The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Square[edit]

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

The article doesn't make it clear how this mall is notable, and I haven't been able to find any indication of notability outside of Wikipedia. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no sources can be found on this mall. Also note, it was previously deleted before (but with different content). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. At first glance, most of the Google News searches I was finding seemed trivial. But the fact that the town annexed the mall certainly isn't trivial! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Where did you look for sources? I see a lot of stuff here. Zagalejo^^^ 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have access to Newsbank, so I can add some material later. I have to get going right now, though. Zagalejo^^^ 23:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually annexation seems very trivial to me. It's probably done tens of thousands of times a year in the U.S. alone, and is almost always of strictly local interest only. Quale (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Zagelejo (nice catch!), some of those sources write specifically about the mall. --- tqbf 22:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per TPH are ors. Mall iks notable, article just needs some work to clean it up some more. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This mall is unique in that it was virtually a "dead mall" and destined for closure but has since been given a new lease on life. A good example of urban renewal. Toddbarwick (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:N. --Sharkface217 20:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Lee Riches[edit]

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

Delete No independent notability established per WP:BIO. Few of the sources seem to be wholly about this individual and are simply about cases he has filed. Wikipedia is not a tabloid - see WP:NOT#NEWS. This should have possibly been placed up for speedy since per WP:CSD since it was already deleted. Anyway, I don't see how this is a workable article since it so easily violates WP:BLP with this talk of lawsuits and its reliance completely on media speculation and rumors. Strothra (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how there's a case for a BLP violation, considering that the article is thoroughly sourced; there are more references than sentences in the article, in fact, all to reliable sources. Ubernostrum (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep --- crackpot? yes. notable? clearly. references include print newspaper article about the subject, with subject's name in the lede. --- tqbf 22:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#NEWS states, "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news.[5] Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article."--Strothra (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't WP:BLP1E --- subject appears to be at the center of multiple incidents, all about him. --- tqbf 22:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Not News" does not mean that anything made notable through the news media should not be included. Plenty of sources and verifiable for a variety of events (or cases). Joshdboz (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agreed with Joshdboz. Not news doesn't apply here because this is over a long period of time; three years, not a week and a half. That level of media attention over a period of years makes him notable. matt91486 (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep - The Fox and Boston Globe (actually AP) articles alone are enough to satisfy WP:N. Torc2 (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with tqbf. The article is about someone who is notable, not merely for a single trivial incident, but an ongoing, well-known, and newsworthy chain of events. It would be a loss to the encyclopedia to not include him. Plasma (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - this fellow is becoming a cultural icon, and is still producing a body of work. See [7]. Quite noteworthy. Erielhonan 02:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete being in the news for being bizarre is far from an establishment of notability rather it is an establishment of noteriety. These are not the same thing. This is not the kind of article that belongs here, per WP:NOT. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  "Too bizarre for Wikipedia"? Did I miss a memo? =) --- tqbf 03:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing in WP:NOT is remotely applicable to this, including WP:NOT#NEWS. This isn't a one-time newsflash. This is a person whose actions over a period longer than a year have resulted in people taking notice and reputable news organizations writing about his work. It doesn't matter if his work is ridiculous or surreal; there is nothing in Wikipedia that excludes an individual if they've behaved absurdly. It doesn't matter if you personally do not appreciate his work or label him 'notorious' instead of notable. The simple fact is he is notable, and that notability has been established by multiple articles about the subject from multiple reliable sources. Torc2 (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - So Mr. Riches is too weird for Wikipedia, but Kibo is notable? :) U (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While it's a bit of a pain making sure that the article stays within BLP guidelines, I believe that the individual is sufficiently notable for an article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly notable. Dreadstar † 03:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BIO and WP:HEY. --Sharkface217 20:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected, merge as needed. Pastordavid (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional Order of Merit[edit]

Congressional Order of Merit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable money raising scheme. I can't find any reliable sources, and once you take -wikipedia out of the equation, there are only 130 Google hits, and nothing in news.google.com. Corvus cornix_talk 21:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with National Republican Congressional Committee. - Not notable enough for own article, although I did find this [8] as a reliable source. National Republican Congressional Committee already documents similar "scams", so I don't see why this one can't be integrated. Joshdboz (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. This title should be kept as a redirect for the benefit of readers who may encounter a reference to the "award" and come to Wikipedia for information. We can tell them that it's awarded by the NRCC, not by Congress. JamesMLane t c 08:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per JamesMLane - 52 Pickup (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neıl ☎ 11:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and domestic violence[edit]

Islam and domestic violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

We don't have an article on Christianity and domestic violence, Judaism and domestic violence, Buddhism and domestic violence, Hinduism and domestic violence, or any others that I can see. This article is a POV fork of materials that could be better discussed in more generalized articles (and many of them already are, so merging is probably unnecessary). By lumping together a large number of disparate phenomena under the banner of "Islam and domestic violence," this article violates our prohibition on original research by synthesis. A separate article on the subject also potentially constitutes undue weight. *** Crotalus *** 21:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Be careful of "we don't have [list of redlinks]" arguments. Remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nudity in Judaism. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. If there is published research on the other religions and domestic violence then start an article by all means. Read the reference section of this article--tons of research has been published on this topic. There is no undue weight by having this here - if anything, it reduces the discussion of this issue in other articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*STRONG DELETE - This is nothing more than some kind of attack page, and a bigoted one at that. There is already a page on Criticism of Islam, which should have what useful information is within this article merged into it. Atari400 21:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC) -- sock puppet[reply]

• Obvious keep: A lot of sources have talked about this issue. The fact that we dont have Christianity and domestic violence, doesnt mean we shouldnt have this article. I wouldnt AfD Eastern Christianity just because we dont have Eastern Islam. As for your last argument that "A separate article on the subject also potentially constitutes undue weight", well we have Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Christianity etc. Articles have to be split appropriately if a certain section gets large enough and this has happened in all of these cases including this one. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looks well sourced and notable. By all means start the articles you mentioned if they have substantive sources and notability. Joshdboz (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --- A pure POV piece, this article literally asks if the subject has stopped beating its wife yet. --- tqbf 22:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and comment we do have an article Christianity and domestic violence now, Uncle G started it. Also, anyone who knows even several muslim women will know that domestic violence in those communities is an issue, and there are different issues around it in those cultures than in the secular culture that surrounds them, for instance, in the UK. (Due to arranged marriages, family influence, cultural values etc.) We might as well reflect reality and have an article discussing reality, than pretend something doesn't exist, when it does. It's not PC to say it's due to Islam though, so maybe rename to somehow say it's a cultural, rather than religious issue, or make that clear in the article's lead. Merkinsmum 22:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like you're referring to a cultural thing not a Muslim thing. Domestic violence is indeed a problem in many immigrant communities sadly. I see no evidence it's restricted to Muslims ones though. For example a lot of what you're referring are common throughout the Indian subcontinent and is not restricted to Muslims. Do you have any evidence the problem is more widespread among Muslim Indian immigrants (including Pakistanis etc) in the UK then it is among non-Muslim (Hindu etc) Indian immigrants? I suspect there would not be much difference if any on the levels of domestic violence. Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say 'It sounds to me like you're referring to a cultural thing not a Muslim thing. ' That's sort of what I said, isn't it? As to whether it's more comoon in Pakistani, Bangladeshi, predominantly Muslim rather than India communities, I would say so because the role of women is slightly better in Hindu cultures. Anyway what I'm saying is not so much that it's worse, but that there are specific factors such as arranged marriage, that make it a bit different to the issues in the UK as a whole. Maybe it should be renamed, though, to be more about a cultural thing. Merkinsmum 17:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While I consider the title open for improvement, it is IMO appropriate to have an article on the topic which is an issue of significance, and generally notable. ITAQALLAH 23:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - nominator makes the common mistake of assuming all religions are the same. Arrow740 (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - But article needs to be restricted. Stuff like what Merkinsmum mentions above probably doesn't belong in the article. The merits of other articles should definitely be considered. We now have Christianity and domestic violence. We also have Women in Hinduism and Sati (practice) Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As Pakistani analyst Farrukh Saleem points out in the Daily Times of Pakistan [9] "Of the 192 member-states of the United Nations almost all honour killings take place in nine overwhelmingly Muslim countries. Denial is not an option...[H]onour killings have taken place in France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Canada. Intriguingly, all these honour killings have taken place in Muslim communities of France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Canada. Denial is not an option." Nick mallory (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:SIZE and WP:IAR, mainly because the article itself, while it could hypothetically be merged into Criticism of Islam, is highly useful on its own. --Sharkface217 20:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong DELETE This is nothing more than an attack on Islam. By its over generalization. And does not teach a person a single thing. Nor does it contain any facts, rather a mer point of view, thus is not worthy of an encyclopidia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.237.147 (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article has some POV issues but should not be deleted. Phyesalis (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —  ⇒ bsnowball  11:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment ask closer to consider leaving open for further discussion, as wasn't too well publicised. rename to more npov along lines of 'd. violence in islamic law' probably shld be discussed at some stage too.  ⇒ bsnowball  11:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as vandalism. --Stormie (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sperm Shark[edit]

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

This appears to be a hoax. Nominating to achieve consensus. Eliyak T·C 21:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Hoax of the worst kind: the kind that doesn't even try it with humour. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as obvious hoax. It is a copy-and-paste of Pygmy shark, with a few words changed (e.g. Euprotomicrus bispinatus changed to Euprotomicrus gametus).--Hnsampat (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete indeed, although it doesn't quite fit any of the criteria. That's why we have WP:SNOW...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Euprotomicrus gametus" returns nothing on Google. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 00:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.   jj137 ^♠ 23:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spritual view of history[edit]

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

WP:OR as attested to by the originator of the article as shown here. [10] Shoessss |  Chat  21:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Delete I wrote the definition for Wikipedia of A Spritual View of History. Am grateful for all comments. I believe with edits this document may be brought to Wiki standards which I am working on and invite anyone to join in the effort. I would be grateful of this extra time to make these edits and address the issues brought forward. Please feel free to send any comments to my talk page. Bphagan (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The term may be notable, but the content is pure OR; someone might recreate it later with references. --- tqbf 21:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was sorely tempted to speedy delete this as nonsense. This is a rambling WP:OR discourse. I don't see how this can be more than an OR essay. Dlohcierekim 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but not nonsense, for it is clear what the guy is trying to say, whatever one thinks of the value of the content. But it is merely a summary of the author's website. DGG (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : utter nonsense, completely non-notable per WP:N, not sourced per WP:V and clearly original research in violation of WP:NOR. Mh29255 (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Aside from being a synthesis of information, this article inherently speaks from a non-neutral perspective. This article (or rather, this essay) does not attempt to address the subject of how history has been looked at from a spiritual perspective, throughout the world and throughout history, and the impact this has had on society (which would probably be a pretty good article if there were a established notability of the subject). Rather, this article actually attempts to analyze history from a "spiritual perspective". This is inherently biased because (1) in order to examine something from a particular perspective, any perspective, you must adopt a particular non-neitral viewpoint, and more importantly (2) any time you present an analysis on anything, you are presenting an opinion, or an original viewpoint relating to the subject. This may be the grounds for an essay, but not for an encyclopedia article. (also, although this may be a bit besides the point, the article's title is really a misnomer, as the article discusses history from the viewpoint of Christian mythology, which is definitely not the same thing as spirituality). Calgary (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Politely Delete per WP:OR. I appreciate User:Bphagan's wish to create something that hasn't been seen before, but "original research" essays don't stay permanently on Wikipedia. Even when it's interesting, any one person's own "view of history" is not encyclopedia material. It would be different if there was a book called The Spiritual View of History that had been published and had been notable enough to be praised and criticized by other noteworthy commentators (there probably has been a book with that title, come to think of it). Don't let this experience discourage you from contributing. You write well, and I hope you'll continue to do so. However, one of Wikipedia's rules is that "original research" (in other words, one's own observations, or one's own synthesis of information) cannot be the basis for an entire article. I've been in this about six months now, and I not only know more about the rules (than I did 6 mos. ago), I also have an appreciation of why they exist. Save your work to your hard drive, don't feel too bad if it doesn't stay up. Trust me, this is not the end, but just the beginning of your contributions to Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Whatever it is it is not an encyclopedic article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete Here is my response to address the issues brought up with regard to this topic and I have also made some minor edits to a Spiritual view of history.

This first issue addressed is that a Spiritual View of History constitutes original research. The issues of nonsense, verifiability and notability will be addressed in turn.

"Wikipedia does not publish original research." "All material must be verifiable using a reliable published source." Or, "Wikipedia is not a place to publish... original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly supports the information as it is presented." Or, to "forward claims not directly supported by the sources is original research", or "drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research."

A Spiritual View of History does not constitute original research because the material presented, the statement of Benedict XVI is verifiable since it appears in a reliable published source. (See citation footnote #2 - Catholic News Service, Castel Gandolfo, Italy 8/15/2007). Information is provided directly related to the topic of the article and directly supports the information as it is presented. The information provided does not deviate from the topic of the article nor does it deviate from supporting the information presented. No claims are made not directly supported by the sources. The claims of the source are far reaching both as to past and future history. Claims made do not exceed those bounds and conclusions drawn are evident in the reference again as to both past and present historical events. The reference itself states conclusions of enormous scope "into existence once again in the Nazi... dictatorships and the dictatorship of Stalin" and as to the present the reference states "the red dragon exists in new and different ways." There are conclusions that are part of the reference itself, to extend these conclusions or discuss their effects and consequences provided they are supported by the reference and evident from the source does not constitute original research.

If Lucifer has involved himself in relations between nations in the past and does so still "in new and different ways" if there is any knowledge to be gained in that area, how does that constitute "nonsense"? To toss him off lightly as though he has little or nothing to do with the development of human history - is that wise? According to a Gallup poll in 2003 (source the New York Times, 3/4/2003, Nicholas Kristof, "God, Satan and the Media"), sixty eight percent of the American people believe in the devil. If focusing on him, on his objectives, on his plans, on his future ability to achieve his goals - how does that constitute nonsense?

As to the question of verifiability "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia", is verifiability not truth? "only assertions, theories, opinions and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia". The criteria has been met.

How prevalent is the belief that Lucifer does involve himself actively in human affairs both personal and public? This position is a majority opinion and can be "substantiated with reference to commonly accepted reference texts, " which is the test for majority acceptance. The reference text, of course, is the Bible and irrespective of ones beliefs it does cite time after time Lucifer's involvement with humans and the human race. There are no publications of note stating any significant minority views or "prominent adherents of a minority viewpoint" on this issue.

As to notability, a topic is presumed notable "if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" and "sources may encompass published works in all forms and media" and "substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence". Sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject matter appear time after time in the most widely read book in the world - the Bible. Irrespective of one's views of the Bible, Lucifer is very much a notable subject in it as well as numerous other sources. He has always had long-term notability and he appears in almost all paper encyclopedias.

Admittedly some conclusions in a Spiritual View of History appear to be a personal essay, but when carefully examined these conclusions are drawn based only on the original reference or on other sources and do not constitute personal conclusions. The Democratic Peace Theory, already extensively covered in Wikipedia, explains that if strong stable democracies are extensively established throughout the world then dictatorships, a major cause of "terror and violence" are reduced in number and effect.

When Lucifer shifts his take over attempts to weaker nations, that conclusion is evident from the original reference to "new and different ways". The fact that he was behind both the Nazi and Stalinist attempts to expand and destroy democracy and the fact that he still is attempting to reach that same goal in "new and different ways" is within the bounds of the original reference. If the Democratic Peace Theory is correct then it holds that the spread of democracy throughout the world has the most promise of bringing peace to the world. This conclusion is gained by a simple review of the theory itself. Bphagan (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You infer a lot from a few statements, in hopes that you will persuade us to agree with your view of Satan's control of world affairs. Sorry, Wikipedia is nobody's personal bulletin board. Mandsford (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Whooo…are you saying the article is notable because you mention Lucifer in your piece. If that is the case, I want an article about me. My first name is George and since George is the first name of the First President of the United States, and there are numerous, verifiable and reliable articles about George - I should be able to claim notability. Shoessss |  Chat  23:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --- can I change my vote to "strong delete and hail Satan"? --- tqbf 01:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - personal essay, isn't an encyclopedia article. Addhoc (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Polite Delete per WP:NOT. This is an essay. I suggest that the user who created it saves it on a subpage before it is deleted. --Sharkface217 20:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asexual Meat Kitchen[edit]

Asexual Meat Kitchen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable single - article even states this is a B-side. No indication of any chart position or notability for the single itself. Nothing much comes up on Google. Article about the band doesn't even mention the track. No references, sources or other information given to indicate this is notable. CultureDrone (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --- per nom, can't find any indication that this is a notable b-side; why does it need its own article? No assertion of notability. --- tqbf 21:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As above, song doesn't seem notable enough to have its own article, doesn't seem very well known at music sharing sites like Last.fm either. alex.muller (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per obvious lack of notability. --Sharkface217 20:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Madman (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dentistry#Specialities. Neıl ☎ 11:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dental specialties[edit]

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

This is a list of dental specialties just as the article name implies. However, it just so happens that this list is already covered under Dentistry as shown here [11]. Shoessss |  Chat  20:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Dentistry#Specialities. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 20:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: dental specialties vary by jurisdiction and there are important legal consequences for those dentists who claim to be a specialist. the list on the dentistry article is complete for USA, but lacking for those in the EU where EU law defines the specialties. I imagine the situation for dental specialists is legally complex elsewhere in the world, and would merit a seperate page to outline the different specialties by jurisdiction. Ashley Payne (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Flyguy. Kudos to Shoessss for spotting the origin of the article. This page was either created because someone thought that Dentistry was too big an article, or the information has been merged back into the parent article in anticipation of a deletion. It's not so large a table that it has to exist separately. Mandsford (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The section doesn't have to be spun out of the main article to include information on specialties in specific jurisdictions. And certainly we wouldn't want to add that information only to a sub-article, leaving the section in the main article Americentric. If the content grows disproportionately large it can be appropriately spun out in summary style. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 11:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Wakeford[edit]

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

No reliable sources for the article's claims of notability; article appears to be a vanity page edited largely by the subject. Jonobennett (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --- was skeptical, since the article cited notable bands and the nom used the V-word, but I can't find any news references or web cites for this artist (in any permutation of his name) or his "Halfpenny Studios". --- tqbf 21:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: --- music producers are often the least publicly recognised figure in a song's development - they are not splashed all over newspapers and do not need to seek public attention therefore the article is helpful for those who want to know more --- 12:22, 29 December 2007 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.41.9 (talk)

• Delete per Jonobennett. Madman (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per Jonobennett. A vanity page mostly edited by the subject. - 52 Pickup (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Placebo Effect (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deadeye Dunkin[edit]

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

Declined speedy. Non-notable videogame character. Smashville^BONK! 23:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Twinkle didn't complete the process, so the AfD is actually starting on 12/27. --Smashville^BONK! 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete nothing more then an Georgians research plot summary. Ridernyc (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Which doesn't mean that it isn't unfixable or that it couldn't made into a better article. But my feeble protestations of principle aside, delete - characters don't come much more minor than this, and he doesn't figure into the main plot. --Kizor 08:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, game is notable. character is not. And they didn't even spell the name right anyway.Umbralcorax (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - incredibly minor character in the game he's in. 90% of the article's content (as well as the article's name) is rubbish created by the author that is false or doesn't exist in the game. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Could this be merged into a list of KOTOR characters? --Sharkface217 20:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• which parts of the unsourced original research plot summary should be merged? Ridernyc (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It shouldn't even garner a mention on the character page. He's a NPC that is present in a sidequest for about thirty seconds and carries no significance with the overall plot. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Madman (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The latter portion of the article is a complete fabrication, and his name is Deadeye Duncan, with an 'A', anyway. Alloranleon (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie James[edit]

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

The article, as per the edit history, appears to be a student's dissertation and a work in progress at that. Wikipedia is not a place to store and work on dissertations. The article seems to be about a non-notable subject and contains no references. Parts seem to be promotion/advertising, parts seem to be defining terms that are defined elsewhere on wikipedia. Sassf (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Borderline speedy, as the majority seems to fall under G11 (spam). The rest of it comes across as a somewhat poorly written resume. I won't tag this myself, but if anyone else is feeling bolder, go for it. Otherwise, delete. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - vanity ad for nonnotable individual. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per obvious WP:NOT violation. --Sharkface217 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Madman (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Placebo Effect (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shanna Crooks[edit]

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

Not notable yet, biggest claim to notability is guest vocals on a couple Avenged Sevenfold songs and a guest spot in a few Big & Rich tours. Only links are official site and MySpace; no reliable sources could be found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:V and WP:MUSIC. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rt. 20:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[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) 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak KeepNeutral. This suggests sufficient notability from tours/performances.--Michig (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC) updated to neutral.--Michig (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V and WP:MUSIC. Purevolume.com is not reliable. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's not reliable, but it asserts notability. The live performances should be verifiable.--Michig (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Still fails WP:V, though. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find much in the way of independent coverage, however, so maybe this should go until her Atlantic Records album comes out, when no doubt the major-label promotion machine will generate plenty of coverage.--Michig (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep WP:N seems to be met here, if only just. I think that she is barely notable. --Sharkface217 20:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not really notable. Madman (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination's basis does not appear to be correct - as Phil Bridger shows, there are plenty of hits on Google. Neıl ☎ 11:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Cali Cigal[edit]

Ahmed Cali Cigal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. No hits on Google (outside WP). Only one link from another article. No references cited. CultureDrone (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Actually there are loads of hits on Google outside WP. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 07:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: appears to be notable enough. --Soman (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep/Nomination Withdrawn --JForget 00:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Thorburn[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Rtphokie (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Delete Merge into The Unicorns, Th' Corn Gangg, and Islands *if* citations can be found. No justification for a seperate article, particularly when it provides zero citations. Pharmboy (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - some media coverage - added citations. Addhoc (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[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) 20:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• A frontman of a number of notable Canadian bands, usually known by his stage name Nick Diamonds, he has had some media coverage on his own; I added a feature interview with The Globe and Mail from 2006.[12] Keep. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Searching his various aliases produces more sources, some of which I've added to the article. Some are just trivial mentions, but others talk about him individually as an artist and not so much about his bands. –Pomte 08:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of significant press coverage, NYT Times and Globe and Mail especially. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Does have independent press coverage, but even if he didn't, a musician who's been associated with three different notable bands is not a redirect candidate since there's no easy or valid way to prioritize one of his bands over the other two as the primo inter pares of potential merge targets. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to meet WP:N and now meets WP:MUSIC. --Sharkface217 20:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment withdrawing nomination as the article has been significantly improved.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to McStroke - "Peter Strokes His Meat" was a working title for that episode. --Stormie (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Strokes His Meat[edit]

Peter Strokes His Meat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

episode of Family Guy that has gone way past its projected airdate; doubts about existence Will ^(talk) 20:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rt. 20:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't want to be seeing this ever again, thank you. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge with List of American Dad! episodes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frannie 911[edit]

Frannie 911 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

article about a future event with no sources Will ^(talk) 20:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rt. 20:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sources include tvguide and fox press releases. Was initially scheduled to air in DEC, but due to strike and shortage of eps it was moved to Jan 6, 2008, although the xbox live marketplace release never changed from the initial date so its already available there.Grande13 (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Working with episode articles myself, it's a real let down to see articles with fictioncruft in and for them to be unreferenced, so, unless references can be found and it can be expanded, deletion is the best thing here. Qst 13:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, deletion is not the best thing. WP:EPISODE#Dealing with problem articles says to "avoid listing episodes for AfD" and to "consider merging or redirecting" articles for non-notable episodes. DHowell (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no references, no real world notability, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of American Dad! episodes. No claim of real-world notability; WP:EPISODE says such episodes should not have their own article.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment -- this also would apply to most, if not all, of the episodes of this show.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of American Dad! episodes. Recreate when significant coverage in reliable sources can be found. DHowell (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the episode name, planned airdate, and plot synopsis are verifiable to a primary source: the Fox press release reproduced here. Doesn't establish notability but does establish a valid redirect name. DHowell (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy A7 by Jerry. Tevildo (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Skinny Improv[edit]

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

A non notable community theater that is using wikipedia as an advertisement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydzamarripa (talk • contribs)

• Comment this debate was originally listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. I have moved it. Hut 8.5 20:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No assertion of notability. --Alfadog (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, no assertation of notability. I tagged for speedy. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Spliff Committee[edit]

The Spliff Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is not a notable committee by any means and thus I recommend that the article be removed. Delete. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No assertion of notability. --Alfadog (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete I checked their website, appears at most to be an informal group of friends who have given a clever name to their posse. --Sharkface217 21:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nice idea, and in theory worthy of having an article on the whole cannabis acceptance theme. That said, the article is not very well-written, and as Sharkface217 pointed out, they're little more than a bunch of friends with ideas far above their station. EDIT: that last part was a joke, btw. Alloranleon (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• REMAIN I am one of the founders of The Spliff Committee and the one responsible for posting the article. Can someone please explain to me why our group being listed is any different than Steve Kubby having his own listing? We are in the process of authenticating our organization as a pro-marijuana group, but do not understand why is is relevant to have an article about the group published on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robstyles21 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• REMAIN It should be noted that the Spliff Committee has made significant developments in the areas of graphic design and fashion. Using it's reputation and influence through the NY Metro area, The Spliff Committee has had significant discussions with some notable industry types, and is in the process of releasing a clothing line bearing it's many logos, designs, and symbols. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaoming88 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Feel free to contact myself or any other administrator when the article is released or almost released, when more information would be available, or request recreation via Deletion Review. Neıl ☎ 11:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BoA sixth Japanese studio album[edit]

BoA sixth Japanese studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can always wait for the album to come out before creating the article, not to mention that there are no citations explicitly stating that this album will be coming out, let alone on February 20, 2008. Pandacomics (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No assertion of notability, no album title and no sources for verification per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I am sorry that it had no source but I'll properly cited the page now it is confirmed BoA is releasing her sixth album on February 27th of 2007. It also had confirm the following track are include on the album: "Sweet Impact," "Love Letter," "Beautiful Flowers," "Smile again," "be with you." The only problem left it the title which is currently unconfirm.
  • Source: CDJapan a major online CD seller "BoA / Untitled" - AVCD-23498, AVCD-23497, and AVCD-23499 — ■~∀SÐFﾑｻ~■ =] ^{Babashi? antenna?} 05:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the album will have more information as released date comes closer even Oricon has confirmation of the album beside the lack of title also the album's released date has been push back a week. — ■~∀SÐFﾑｻ~■ =] ^{Babashi? antenna?} 06:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as crystalline placeholder page for expected future album: no title, no good sources. Can be recreated when released if necessary. tomasz. 13:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Sharkface217 21:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under WP:CSD A7, no assertion of notability. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dran0n Studios[edit]

Dran0n Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Non-encyclopedic, non-notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Speedily delete as per CSD A7, the group is obviously not notable. --Nn123645 (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no assertion of notability. Mh29255 (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge & redirect to Woodsball. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodsball strategy[edit]

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

Does not have any reference, is written like an essays and some kind of stategy guide, and very tecnical GunSlingerFrag (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge -- Perhaps this article could be cleaned up a bit, maybe shortened to highlight important points, and eventually merged into the Woodsball article. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'd just really hate to see this go to waste (even tho it seems like a game guide, I still think a minor overview of strategy (similar to the Tactics section in Ice Hockey).Lazulilasher (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC) -- amended 2 minutes later Lazulilasher (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge I suggest it be merged, but I would suggest it would be kept per WP:USEFUL (and yes, I know where the link goes). I think I'll keep a copy of this on one of my subpages, though. --Sharkface217 21:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to WikiHow, where there is already an article on How to Win at Woodsball.  —SMALLJIM  13:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the useful parts to Woodsball. Not my expertise, so another sysop will have to finish this. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Just because it isn't written well isn't a reason to delete. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 23:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 17:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mini-QMA Connectors[edit]

QMA, Mini-QMA and HPQN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- A complete encyclopedia would provide full coverage of the range of coaxial connectors. This doesn't strike me as an advert or anything else that should be readily deleted. -- Atlant (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- per Atlant; WP is filled with technical writing about technical topics; I can find multiple vendors for these connectors in a quick search. --- tqbf 21:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as G11 spam. No sources in article, and none found in a search of Google News Archive. We are not a catalog of internal cell phone electronics. --Dhartung | Talk 00:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with QLS connector. One article on the various SMA replacements would avoid the appearance of advertising a particular solution.--agr (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I originally wrote the content for the QMA and QN connector sub-category and as a result of edits that were made to that page and some research on my own part believe that other quick locking connectors also deserved recognition to avoid the appearance that there is in fact only one solution rather than many. Also, SMA and N connectors (quick lock or threaded) are very important to the RF and Microwave industry, and have nothing to do with internal cell phone electronics. -- Jamusi (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above points. Highly encyclopedic. --Sharkface217 —Preceding comment was added at 21:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems notable to me. I've wikified the article and added a couple of easily-found sources.  —SMALLJIM  13:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pahoia School[edit]

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

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable article per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this version. If another editor writes a sourced, encyclopedic article, then ok, however this version appears to be an excuse to post a link to their rockband webpage. Addhoc (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no assertion of notability whatsoever. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tauranga. TerriersFan (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —gadfium 08:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in its present form. I intend to go through the various List of schools in New Zealand subarticles in the next two months and redirect each primary and intermediate school article (where no substantial article already exists) to the appropriate locality - in this case it would be Pahoia, which will require me to create an article on this community. This article will include a paragraph on the school, mostly sourced from [13] and [14], but I'll search the local papers as well (if I can find them online), and I'll use the school website as well.-gadfium 08:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to district JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Should have been speedied per CSD-A7. --Strothra (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lune Zoldark[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NOT#PLOT, since it is almost entirely plot summary and character history without real-world context or importance, and WP:FICT, since reliable secondary sources are not provided to establish notability. Google returns only non-WP:RS fansites and the like, which indicates that this article likely cannot pass notability guidelines no matter what. I both tagged the article and raised my concerns on the talk page a month ago and it has not been improved so I am bringing it to AFD. Doctorfluffy (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, here's a pretty problem for you. Per our style and notability guidelines, articles for characters that are not independently notable should be merged, not deleted. However, the closest thing to a target is Banpresto Original Characters, which lists characters not just from this character's games but ALL games by the originating studio -- and only as links, not short summaries. The article for the games themselves does not have a character section. I note, however, that the text of that article claims that the characters are part of what made the games so notable, and that reviews can be found to support this in gaming magazines. (Like the nominator, though, I'm not quickly finding any sources online, but the earliest games are from before the 'Net -- and I'm not a gamer to know where to look other than blindly.) What I would like to have happen is that the relevant WikiProject be notified that the entire suite of articles needs to be revisited for organizational problems (which are severe) and notability concerns, and if nothing is done after a good-faith period of time (I suggest a couple months, given the size), and then if nothing is done then bring this and its sister articles back to AfD, where I'll quite gladly vote for delete. Keep for larger-scale cleanup and a hearty thanks to the nominator for having tagged and waited before bringing it to AfD (even if I want more notification). —Quasirandom (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your articulate response. First, this article is a rather blatant violation of WP:NOT#PLOT; there is zero real-world context. Per WP:FICT's section on merging, In-universe information should be condensed or removed as necessary, and meaningful real-world content should be integrated. There is currently no real-world content in the article to be merged elsewhere. I don't see what from this article could be put in a parent article of the series' characters. If you followed such a course on a larger scale, instead of having a bunch of small articles that fail policy, you'd just have one larger one that still likely fails policy. I do acknowledge that the entire set of characters may be more notable than each individually, but I'd like to see sources before we go down that road. Second, as you noticed yourself, it doesn't appear that reliable, secondary sources exist to establish notability for this specific character or to add any encyclopedic information on the subject. Lastly, I think a month is plenty of time to wait. That's actually longer than I was planning to wait in the first place, but I decided to be generous. Frankly, I just don't see what effect extra time would have. It seems like anybody who would've noticed my comments, even largely inactive editors, likely would have done something to improve the article by now. A month without such improvements indicates to me that nothing will ever be done, so I started the AFD. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I quite agree that the plottiness needs condensing and more real-world context needs adding, especially to establish notability. I'd still like the video game Wikiproject to be directly notified and given a chance to improve things, however, as the members may have access to print reviews etc from before Google's usual reach. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, but I just find it extremely unlikely that anything you are describing will happen. I doubt such sources exist and, even if they did, I doubt the person who has them will improve the article. A month is plenty of time to do something and even after the article was directly in danger of deletion (AFDed) still nobody has done anything. Assuming this AFD doesn't go through, the most likely outcome is that the article remains untouched for a few months and then I nominate it again, and we have the same discussion. If the article is deleted and then amazingly someone produces legitimate sources then the article can easily be recreated. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteNothing more then an original research plot summary. I doubt there is anything beyond first parrty sources for any of this. Ridernyc (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Quasirandom. Edward321 (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Quasirandom Hobit (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Doctorfluffy. At the moment it has no real-world context or sources and even no in-universe sources; I don't think it likely that the article can be improved, as my Google search for "Lune Zoldark" turns up no reliable sources in the first five pages. Of course, if reliable sourcing does pop up, a recreate would be perfectly acceptable. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 23:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking good cites and any verifiability of notability as a fictional character. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as article fails WP:V, WP:FICT and WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT; there are no sober arguments for keeping this fancruft. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Quasirandom. Article passes WP:FICT and WP:NOT. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  This article blatantly breaks both of those policies, so I find it difficult to accept that you would argue otherwise if you read the article and are familiar with said policies. Please articulate your arguments on how this passes WP:FICT and WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, but I'd recommend the keep voters spend some time cleaning the article up, it looks quite poor as it stands. Wizardman 16:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massar Egbari[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable band. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD Listing was incomplete, added AfD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 27. Improbcat (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. We should avoid systematic bias here. This band appears to have some notability in Egypt, even if not in the Anglosphere. [15] [16] [17] [18] etcetera, needs an expert on the subject though.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Agree with comments made by HisSpaceResearch. Mh29255 (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Awards imply notability per WP:BAND. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - article appears to be copied from their myspace page. Plus, the user who created this article has the user name "Massar14" obviously indicating a WP:COI. The article, if kept, would need to be stripped down and completely re-written. Did anyone not notice this before? Scarian^{Call me Pat} 23:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy G12 by East718. Tevildo (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. Webb[edit]

J.D. Webb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete No notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD Listing was incomplete, added AfD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 27. Improbcat (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep information is accurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealsource (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: I have never said the information is inaccurate. The matter is of notability. It is non-notable. If you think it notable, then provide references by which its notabity can be established.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep per h i s. Delete per nom. Provides no sources, and I could find none. Subject's name, along with his "critically acclaimed" album "Bring it on" gets 6 g-hits, but none support notability of this subject. My bad.--Evb-wiki (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you spelled his name correctly, you'd get 77 ghits.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if it was your intention, but you removed my 'delete' vote. I'll retract it though, and just say weak delete.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry. I don't know how I did that.--Evb-wiki (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing my !vote again: Delete as a copyvio of His YouTube page. I've tagged it as such. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F90 Gundam Formula 90[edit]

F90 Gundam Formula 90 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is written in a completely in-universe style. There is 1 line of context, and about a hundred of fictional specifications, and plot summary. Outside of the universe style, I doubt that the article subject is notable. RogueNinja_talk 17:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as completely unreferenced in-universe fancruft. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note 2nd nomination. 1st result was no consensus. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F90 Gundam Formula 90. --Alfadog (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zap it for now. I plan to start working on a complete rewrite of all Formula Project related articles presently and have had the relevant stuff backed up in my sandbox for some time. Jtrainor (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete per nom Thinboy00 @852, i.e. 19:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete written entirely in in-universe style, and it simply cannot be written from real-world perspective -- there's absolutely no notability, no reliable sources, no nothing. Fancruft is the only word. Delete. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're not the one to determine whether this can be rewritten or not. That falls to me, because I'll be the one doing it. Moreover, making such a claim is crystal balling and should not be done. Jtrainor (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find multiple, non-trivial reliable sources -- which are actually about this object, and not just mention it in passing -- then you're welcome to write something that shows real-world importance and notability of this. Obviously, fan sites and blogs and suchlike are not acceptable as sources. As the article stands now, it's pure in-universe cruft about something that absolutely nobody cares about -- and that's putting it mildly. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What has that to do with your claim that this particular article could never be adequately sourced? Jtrainor (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Regretful Delete A fun read, but unfortunately it falls under WP:CRUFT. --Sharkface217 21:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collective for Research and Training on Development-Action[edit]

Collective for Research and Training on Development-Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does this organization pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? Avi (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You tell us. Per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination you should check for yourself before nominating an article for deletion. So … what did you do to check for yourself whether multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources that document this organization in depth exist? Uncle G (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete fails to assert notability Thinboy00 @854, i.e. 19:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral per User:Uncle G --Thinboy00 @855, i.e. 19:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete : this was already tagged as a G12 (copyright violation) of http://www.crtda.org/en/book/export/html/1 and is specifically listed on the Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations page. Mh29255 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The owner of the text has given permission under the GFDL. There is no copyright violation and this cannot be speedied as a G12. -- Avi (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Good work? Maybe. Good page? No. Ψν^Psi_nu 19:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a rationale for deletion, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Please come up with a proper rationale that has a basis in policy. Uncle G (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some edits to the document. the source website states that content can be used. Can you please reassess the article? Mcheblak (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the effort - but it seems to me that virtually every link is to another CTRDA subsite. There are no outside news references, which still begs WP:NOT. Therefore, my D stands for now. But I do like when people try to respond constructively, so kudos for that. Ψν^Psi_nu 23:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PR@vantage[edit]

PR@vantage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete No notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete/Strong Delete. Totally biased corporate spam, zero point zero on notability scale, weasel words a-plenty. Ψν^Psi_nu 19:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD Listing was incomplete, added AfD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 27. Improbcat (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite It's a stub, it mentions an award, if sourcing could be found for this... but right now it's an advert. Thinboy00 @857, i.e. 19:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no assertion of notability per WP:N and possibly WP:SPAM. Mh29255 (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Reads like a PR agency decided to put together a page, so blatant advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.muller (talk • contribs) 23:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep as it is written too spammy, and has no cites, but may be notable based on its almost 8,000 Ghits: [19], many of which are reviews and news of rewards. (I know, that's not a strong argument, which is why I wrote Very weak.) Bearian (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spamvertisement. Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Manchester College (Indiana). –Pomte 05:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Department of History and Political Science, Manchester College (Indiana)[edit]

Department of History and Political Science, Manchester College (Indiana) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The Department of History at Manchester College is no more notable or worthy of an independent entry than any other department at the college, let alone the multitude of individual academic departments at thousands of colleges and universities around the world. This article should either be deleted or merged with the main Manchester College article StudierMalMarburg (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge any relevant information.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any relevant info then Redirect. --Strothra (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge if there is anything worth the merging. It will take a truly world class department with undoubtedly relevant references to it a a department to justify an article.DGG (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splendor Hyaline[edit]

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

This article is a very brief, in universe repetition of plot points and also actual plot text repetition from the Chronicles of Narnia, and has no notability or referencing of its own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge relevant content into Chronicles of Narnia, then redirect. Keeper | 76 23:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was a bit hasty, I agree there isn't much to merge there. Perhaps something could be salvaged for Narnia (world), with a redirect there instead of to the Main article? Whatever happens, I support deletion over keeping. Keeper | 76 18:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing particularly notable to add to the series article. A non-notable plot element. Pastordavid (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hut 8.5 17:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just plot, nothing worth merging. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above per WP:NOT#PLOT. Eusebeus (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton^One 20:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rowbotham[edit]

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

Author of a couple of books on a subject for which he is not obviously qualified as an authority, published by a press which is so small that I cannot find its website; the publisher's address is 2 Home Farm Cottages, Sandy Lane, St Paul's Cray. I think this is a verys mall specialist publisher. There are a couple of thousand Google hits for Michael Rowbotham, but most of them seem to be alternative lifestyle forums or user-editable directories, many of them selling the book. What there is not, is any evidence of discussion of him or his ideas in the professional or academic journals related to his field. Tagged for notability and sourcing omnths ago, and never fixed. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning towards delete I hate to be wishy-washy, but this one is a tough case. He purports to be a financial expert but has no formal training. Is he an academic? If so, he fails WP:PROF on pretty much all points. Is he famous? If so, he still appears to fail WP:BIO. One reference I was able to dig up was speaking at the House of Lords [20], but does a single appearance grant notability? While not a valid measurement of the issues, his books have mixed reviews, some reviewers citing lack of data or other fundamental flaws [21]. There's simply not much external evidence to grant him any kind of status beyond possible fringe theories Yngvarr 19:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak delete. There do appear to be a few sources on this person and his work, and if people can source this I may well change my mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HisSpaceResearch (talk • contribs) 19:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• For related discussions, see Debt-based monetary system (AfD discussion) and Debt money (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. I see that this is up for a PROD, as well. Shouldn't that PROD now be be deleted, in favour of the AfD process? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Certainly a PROD on an AfD'd article with a keep vote should strike the prod tag; the point of prod is to keep things out of AfD debates. --- tqbf 21:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Weak keep: my only reservation is that this keeps popping up, and I'd prefer to have an article where the text is controlled and watched for POV editing rather than popping back up in two months. At least the current article makes clear his lack of distinction as a monetary thinker (and moderate distinction as an unbalanced polemicist).--Gregalton (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per new search, appears in The Guardian and Financial Times. --- tqbf 21:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment --- not a fan of the reasoning in the nom, either: notability isn't determined by who published your book, and AfD is not the cure for unreferenced articles on notable subjects. --- tqbf 21:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the basis of notable coverage in the Guardian & FT. I also noticed in my Gsearch that he once addressed the House of Lords? May not be in WP:BIO, but it works for me! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. About the speaking at the House of Lords bit, he did not address the House of Lords, he addressed a meeting of a private organization that was held at the Palace of Westminster. There may have been MPs present but this was not addressing the legislative body itself. --Dhartung | Talk 00:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment.: This meme about him addressing the House of Lords is constantly reiterated to emphasize his notability; thank you for clearing this up. I note that his mention in the FT does not appear that notable: it's in a light "business profile" of "Tim Smit, the social entrepreneur behind the vast domed glasshouses of the Eden Project"; the context is pretty clear, Mr. Smit is taking the piss (as they say) of the former head of the BoE: "He has asked Eddie George, who lives in Cornwall, to read The Grip of Death by Michael Rowbotham. The former Bank of England boss could find this polemic against the world's debt-based economic system rather unflattering." Basically at the level of sending a gift subscription to Vegan Living to the head of the sausage factory. Just for others to consider when determining "notable coverage." Article is here for reference, but it's thoroughly uninteresting and only has that throw-away reference to the subject at hand.--Gregalton (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not sufficiently notable. The only article that can be said to represent serious coverage is the Guardian one, and that isn't enough for WP:RS. 'Michael Rowbotham' only gets 6,000 hits on Google, which is fairly low for an author/academic; he seems to fail notability to me. Terraxos (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep - it makes a change to see a borderline article that is written by a critic rather than "his mum" or him. Notability can come out of controversy... but its the books and the refs that do it. Victuallers (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. The man is not notable. He has written two books, his credentials are non-verifiable, and he's espousing fringe theories. Zenwhat (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment --- an article that serves no purpose but to publish original fringe theories is a candidate for deletion. An article about a person who himself espouses fringe theories is not. Having non-verifiable credentials is not grounds for deletion --- it's grounds for cleaning up the article and stripping the credentials out. --- tqbf 21:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:HEY. --Sharkface217 21:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Useless without the sources, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 01:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsourced, weasel-worded biographical article about a real person = Delete. ^Dlae│_here 21:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And offers little info about the guy. ^Dlae│_here 21:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP is to document notability, not enhance it: this guy isn't anywhere close to notable, nor is there the sloghtest evidence to indicate otherwise. --Calton | Talk 02:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I looked at tqbf's Google news search list (27 Dec.), and added a few of the refs to the article. I haven't read the "subscription required" refs., but I'm happy that there are sufficient independent sources to show notability.  —SMALLJIM  17:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Debt_money, which is related.  —SMALLJIM  17:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Placebo Effect (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spitting Llama Bookstore & Outfitter[edit]

Spitting Llama Bookstore & Outfitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Blatant advertising for a business. Makes no claims of notability; fails WP:N and WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Harland1 (^t/_c) 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per nom, does not appear to pass WP:N.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Seems to just be an ad for the store. Not notable. Phantomwiki (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasSpeedy Delete - A7

Koei Warriors[edit]

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

• Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web).
• Just three lines of irrelevant content.
• It's an article for publicity Armando.O^{talk · Ev · 3K} 17:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Spam. No assertion of notability. Looks like Spam --Alfadog (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:WEB --Pmedema (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, I tagged as A7 web content that doesn't assert significance.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do not think we should be hosting spam. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no Reliable sources found during this debate. Secret ^account 21:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Smallwood[edit]

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

No evidence of notability given that satisfies WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Epbr123 (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and salt as this has been deleted several times already.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She's an older model who was very prominent in the early 1990s. I can't imagine there's not sourcing for her-- if not currently on the Internet. Removing articles on major models from the past would result in a bias towards what is popular right now. I'm not at liberty to do such research at the moment-- maybe tomorrow, but Boobpedia's article probably has a few sourcing leads. Also, IMDB has an interview and several appearances listed HERE. Dekkappai (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I looked around on the web a bit, and there are a few comments that she may have been the first popular BBW porn star (for example [22] and [23] ), which would meet the "started a trend" criterion, but they're not anything reliable. We need a reliable source that says that. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article titles like "Voluptuous Legends: Roberta Smallwood--Over a decade later, this FF-cup legend remains the Queen of the Super Plumpers."[24] would seem to lead credence to her prominent status in the genre... I'll see if I can find some information later today. I know I've seen her mentioned in Japanese sources, which, at least, shows she's known internationally. Dekkappai (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, my Internet search didn't provide much... All I can say is she was pretty big in the genre at the time. We get clues like the above-mentioned article, over a decade after her retirement, and a video titled "A Tribute to Roberta Smallwood", and comments by fans of the genre about how major she was to that genre, but nothing that jumps through the "Pornbio" hoops. So, I guess, on a technicality, another subject on which Boobpedia will provide the only well-written article. And more power to them. ;) Dekkappai (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Absolutely none of these are reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerry Marie for a precedent.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Using Lanasbigboobs.com, Myboobsite/Mybbwsite, IMDB, Boobpedia and Wikiporno and trying to claim that entries on all of these together add up to some kind of notability is just totally wrong. If Wikipedia played by that standard, we could have an article on Bea Flora. As it happens, though, Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion are more strict than that.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I personally consider this porn actress to be unattractive, this has got nothing to do with the fact that I want this article deleted. I want this article deleted because there are no reliable sources that fully back up anything about her.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dekkappai. Rray (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You might want to reconsider that given that reliable sources have not yet been provided.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]