Right next to it they have built a Manny's TV and appliances store, a bank, a KFC and an Econo Lodge. So its an important part of the commercial activity of Hadley and of the Pioneer Valley. At present they have also just started to build a Home Depot across the street. Hadley planners OK smaller Home Depot BY M. ELIZABETH ROMAN STAFF WRITER The Daily Hampshire Gazette. Sprew (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have also tried to improve the article somewhat by expanding it a little. Sprew (talk) 09:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, there is still the vestigial entrance I mentioned between Panera Bread and EMS. I've never tried to see if those doors are locked or not, as I assume they are. - Denimadept (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good job Sprew, the article looks much better now. I'd withdraw, but others have !voted "delete" so I can't. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. These types of things can just be tagged with ((db-web)) from now on. GlassCobra 09:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

60 Seconds (webshow)[edit]

Contested prod, removed stub, time! —B o L @ 03:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Never seen this on YouTube. Logo makes it notable (kinda). Eh, probably some self-promo of some video they uploaded. Either way, just delete it. —B o L @ 03:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete No secondary sources provided. BJ^Talk 03:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't Delete It's not a promo for one video. This is for an article about a web series, more info will be added soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nascarcatcar3 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC) — Nascarcatcar3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete no secondary sources. There's nothing there, so no amount of time would help you cite the article. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 04:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Not even a Youtube page! —B o L @ 04:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment What are you talking about, yes there is a youtube page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nascarcatcar3 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment What I meant to say was, not even a Youtube page explains the significance and notability of the article --- unless someone blogs it. Can't be you though. So what'll it be? —B o L @ 04:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete This web show thing is not notable and unreferenced. Chris! _ct 07:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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_(recall) 05:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lakeshore Mall[edit]

At only ~500K square feet, it falls way short of super-regional status. A search for sources turned up this article's lone ref -- a press release regarding the addition of a Sears store in 1999. Other than that, it seems to be pretty much a non-notable mall. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as per nom. A search of Google News comes up with no references to this mall that I can find although it seems to be a pretty generic name for a mall in North America. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. As creator, I recognize that it is not a super-regional mall, but it is the only enclosed mall in the six-county, quarter-million population Florida Heartland region, and by far the largest shopping center of any type in the region. It suffers from the same reliable-sourcing issues which plague mall articles, which makes it difficult to demonstrate notability. Horologium (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you find a reliable third-party source that proves it to be the only mall serving six counties? I couldn't. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found this in a Tampa Tribune article: "[Company official Barry Storey] said he expects the mall to attract shoppers from not only Highlands, but also Glades, Polk, Hardee and DeSoto counties. Those shoppers now travel to malls in Tampa and Orlando." (Rebecce Bryant. "Sebring wants builder to widen roads; Council expects traffic near proposed Lakeshore Mall will jam streets". Tampa Tribune August 23, 1990. 3.)

There are actually several dozen articles about the mall from the Tampa Tribune: [53] Zagalejo^^^ 05:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - as a matter of fact the mall is so notable that other business' are building and capitolizing upon the malls draw power to attract business.[54] Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 21:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Capitalistroadster. Tavix (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Winklefisting[edit]

Even if this is not a hoax, it reall should be part of another article, not on it's own. Ridernyc (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete if not a hoax then at least nn. Could be mentioned at the main article for this if sourced. JJL (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment checked the sources and neither source uses the term, also 0 hits on Google. Ridernyc (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Sounds damn painful for the mollusc. Nick mallory (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I also couldnt find any information on the references given, and if there were, it could be dealt with in the main article. DGG (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Appears to be a hoax. STORMTRACKER 94 13:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 12:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Floydian Slips[edit]

Non-notable group, copyright infrigment, Googled Floydian slips, no results —B o L @ 02:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Non-notable band, and as nom. —B o L @ 03:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7 as a non-notable band. And somebody get rid of that pile-on of tags. It's almost bite-y towards the writer. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Delete non-notable tribute band, also agree with J-stan regarding the over-reaction with tags - Dumelow (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a copyright violation. Step hen 02:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whitehawk Studios[edit]

Conflict of interest, copyright issues, spamish VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 02:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep recused and no keep votes. --Thin boy 00 @160, i.e. 02:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Card shark[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Card sharp has five references saying that Card sharp is synonymous with Card shark. Card shark says otherwise with no references. There are other issues as well, and previous WP:AFD is at WP:DRV. In short, this page should be deleted or merged with Card sharp. Thin boy 00 @151, i.e. 02:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Last debate ended Dec 14th. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy close If it's at DRV, no need to make a second AfD too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Recuse/Endorse speedy close I don't know what I was thinking. --Thin boy 00 @156, i.e. 02:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Closing per own recuse and lack of keep votes. --Thin boy 00 @158, i.e. 02:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied by me. Singu larity 03:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deceased crab[edit]

Does not seem notable, only references are unreliable VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 02:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Did you try a speedy tag? AnteaterZot (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete I tagged it as such. An admin should be by shortly. I see no reason why it WON'T get speedy deleted at this point. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete Not even worth the bandwidth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.39.228 (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 20:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strictly American Movement[edit]

For one thing, this article talks about a non-notable movement, although the cause it stands for is notable. But that's just the beginning of this article's problems. I marked it as a coatrack article and as a POV essay on the cause this alleged organization stands for, while I was pondering whether or not this article should be brought to AfD. When I couldn't find a relevant ghit, my decision was made. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, therefore, Delete. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 02:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Despite the list of references at the end, this is an unreferenced piece of screed. All of the references are links to other wikipedia articles. There is no evidence this is a real, notable organization or movement with documentation in reliable sources as such. Yes, it resembles real sentiment of many real people and groups of people in the US, but an organized "movement" as this article implies simply does not appear to exist. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Essay. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I removed the list of "references", as they aren't references (Wikipedia can't reference itself as a source). Looking through the rest of the article, there are all sorts of significant claims being made without real references, including a few really incredible ones - the implication that international trade causes global warming is the most egregious. Finally, and most importantly, the actual subject of the article (the "Strictly American movement", or "Strictly American solution") doesn't appear to exist. Such a certification program would be easy to find information on if it existed; however, I can't find anything. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. STORMTRACKER 94 13:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Not even a website? I guess that's because it would have to rely on some components that aren't made in the U.S.A. It's the World Wide Web, not the Nation Wide Web, so you can't be sure. Mandsford (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete as spam; unreferenced, POV, coatrack of a soapbox. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Bearian here, so I'm tagging the article as G11.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BLACKKITE 16:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

La Vergne High School[edit]

I removed a CSD tag, and the action was questioned by a fellow editor, I have therefore brought the article here for consensus. Keilana 02:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - originally added the CSD tag due to no notability being established and no real sources provided. Seemed to fit CSD A7 well, but this works too :) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Did you look for sources? AnteaterZot (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - The article has serious problems, but that's a reflection of its having been created by an inexperienced but enthusiastic user (who created similar articles for several other high schools in the area). The main effect of deleting the article will be to discourage its creator; surely a better (and reliably sourced) article can be written for this school (and the other schools that have articles contributed by the same newbie). I found a lot of good info about this school in the school's School Improvement Plan (mandated by No Child Left Behind), and I haven't yet looked for independent sources. --Orlady (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I did. See this google search and for goodness sake, don't count the Ghits. Open a few and look at them. There are many extensive and reliable sources that discuss this school. a choice few are: this pdf and this site and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one. There are dozens and dozens more like these. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - High/secondary schools are notable and there are sources in it. This is another case of WP:OSTRICH. Please do research before attempting to speedy delete an article. --Oakshade (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Above and beyond the precedent for consensus on high school notability, this article provides adequate reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 09:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Like most high schools, this one appears to be notable. The article contains appropriate sourcing and passes WP:N. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep High schools are notable enough. STORMTRACKER 94 13:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I am the newbie that created the article. I created it at the behest of the Tennessee WikiProject. That being said I think this school is notable in that it's Marching Band is ranked 8th in the nation. (I don't have a reliable source for this because the United States Scholastic Band Association doesn't have a decent website.) Since I am a graduate of this school I didn't feel it would be ethical to laud the school. As I understand the premise behind wikipedia, every article is subject to peer review and that has happened. Deahcory (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Great job! Bearian (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep all high schoools are inherantly notable. None should ever be deleted for notability, regardless of the quality or sourcing of the article ATM. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Good research = multiple secondary sources = WP:N compliance = keep. Wonder why the CSD nominator couldn't have done this? TerriersFan (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep there isn't much more to add here, its unanimous that this should have never been placed on a CSD. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3 vandalism by Irishguy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 02:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Alien Mind[edit]

The only edits to this page are vandalism. Hmrox (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 04:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charles and Virginia de Gravelles[edit]

An article lacking independent sources (other than the author's own master's dissertation) on two figures in a state party machine neither of whom appears to have been elected to public office. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Louisiana Political Hall of Fame inductees in 2007:

Diana E. Bajoie, Sally Clausen, Charles & Virginia De Gravelles, Huntington "Hunt" Downer, Jr., Theodore "Ted" Jones, Mary Landrieu, Sean O'Keefe

The de Gravelleses are the only couple jointly inducted into the hall of fame. They are considered the first registered white Republicans in the 20th Century in Lafayette Parish.

Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Louisiana-related deletions, Politicians-related deletions, and History-related deletions. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Louisiana for a list of related AfDs of articles by the same editor. --A. B. ^(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete it's not the Louisiana hall of fame, its the Louisiana Political Museum and hall of Fame, and I dont consider it a sufficiently critical source to determine notability. What's more there are no sources at all. The entire thing is based on a primary interview with the local branch of the state university oral history project, The first two white republication of a single parish is not notability. DGG (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Currently there are 97 inductees into the Louisiana Political Hall of Fame.

1993:

Hale Boggs, William C.C. Claiborne, James “Jimmie” Davis, P.A. “Pap” Dean, Edwin Edwards, Dudley LeBlanc, Earl K. Long, Huey P. Long, Russell B. Long, John J. McKeithen, Ernest “Dutch” Morial, B.B. “Sixty” Rayburn

1994:

Lenard Allen, Lindy Boggs, Victor Bussie, Allen J. Ellender, Gillis Long

1995:

Camille F. Gravel, Sam A. Hanna, Delesseps S. “Chep” Morrison, Zachary Taylor, Edward Douglas White

1996:

Louis Berry, James Carville, Mary Evelyn Parker, Leander Perez, Gus Weill

1997:

Oscar K. Allen, Murphy J. Foster, J. Bennett Johnston, Melinda Schweggmann, Dave Treen

1998:

Speedy O. Long, John H. Overton, Joe D. Waggonner, T. Harry Williams

1999:

D. J. “Cat” Doucet, Jimmy Fitzmorris, Douglas Fowler, Iris Kelso, Ed Renwick

2000:

Jefferson Caffery, William Jefferson, Jeannette Knoll, Jimmy Long, Charles “Buddy” Roemer

2001:

Wiley Hilburn, Jr., Robert Kennon, Harry Lee, Wade O. Martin, Jr., Harold McSween, Victor H. Schiro

2002:

Jesse H. Bankston, Kenneth W. Bowen, Harley Bozeman, Nathan Burl Cain, William J. “Bill” Dodd, Francis “Grevy” Grevemberg, John H. Hainkel, Jr., William Henson Moore III, Joe Sampite, Lillian Walker

2003:

John Alario, John Breaux, Jay Chevalier, Harry Connick, Sr., Murphy “Mike” Foster, Charles Fuselier, Carolyn Huntoon, Raymond Laborde, Robert Livingston, Richard Stalder, W.J. “Billy” Tauzin

2004:

William “Billy” Boles, “Charlie” DeWitt, Dudley Guglielmo, Sr., Doris

Lindsey Holland, Moon Landrieu, Edgar Mouton, Jr., Edmund Reggie, Virginia Shehee, Jack Wardlaw

2005:

Robert W. Bates, Carlos & Mary Flores, Eddie J. Jordan, Jr., J. Curtis Joubert, William "Bill" Lynch, Barbara Boggs Sigmund, Francis C. Thompson

2006:

Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, Charles "Charlie" Cook, Sylvan Friedman,

Donald E. Hines, W. Fox McKeithen, Cecil Picard, Victor "Vic" Stelly

2007:

Diana E. Bajoie, Sally Clausen, Charles & Virginia DeGravelles, Huntington "Hunt" Downer, Jr., Theodore "Ted" Jones, Mary Landrieu, Sean O'Keefe

This is inherent notability for any of the above names. About half have Wikipedia articles already.

Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I counted sixty-six of the ninety-three with Wikipedia article. All should qualify.

Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 01:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reluctant delete, as there appears to be insufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources with which to write an acceptable article, and as it is believed that most of the article constitutes original research. This recommendation is without prejudice to restoration if sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources is found. John254 02:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as unsourced without prejudice to inclusion in the supercentarian list if sources can be found. BLACKKITE 16:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frederick L. Frazier[edit]

Does not seem to pass WP:N. Of the Ghits, none contain any substantial coverage of or information on the subject of the article. Thus it has little potential for expansion and contains no information aside from what is present in the various supercentenarian lists. My basic problem with this article is that there is little, if any, information out there that could be added to this article aside from what is already present on these lists. For those worried that the Google test is not sufficient, I performed searches at both the University of Texas Libraries Catalog (which covers several voluminous libraries) and jstor.org (which covers journal articles back to the 1800s) with no results. Cheers, CP 01:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as per nom. Perhaps we ought to have a list of supercentenarians for people who are known for long lives but little else and without enough sources to base an article on. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment We do, thanks to User:BrownHairedGirl's efforts. In this case, the relevant one would be List of American supercentenarians. Cheers, CP 02:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete His only claim to fame seems to be that he lived a long time. TJ Spyke 02:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 13:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or Merge with existing list. This could be snowballed as this is not the first Victuallers (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cool Hand Luke 22:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snooth[edit]

Lack of Notability. WP:WEB. Misinterpreted that google search. Either way, a single source isn't enough to establish notability. Multiple incidents of significant coverage from reliable sources is required to establish it.Crossmr (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep It has more than one source. I think notability is established. Rocket000 (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two of those sources are blogs which don't qualify as either reliable or for establishing notability. Just because its listed as a source doesn't mean it actually is.--Crossmr (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I did a google news search (not a regular google search, but a NEWS one) and extensive, reliable sources abound. Read a few, as I have done. Subject is plainly notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About the only source out of all those that is even worth looking at is [55]. The rest are either blogs or extremely trivial mentions. Every time someone gives a quote, or someone drops a name doesn't qualify it as significant coverage under WP:WEB. And this source is just a reprint of this [56]. Which doesn't seem to have any editorial oversight, which diminishes its value, however he's an awarded journalist which brings the value back up again. I'm neutral on this source, but I have seen a lot of editors take issue with this kind of source in the past.--Crossmr (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Really, because I found these: [57] and [58] I would consider Business Week and WRAL.com to be as reliable as any other publication and TV station, respectively... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete Unique, but the sources are fairly weak... I'd say keep if more reliable ones are found. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment After asking here and getting some clarification Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Techblogs a blog is a blog is a blog. Venture beat is in the same category as those techblogs. Hence the only notable coverage we're left with is one article from Decanter magazine, which doesn't satisfy WP:WEB.--Crossmr (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep As the first person to put a speedy deletion tag on this article, I think the article has come a long way. A quick trip to the external link in the article shows references in the NY Post and Daily News. I'll add them to the article. Toddst1 (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither one of those are significant coverage per WP:WEB. They're trivial mentions and don't do anything to establish notability.--Crossmr (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment: Citation 2 is from the sixth most-widely circulated daily newspaper in the United States and recommends using the site, directly applies to establishing notability addressing criteria 1 of WP:WEB. Citation 3 invokes the CEO as an authority on the subject, citing his position as his credentials, in another top 10 US newspaper. Toddst1 (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect (and merge) to The Bachelor: Officer and a Gentleman. Keilana_(recall) 05:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tessa Horst[edit]

The 'winner' of one of the seasons of The Bachelor. 15 minutes of fame is not notability. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak Keep Provided that there are independent references (which there are), sometimes 15 minutes of fame does equate to notability. However, a merge might be better. Rocket000 (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I'd think that the winner of a well known network reality show would fit the "significant role in notable television" clause in WP:BIO.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- "Significant" is, unfortunately, vague. It clearly applies to actors who play major characters in notable shows, but it's ill defined for reality TV shows that have brand new participants every season. I would be open to considering such a claim for a multi-season host, but I highly question any one-season-only participants's notability. The titular bachelor has a slighly higher claim to notability, but including a competator is stretching it too far. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 06:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge there are only 2 sentences on her and they can be easily put in the article for the show. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and integrate into main article; this person is not notable enough to have her own article. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The majority of the article doesn't even talk about her. A definite delete. Tavix (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 / redirect to Oldest validated person by year of birth, non prejudicial closure subject to finding reliable sources the article can be recreated. Gnan garra 11:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Niwa Kawamoto[edit]

Does not seem to pass WP:N. Of the Ghits, none contain any substantial coverage of or information on the subject of the article. Thus it has little potential for expansion and contains no information aside from what is present in the various supercentenarian lists. My basic problem with this article is that there is little, if any, information out there that could be added to this article aside from what is already present on these lists. For those worried about English-language bias, I note that the Japanese Wikipedia entry is completely unreferenced as well. For those worried that the Google test is not sufficient for someone who died in 1976, I performed searches at both the University of Texas Libraries Catalog (which covers several voluminous libraries) and jstor.org (which covers journal articles back to the 1800s) with no results. Basically, the same argument I made with Mito Umeta. Cheers, CP 01:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as notable but needs much better sourcing. JJL (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment Errr... the entire point of this nomination is that research indicates that it cannot be better sourced. Cheers, CP 04:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Comment I did read that and didn't mean to be dismissive; I appreciate that you did a thorough search. From your description and the article it sounded to me as though the basic fact that she was the oldest for a year was accurate. I believe that she satisfies WP:N given the length of time she held the 'title' and who succeeded her but agree that WP:RS is missing. JJL (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Reply Oh no, I don't question the basic fact - indeed there are many Ghits for the basic fact - but there's no reason why this needs its own article if it's never going to be anything more than what it is now (and quite frankly, the unreferenced, original researchish material should be removed no matter what happens). There's no verifiable information here that couldn't be included on Oldest validated person by year of birth or Oldest people. Precedent has been that without sources covering the individual, it belongs on a list. Cheers, CP 00:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep as per above. Some information, while little, is present in the article that is not in the lists. I don't want that to be deleted. December 21, 2012 (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reply All the information that is present and not on the list is unreferenced and smells suspiciously like original research. I kept it in the article because I don't think it's fair to delete information and then nominate, but I will tag it as such now. Cheers, CP 00:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- This user has a suspiciously short contribution history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossami (talk • contribs)
  - What is so "suspiciously short" about my edit history? I'm new. Is that a problem? December 21, 2012 (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - I wouldn't worry about it. It's likely just a "drive-by" note, as Rossami hasn't participated at all in the actual discussion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Wikipedia is plagued by users who attempt to bias its decision-making processes through sockpuppetry and other abusive practices. This is especially problematic in deletion discussions. While there is no explicit suffrage standard for participation in deletion debates, it has become common practice to mark the comments of new users for special review by the closing admin. Verifiable facts, hard evidence and clear reasoning that aligns with Wikipedia policy will always be considered by the closer of the discussion. The mere opinions of new users, however, are often discounted in the final decision.
      By the way, my apologies for the comments that disappeared as a result of my prior edit. I have no idea how that happened. I would have sworn that everything was still there when I previewed the edit. Thanks to Nihonjoe for restoring them. Rossami (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - I wouldn't call it plagued, though it does happen on occasion (usually in very controversial or popular AfD discussions). Given that this is one user who happens to be new, I sincerely doubt there's any of that going on here. I strongly encourage the closing admin to not be biased by the fact this user is new. I can see no reason for that being a reason to discount his/her opinion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Not that it makes a difference to me, but just so that everyone knows, that user currently has case open at suspected sock puppets. Cheers, CP 23:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge and redirect to Oldest validated person by year of birth. If there is no other information that would bring this beyond a stub, there's no point in having a separate article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge as per above. While the information appears to be factual, it does not appear to be notable.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Being old is not a reason to have an article. Tavix (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- That's a claim that has never been made. Being the oldest person on Earth is notable, though. It is very likely that many articles were written about this person, but as Japan has lagged behind somewhat (and still does in many cases) with getting newspapers and magazines online so they are searchable, it is much more difficult to find these older articles. Even now, most smaller newspapers aren't online, or are barely online (along the lines of "Hi, this is our website.") The only source for these older newspapers is likely libraries in Japan using either copies of the actual newspapers or microfilm/fiche copies of them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. BLACKKITE 16:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TuneDNA[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Speedy was present, but removed with an unqualified claim of why the editor felt it wasn't speediable. No third party references, launched only 3 weeks ago. Unless there is an unpresented media storm surrounding this notability is highly unlikely. Crossmr (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete google news has squadoosh, google main search turns up this article, the applications home website, and some download sites. Little else. Not much here to hang an article on, notability-wise. Someday in the future, it may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but we just don't know, now do we... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete No reliable source and the subject at hand not notable. Chris! _ct 07:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Jayron. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alachua County Public Schools. Singu larity 04:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JJ Finley Elementary School[edit]

Non-notable elementary school, page mostly consists of a list of the teachers. Since there are millions of elementary school teachers in the US, this list isn't encyclopedic. No sources on page to suggest notability. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Elementary schools are not notable just for existing. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 01:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The article is half a non-notable list and half a school newsletter. Rocket000 (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above. There certainly are elementary schools that are notable, but this one isn't. 03:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Merge with respective district. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Alachua County Public Schools, per precedent for such situations, to merge school articles not supporting a claim of notability to the school district. Alansohn (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re-direct to Alachua County Public Schools - Does not appear notable enough for its own article, so a simple re-direct is appropriate. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect per Camaron: article would likely never rise above the level of a stub, but district article could be something. CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Alachua County Public Schools, per precedent for such situations. TerriersFan (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Alachua County Public Schools as suggested above. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 04:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yippi[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. One citation gives a small amount of coverage, the other gives even less and is in reality a blog [59], which makes it unusable to establish notability. Notability requires significant coverage from multiple reliable sources.Crossmr (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~"Yippi" ky kay~~ Delete per nom, clearly fails WP:WEB. Only sources are trivial and/or unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Needs sources. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom Tavix (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to The X Factor (UK series 4) for the time being. If/when they gain some independent notability then the article can be reinstated. And FWIW the nom is quote right about WP:MUSIC#9, which really needs tightening up. I have, however, created a dab linking to their paragraph in the main X Factor article.BLACKKITE 15:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same Difference (Duo)[edit]

Musical duo, at the moment only notable for appearing in The X Factor (UK series 4). I've redirected the page twice but it's been recreated both times. Fails WP:MUSIC (apart from criteria 9, which I dispute and always have). I don't believe the article should be created until they release an album, single, or get a job in television presenting. ^anemone│_projectors 00:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. fails WP:MUSIC. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Per nominator. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Were there no section about them at The X Factor (UK series 4) I would weakly support the article as there is current interest in them. However, there is, and no additional page seems necessary at the moment. Ros0709 (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Apparently, Disney have expressed interest in signing them to promote the DVD release of High School Musical 2.^[2] This, along with their appearance on The X Factor, is notable enough to have an article. --TheStephenator (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- comment the above-cited rumor is factored from the Daily Star. Is that really considered a reliable source? There is no deadline. If these folks ever genuinely become notable, then they can have their own article. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. About 15 people have edited this page in its 4 day history, which suggests people are interested. Okay its creation may have been premature but it is pointless deleting it at this stage when ongoing developments are very likely over the next few weeks. Why has the nominator visited such a page 3 times in 4 days just to remove it? - concentrate on more positive things. --MalcolmGould 18:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep They've literally just finished there x-factor journey and are now a proper group who people are interested in. People are going to want to keep updated on their progress!!! if you delete these guys then you mileswell delete rhydian, and all the other xfactor finalists, at the end of the day they came 3rd so lets support them and keep their band alive!! btw i really want to be kept updated i think there great! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.224.249 (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Most people in the UK know who they are and many are interested in their career. And they do meet criteria #9, with which I agree. Lampadinha (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Criteria 9 is pointless, as if someone comes 12th (or even 2nd) in a competition and nothing else ever happens with them, then you'll have an article that says "So and so came 12th in such and such" and nothing else. In fact we'd end up with thousands of pointless articles. All their details can be put in the article about the competition. Similar AFDs have resulted in deletion, merging or redirecting, dispite criteria 9. I've brought it up on the talk page of WP:MUSIC before but nothing happened, perhaps it can be reviewed after this AFD. ^anemone│_projectors 15:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - in case my comment above wasn't clear. They might be notable someday, in which case you can do an article about them; there is no deadline to meet here. (And most people in the UK don't watch X Factor, Lampadinha, just as most Americans don't watch American Idol.)--Orange Mike | Talk 02:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't need to watch the X Factor to know who they are. I still think most people do know who they are, even if they don't watch the show (and yes, I live in the UK). However, I understand why you and others think the article should be deleted - we just have different criteria when it comes to relevance. I think that if a lot of people know it and a lot of people are insterested in it, it has a place on Wikipedia. That's just the way I see the project. But I understand some (most?) users have a stricter view. Lampadinha (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep They have been signed to release a single in the new year, and just last week were on a show pulling 12.1 million audience. To delete it now would be a be hasty. Ianbittiner (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep

Keep for now (and copyedit!). They are definitely notable by virtue of coming third in what is, in the UK, a huge show. If a year down the line they've done nothing more of note then maybe we can reconsider redirecting to the appropriate X Factor article. Matt 02:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.197.231 (talk)
Keep They were truly amazing and they do public auditions they recently done a few in Swansea.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.170.200 (talk)

Keep Same Difference are a signed group in their own right. They are releasing a single, and have all but confirmed a Disney affiliation in the near future. After the Daily Mirror's poll on "Who Will win the X Factor" came off with Same Difference as the public favourites, I would think that proved that the UK and even further afield, love Same Difference, and I have been waiting for a wiki age for a few weeks now! Let's keep their page, so we have somewhere to show off their future number one singles!

Keep per above. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Even the RS given say that YouTube is "thinking about it", "noodling over it", "it might happen". If/when it does, then the article can be revisited. BLACKKITE 15:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

YouTube TV Channel[edit]

No sources, and subject to vandalism by users inserting random inappropriately named videos Ctjf83 ^talk 00:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Sources do exist, and vandalism is no grounds for article deletion unless the creation itself was an act of vandalism. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 00:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- what are you talking about? how are google search results a valid reference Ctjf83 ^talk 00:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Look into them. Some of those are what the author should have mentioned in the article. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 00:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - that's not my job, you say keep, link me to a valid reference Ctjf83 ^talk 00:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - I rest my case. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 00:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Then I move for a retrial. Provide a SPECIFIC reference, a reliable source, not a Google search.--WaltCip (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I don't see any reliable sources anywhere, which is rather telling for web content... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Maybe merge to Youtube, and recreate if sources are found. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with YouTube. It seems to exist, but it doesn't warrant a separate article. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 01:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I'm all up for a merge, if better sources can be found Ctjf83 ^talk 01:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Or any at all. Hey, look what I found! I think this is sufficient for a small section in the YouTube page. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 01:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
weak keep or merge - Sources such as this: [60] seem to establish that Youtube is looking at making a TV channel. Keep in mind that this is a proposal and does not necessarily mean that it will happen. \ --Hdt83 ^Chat 01:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- what is this Guardian Unlimited, is it a reliable UK source? Ctjf83 ^talk 20:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I looked up "Guardian Unlimited" in a popular online encyclopedia and found this link. It'd be good to see more effort from AFD contributors - David Gerard (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Please AGF Ctjf83 ^talk 18:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Youtube Like the previous editor put it, this info is only sufficient for a small section on Youtube, should not be a standalone article. Chris! _ct 07:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Irrelevant; no significance. When you keep it then merge with Youtube. --Fromgermany (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - article is unsourced and everything I've seen is either "we're thinking about it" or rumor/speculation. --B (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
merge Recieves a lot of vandal attention, can be merged with Youtube and then wikified and cleaned up . cf38^talk 09:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - current version has insufficient content to justify a separate article. Addhoc (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete If taken at face value, this is going to be one of the features on a digital TV service in Great Britain. Doesn't seem that significant. However, I like the gigantic picture of Speed Racer's dad, or whoever that is. Mandsford (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as non-sourced information and likely hoax. --Mhking (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Note: We have sources, which prove that it isn't a hoax. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - The sources cited above mention a proposal for a YouTube channel; this article says that a YouTube channel will start in early 2008 in the UK. There is no source that indicates this will be the case. I reemphasize my suggestion that this is a hoax entry. --Mhking (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are provided that this is actually going to happen on January 8. Corvus cornix_talk 23:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete because I agree with all the other delete comments above. Tavix (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Though some mention could be made in the YouTube article if this TV channel is confirmed to exist. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edward Kennedy (journalist)[edit]

This is a classic WP:BLP1E. No mention of any notability outside of breaking the news of the German surrender. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC) brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep. In short, you obviously are right in WP:BLP1E. However, integrating this info into the article on German surrender may be difficult, and theis information is still worth keeping (I found it quite interesting, it definitely is also an interesting example for media historical studies). I think in this case keeping it as it is may have more sense. Pundit|utter 00:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I know, I felt bad nominating this for deletion. I searched for somewhere to merge the info, but there really isn't anything. End of World War II in Europe is an obvious candidate, but as the article is written in timeline-like manner, it's hard to merge the info into that article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or you could just leave it and let people research, write and improve it or even try to do that yourself. He got sacked for breaking the news of the German surrender, it's quite a fascinating little tale. How about forgetting the alphabet soup for a minute and using a bit of common sense? Nick mallory (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I started the article, so obviously I think it should be kept. I believe there's quite a bit more to this guy. Note these blog items: http://journalismprofessor.blogspot.com/search?q=Edward+Kennedy I don't have access to The New York Times' 1963 obituary, but I bet it has more on the man that could be added. Pha telegrapher (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Thank you. I've got the obit [61] and it does add some things. He was managing editor of the Santa Barbara News-Press, not enough alone for notability, but it helps in this article. Joshdboz (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This is an excellent example of why "One Event notability" is only a guideline. There's no doubt that there is plenty of verifiable information on this very significant event [62], [63], [64], etc. The question is whether this article should be on Kennedy or the event that he caused (ie the early release of the German surrender). The latter option would be quite awkward in finding a title and would essentially be this stub minus other biographical information - that being taken into account, I have no problem with this event being primarily covered in this biography. Joshdboz (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Of course, he will be mainly remembered for the German surrender scoop, and the fallout from the scoop which was still news in 1946, but he was a noted journalist in his own right, for example, he was the AP bureau chief in Paris and Cairo. There is room for expansion beyond the one event. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I didn't know that he was bureau chief in Cairo. That would be a good addition to the article. I'd like to know about his career before the scoop for which he's best known. Pha telegrapher (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I think this is a stub that deserves a chance to grow. It was nominated less then an hour after creation. What's there is a good start. If after some time passes, no one can expand it, then let's revisit it.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep And nominating this an hour after it was created seems bad form to me. Nick mallory (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep and give the writer some time to work on it, eh? An accomplished journalist, scoop of the century, multiple sources provided with more to come, fascinating historical moment. Clearly notable, verifiable, neutral, etc. What greater good was being served by nominating this when it was obviously a work in progress? In fact, I strongly encourage User:Pha telegrapher to submit this subject to Did You Know? I'd be happy to help him with that process. --JayHenry (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Adequate notability and sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed as speedy delete; article is patent nonsense. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moon Tower[edit]

Delete. This article is not encycloble, or notable. And it doesn't reference anything. (I love entei (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flatout toys[edit]

Delete. This article is nothing but spam. (I love entei (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

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