< December 6	December 8 >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was speedy delete (CSD A7). Non-administrative closure. Spacepotato (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tideworks Technology[edit]

This may not meet notability criteria Quanticle (talk) 05:39, 7 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 result was Keep per the discussion below. It should be treated case by case and some of the personalities have varying rates of notability particularly the anchors and those who are more known.--JForget 01:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Burrill[edit]

Non-notability TV personality; Wikipedia is not a repository for these. Rufus843 (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (all citytv staff):
   :JoJo Chintoh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Mark Dailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Laura DiBattista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Marianne Dimain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Dwight Drummond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Francis D'Souza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Merella Fernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Frank Ferragine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Kevin Frankish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Melissa Grelo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Lorne Honickman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Dr. Karl Kabasele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Michael Kuss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Jee-Yun Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Richard Madan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Anne Mroczkowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Cynthia Mulligan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Farah Nasser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Dina Pugliese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Tonya Rouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Omar Sachedina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Pam Seatle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Nalini Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Jennifer Valentyne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keep all or vote separately if necessary. Wikipedia is a repository of information about many topics, including public persons. Fg2 (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These should not be bundled -- a random sampling shows some have definite claims to notability, including careers outside of the TV job, and others don't. They need to be considered and voted on separately. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, as per reasoning stated by Fg2 and Quasirandom. Some of these articles may be deletable as non-notable, but others are definitely notable. Tabercil (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All as per above reasons. Manning (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Keep all as improper bundling. If the nominator feels these individuals are all NN, they need to be nominated separately. I agree most of these are probably NN enough to be deleted, however if even one satisfies notability, then it renders the bundling invalid. 23skidoo (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all" I'd support a speedy/SNOW close, so they can be listed properly.DGG (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete here.. Mercury 03:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Eborn[edit]

Previously speedy deleted by myself several times for A7 violations it now has an assertion of notability through "under 21 national sabre champion of Ireland". In my opinion this assertion still does not merit an article, but as it is no longer a speedy candidate I'm filing it here. –– Lid^(Talk) 23:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Possible hoax. Also delete the associated picture, Image:Michaeleborn.jpg. --A. B. ^(talk) 23:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I saw the page while on New pages patrol. My first reaction was that "national champion" probably qualified for notability. But Google finds zero relevant pages so I suspect a hoax. Sbowers3 (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should be in the news if notable Victuallers (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources. The Irish Amateur Fencing Federation (governing body for Irish fencing) lists no Micheal Eborn in the 2005-2006 final rankings. Notable fencers don't spring out of thin air, and one would have expected to see a ranking. The IAFF 2006-2007 Men's Sabre ranking also does not show a Micheal Eborn. A search on the FIE site for an Irish fencer with a name of Eborn returns no results.

I should clarify that the FIE is the world governing body for fencing. You can conduct your own search to verify my results using this url -- Whpq (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus to delete. This needs references or it should fail its next AfD. 1 != 2 03:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jimmy Timmy Power Hour[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable cartoon episode. Ridernyc (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Re the template placed there, probably worth keeping the article as the project was a semi-notable fusion of two popular cartoon franchises supported by two different production teams. Such an occurrence is/was semi-rare, a la Who Framed Roger Rabbit?. Still, I'll be duplicating the present content to nickelodeon.wikia.com just in case. knoodelhed (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:07, 2 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, Kubigula (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does not assert notability with reliable sources, and it doesn't look like anything decent will be able to come out of it. TTN (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. While the article needs a decent cleanup, a Google News Archive search comes up with a number of reliable sources. [1]. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm tired of unreferenced articles. If there are verifiable and reliable sources, let the defenders provide them. Without sources each statement can be deleted until the article is blank, then it can be deleted for having no content. Let's keep it simple: no references means delete - and then maybe creators will start providing references. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theresult was Keep --JForget 02:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Aravosis[edit]

Strictly procedural nomination. This was speedied by User:Danny in October, with the edit summary "completely unsourced collection of allegations", but there's no record of any discussion (no prior AFD, no talk page discussion after May of 2007, etc.) as to what his or other people's concerns may have been. While it does require some reference improvements, I'm having trouble finding anything in this article that would violate WP:BLP, and the subject himself is unquestionably notable enough for an article. Deletion was clearly out of process as this doesn't meet any speedy criterion. No vote from me, but I would like to know if other people see problems here that I don't. Bearcat (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are certainly many unsourced statements that require attribution or deletion, but that is no reason for AfD. RGTraynor 23:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs more sources but the basic facts are there. Perhaps the concern was what the article says about the targets of his activism, as that's where several of the ((citation needed)) templates are. As it is, the article is long on an activism resume and short on Americablog, which is what he's best known for, making it read somewhat punchily. --Dhartung | Talk 00:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Needs cleanup, but that is not grounds for AFD Manning (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming that it is — it's just good practice, when restoring an article that another admin previously speedied out of process, to submit it to AFD as a procedural matter. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Manning. Some WP:RS are in the external links section. He's clearly notable. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-known and respected US LGBT activist, his campaign against Dr Laura led to other high-profile actions as well. Benjiboi 12:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Consensus to delete per lack of notability. 1 != 2 03:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin P. Wilson[edit]

I thought about speedying this, but decided to just AfD because I'm not sure whether or not he makes an assertion of notability. Pretty much...this guy isn't notable. He's a lawyer, he has the proper credentials to serve as an attorney on the court of appeals. And...he wrote the article himself. Never held any office...just an attorney. Smashville^BONK! 22:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Well, he did have a park named after him... not sure if that's an official guage of notability, but in my mind, it accounts for something. As for the article author, I've got a long (and strained) history with him, and can honestly say that I'd be 100% surprised if it was the same person. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed that after I posted the AfD...I didn't know the Cumberland Trail was named after anyone...I'll see what happens here... --Smashville^BONK! 23:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Accomplishment is not notability. The subject is no doubt accomplished, but falls short in that being nominated (but not confirmed) for a federal judgeship isn't the same thing as serving as one, and I don't think even being an appointed head of a state department is quite enough. Those are the two firmest claims to notability. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Must be the father of the article's creator. Or something. Delete. ^Dlae│_here 20:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:PROF as an adjunct prof, notability rests on his actions as unelected politician. I've read the four on-line references, two of which have him as subject, but I don't think that there is the required extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep as community leader: Trustee of the Watkins Institute, as a member of The Hermitage National Advisory Board, as a Regent of the Fund for American Studies at Georgetown University, -- I think this is enough to show notability. DGG (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*weak keep - notability is borderline at best but I am so happy to see a well-referenced article after so many other articles with no references at all, so I give the article extra credit. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, reliable sources do not demonstrate notability. 1 != 2 03:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starmen.Net[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article on the main Earthbound game website has no assertion of notability, which in this case would involve article talking about the website and other coverage, which seems not to exist for this website. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as you can see from its previous nomination, it has had two years plus to get any of this information it needs to assert notability, but that stuff is no where in sight. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CCC User:Krator (t c) 10:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. SharkD (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here we flippin' go again. This site, is notable. It's been mentioned and focused on by many respected blogs and magazines, it's given petitions to Nintendo, as well as the numerous call-ins and mail-ins that Nintendo has taken notice to. Aside from the article needing to be cleaned up, regardless of how long the entry has been in this state, there is no reason for deletion. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant of its community and standing as a major fansite of an, albeit obscure, game series. We tried talking about the website, you guys called it advertising, we tried toning it down, now you're calling it non-notable. Make up your minds and quit reaching for reasons to delete this article. This is the fourth time already. Numanoid (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have stuff, then start putting stuff in the article already!! It takes four AFD's for people to bother to establish notability? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We tried talking about the website, you guys called it advertising, we tried toning it down, now you're calling it non-notable. Numanoid (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't know who reviewed your article before, but the article cannot stay like this. Now find a featured website article, or a good article if there isn't one, and look at the formatting, and build up this article a bit, because there is a reason it continues to be nominated; it sucks, and it has established no notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numanoid, your behaviour is just uncivil. Calling people ignorant isn't helpful to this debate. If you think the website is notable enough for Wikipedia: then improve the article with decent sources and so on. If that can't happen, the article could be deleted. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like how both of you can talk the talk, but you refuse to walk the walk. You could be helping to improve this article, but it's easier just to delete it out of hand, isn't it? And with Alexa rankings too, the most useless of all web metrics! You should fill out your argument with a few sock puppets so you can be completely certain that this scourge of a website that doesn't even have the word "wiki" in its name will never rise again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.129.81 (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On AfD the burden of evidence rests with those defending an article, not with those opposing its inclusion. It would be utterly counter-productive for people to spend time and effort improving an article that they fully believe should be (and quite possibly would be) deleted. If you want this article to remain you should be adding references to non-trivial mentions by reliable sources that verify information the article contains and solidify its inclusion in Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD states "If the reasons given in the nomination are addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin"--therefore, the way to save this article is to resolve the absence of references to non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. As WP:V states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". We don't give a fig for references that might be in an article, only ones that are there. Garrett^Talk 20:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very simple: There are no references to reliable sources to verify notability. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete & redirect to SkyCable. — Scientizzle 00:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SkyCable Digital[edit]

Unneeded, reads like an instruction manual, uneyclopedic, etc ViperSnake151 22:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to SkyCable. This article is unnecessary because the subject matter is not notable.--CastAStone /^/(talk) 23:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Digibox subsection of SkyCable may need expanding. TJ Reyes (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to SkyCable. --Howard the Duck 03:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above comments--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was nomination withdrawn--recently discovered that he was U.S. Attorney for Utah during the Clinton administration. By definition, that's notable. Blueboy 96 11:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Matheson Jr.[edit]

I really was wary about hitting the delete button on this one ... but this is an unsuccessful candidate in an election. His only other possible claim to notability is that he's a former dean of a major law school, but it doesn't seem that this meets WP:BIO. Blueboy 96 22:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Matheson family or more famous relations who have articles in their own right. The Mathesons in Utah are like the Kennedys in Massachusetts. Soxthecat (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep if expanded. The dean of a major law school is a very distinguished academic position and almost certainly notable, but I do not see that in the article. there are lots of distinguished Kennedys, though I dont think any of them ever held that particular position. DGG (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete which isn't any judgment on her or even a decision that comes easy to anybody who has participated here, but the lack of reliable sources that cover the person's life in depth has not been overcome. Or to rephrase some of the opposing arguments, Wikipedia is not for keeping a memory alive or answering questions that are answered nowhere else.Tikiwont (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florry Burrell[edit]

Featured person not notable, violates WP:BIO Anietor (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Difficult decision, because the person is cited in The New York Times, by the city of New York, and having a street named after you seems like an award. But in the end, it's just not quite enough.--CastAStone /^/(talk) 23:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Community activist, nice lady, but a flap over a street sign is not a claim to notability. --Dhartung | Talk 00:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Dhartung. Nearly anyone can claim to have had an article written about them in a newspaper at some point, but that alone does not grant notability, even if it led to having a street sign named for them. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In NYC, having a street named after you does not make a neighborhood figure notable -- and this article clearly shows why.DGG (talk)
Do not delete : The whole debate is about other people wishing to obliterate someone's memory because he or she does not measure up to an arbitrary standard of "fame." Voting to eliminate such a article is ironic at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.137.184.139 (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Admittedly, I can't be objective about this, but if people have some doubts (as I see above they do) about deleting, the article should not be deleted. As was mentioned in one of the letters in the New York Times about Florry Burrell, if people see a street sign that mentions a name they don't know, they Google it. Currently if you Google "Florry Burrell" you get the Wikipedia article as the first hit, with exact references to her biography and to the debate about the street sign in the New York Times. If the Wikipedia article is deleted, you will get NONE of this, as it exists nowhere else. Is space on the web so precious that otherwise useful articles must be deleted? For what, precisely? The article is useful, up to date, and answers questions that many people might ask, as the sign is still there and likely to remain for many years. Barbaraburrell (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete It is not as if this posting is hurting anyone, if anything it is keeping alive the memory of an intreped woman who supported the arts, the schools, and the families of Queens. She was an inspiration to anyone who met her and I think that her love for her family and the community live on in the people who talk about her. I am remiss to think that people have such a disrespect for the impact that even the smallest person makes, but people like you show me that there are people who cannot leave items on the infinite space that is the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.160.131.15 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I appreciate the sentiments of the do-not-delete crowd here, but saying that the article "isn't hurting anyone" and should stay to "keep her memory alive" really doesn't address the issue here. There needs to be justification for keeping the article (i.e. notability). I don't think anyone has anything against the person, but wikipedia isn't a repository for info on every nice lady who was loved by family and neighbors. --Anietor (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Anietor does not deal with the chief argument listed above: that the Wikipedia article is useful because it answers questions that people will ask (so long as the sign is up), and that are answered nowhere else. Let's go beyond sentiment, but let's also go beyond irregularly-enforced (even in Wikiland) notions of "notability." If there is someone whose biography will be searched for, and probably quite frequently, Wikipedia should be the place where you can find it. There is no other place that does this. So let Wikipedia do what it does best, and not try to turn itself into a second-rate (because less dependable) version of any old encyclopedia.

Also, I notice among the delete crowd a lot of sneering references to "a nice lady" in "the neighborhood." How much is this about the fact that the "not notable" person is a woman, and not some professional man with a lot of letters after his name? Barbaraburrell (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbaraburrell, I am trying to control myself here, but I am rather hurt that you are making an accusation of sexism here. Your accusation is baseless. Speaking for myself, though perhaps for some others, when looking at policy and choosing to offer support for delete, it can fly in the face of a baser instinct. My instinct is to help people. Favoring deletion may be my interpretation of the policy here, but it in no way necessarily makes me feel better about doing it. While I made no comment about his person being nice, or being a woman, I have made similar comments on AfD discussions before. It is perhaps a way to assuage my feelings for doing something that can be interpreted by some people as mean spirited or short sighted, when in fact I am doing my best to follow what I consider to be a sound policy. Further, I really think you owe some of the editors here an apology. I will apologize to the community here for taking up space and temporarily moving away from the content discussion, but it really chaffes me to see good people trying to do the right thing accused of something like this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. The usefulness of the reference for anyone curious about the sign suggests that keeping the article is a good idea. Languagehat (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. The mere fact that this sparked both an argument on wikipedia and an article in the New York Times is like an ontological proof of why Mrs. Burrell deserves a wikipedia entry. Simply in complaining that she is not famous enough, you (and Stuart Miller in the New York Times) have elevated her fame to the point where she deserves an entry. Of course, this fame is secondary to the fact that she was well known enough within her community and touched enough lives to merit consideration for the tremendous honor of having a New York City street named after her. That is a semi-permanent marker which people researching the city in the future might want to know about. Don't we want wikipedia to be a place they turn to find those kind of answers?--King Greebo (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC) — King Greebo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do not delete. What makes a person notable? Why do we know all we know about Paris Hilton or Brittany? And do any of us care? What about being a loving, thoughtful, thought-provoking person? Florrie touched the lives of many people both in and out of her neighborhood. She always said, "It's a great life, it you don't weaken". In my opinion, the world needs more people like Florrie, who gave her focus and considerable intellect to bringing her community together. Florrie once sang in a choir with Paul Robeson. She volunteered as in the local polls for every election for over 40 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghaspert (talk • contribs) 05:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC) — Ghaspert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do Not Delete : Unlike Brittany Spears, Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan and others like them who have really done nothing remarkable except get arrested and spend time in Rehab, Florry Burrell dedicated her life to community service and that is something to be remembered and commended. She provided a positive role model to children from the neighborhoods. Florry Burrell was a feisty, warm hearted woman that loved children and showed the world that being useful has no age limit. Keeping this article will help to show that volunteerism is one of the pillars that uphold the American neighborhood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatbush skp (talk • contribs) 05:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC) — Flatbush skp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - I hope any admin who makes a final decision here will note that the last two editors (Ghaspert & talk) have made this AfD their first (and to this moment, sole) edit. LonelyBeacon (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is indeed noteworthy that almost all do-not-delete entries are from first timers, anon IPs or family members of the subject (a fair assumption since the last names in the IDs are the same). Certainly anyone can contribute, but it is something to take into consideration when evaluating what the true consensus is on the deletion. --Anietor (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you proposing a pecking-order in Wikipedia, that some class of "Wikiprofessionals" should be allowed to sway any decisions made on what is supposed to be "The Free Encyclopedia"? Or that those who haven't posted previously should be ignored? Doesn't that conflict with Wikipedia's entire mission? Barbaraburrell (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In a way, yes. However, it's not my proposition. It is consistent with the guidelines for deletion of articles. In fact, the "spa" tag has been inserted in this discussion to make it clear. The reason is clear...people who have no interest in wikipedia other than to promote a particular agenda or article. I'm not saying that's the case here necessarily, and to be frank the cries of sexism and unfair notability rules are unjustified and not in good faith. It's an attempt to hide the ball and distract people from the very simple issue here...is this person notable? The fact that the majority of Burrell advocates have to rely on arguments like "it's not hurting anyone" makes it rather clear to me that the subject doesn't meet the WP:BIO notability threshhold. Again, nobody is saying she doesn't sound like a nice person, but that's not how we judge things here.--Anietor (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete This article should absolutely stay up. She did valuable things for the community of New York and was recognized so when they named a street after her. Also, part of her noteriety is that the New York Times felt that she was not famous enough for a street sign in New York City. By taking down this article we are in many ways backing up the NYT's claim that she was not famous enough and that would be wrong. Dfs3 (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Being labeled "not famous enough" by the NY Times automatically makes her at least famous enough for wiki! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.205.98 (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That makes as much sense as saying that the NYT is an authoritative reliable source, and therefore the article should be deleted because the NYT says she's not noteworthy.--Anietor (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NOT#NEWS seems to support deletion. The article subject was the subject of a single editorial; not an actual researched article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Correction: The article subject was the subject of an editorial AND had a street in New York named after her. There aren't many streets named after people in New York (in relation to streets not named after people), and getting one named in your honor is quite noteworthy. New York City is a giant text written in architecture and urban planning, and most of its roots can be traced back on some level to individual stories. Naming a street after someone is a way to acknowledge that that person contributed to that part of the city. There are plenty of people who would be interested in what street names in New York signify, and blogs exist around such issues (like http://www.forgotten-ny.com/). If people note street names in New York, and there's a street named in New York about Florry Burrell, then Florry Burrell is "noteable". --King Greebo (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Mrs. Burrell may only have local significance, but that significance is profound. Countless articles describing less notable persons persist uncontested on Wikipedia. No purpose would be served by deleting this article except to insult her memory. User:Mutant Despot 19:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Mrs. Burrell may only have local significance, like Mutant Despot said, but the significance in that area is great. The lady deserves the Wikipedia article, it's certainly not hurting Wikipedia to have the information available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.162.170 (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The claim of using blogs as support for sources is likely in violation of WP:SPS, unless they are specifically hosted. A review of the three sources shows that they are not primary or second are in nature, and so I am pretty sure this article is also in violation of WP:V. Before I continue citing policy, is there anyone in favor of keeping this article that can cite a specific policy in favor of keeping it? I would like to be swayed, but so far I am seeing nothing to keep this article other than personal pleas that are not based on any Wikipedia policy. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lonely Beacon should know that I included the blog only as an example of the kind of interest people have in New York City streets and the stories behind their names. This interest is the very reason an entry like the one for Florry Burrell belongs on Wikipedia. This article will help Wikipedia readers learn more about a figure who has been written into the very landscape of New York City, thus improving Wikipedia's coverage of New York City, so even if she doesn't meet the standards of "notability" for Wikipedia, it shouldn't matter since it improves Wikipedia... by the policy WP:IAR. --King Greebo (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The NYT piece isn't a story about the article subject, it's an op-ed piece arguing against naming streets after non-notable people. It's a trivial mention of the subject, which doesn't meet the standard of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Darkspots (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete There are so many good reasons listed above to NOT DELETE the relatively brief, accurate, informative and readable article about Florry Burrell, especially because it raises just these questions of -who is making the rules? and -who's interest do the rules serve? Who decides the notability of any subject of biography is one of relativism that depends on one's own realm of knowledge. Sexism needs to be acknowledged, which could very well play a role in the basic premise of denying that the subject of this biographical article has achieved the level of fame supposedly required by wikipedia. Any of the dozen reasons mentioned in this discussion argue to keep this article available to posterity through wikipedia. That is wikipedia's alleged purpose. Sosin (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC) — Sosin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The result was redirect to Robert Storm Petersen. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storm P. machines[edit]

Article has no references that show anyone has ever used this term. At best, this is a Wiktionary article Konczewski (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Robert Storm Petersen, which contains all of this information and more. This article is a redundancy. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Robert Storm Petersen, as this article not is very long. If people write a lot to it there, it may be split out again. (I remember this dane had reruns in major Norwegian newspapers in the 70's btw.) Greswik (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per LonelyBeacon. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per LonelyBeacon. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete.. Mercury 03:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Tareen[edit]

Teeny tiny assertion of notability, otherwise I'd have speedied this non-notable medical student. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable activist. Blueboy 96 22:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is just Some Guy; utterly non-notable, fails WP:BIO in every particular. Ravenswing 23:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per User:Ravenswing. I'm not even sure teeny-tiny applies here, but I guess never wrong to be careful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LonelyBeacon (talk • contribs)
Delete: per User:Ravenswing. Db-bio, this is. Greswik (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Davewild (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Golden Gophers football under Jim Wacker[edit]

Content fork. Delete and merge into Jim Wacker. Blueboy 96 21:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This should not be moved onto the Jim Wacker page. This page is a season-by-season rundown of the Gopher football team while it was coached by Wacker, with each season listing every individual game played - it's about the team, not about the coach himself. Wacker's article is currently 12K in size and this page is 34K - do we really want to quadruple the size of the page with all of the new content dealing with only 5 of his 21 years as a coach? The correct solution is to expand the "Minnesota" section of the Jim Wacker page so that it has more than two sentences of information and leave this page alone

This style of page ("Team X football under Coach Y") is designed to replace pages for individual seasons of teams. Having this page replaces having a separate page for the 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 Gopher football teams.Gopherguy | Talk 22:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not convinced. It can easily be condensed into a few paragraphs on Wacker's page. Blueboy 96 23:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - we could come up with a condensed version to put on Wacker's page, but even if we do that, this page should stand on its own. It's an entry covering the football teams that played under Jim Wacker, not an entry about Wacker himself. I am very against removal of any of the information on that page. In fact, over time, I intend to add more information to it. If I want to know about the 1994 Minnesota Golden Gophers football team, that page holds the information I want. We could condense the page on Saturn to say only that it's the sixth planet in the solar system and it has rings, but why would we delete all of the other interesting and important information in that article? I don't want to see Wikipedia become like USA Today with small, bite sized listings that really don't tell you very much.Gopherguy | Talk 23:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree as well. Minnesota, as a major college football team, has certain level of credibility to their history. Could this info be condensed into a few paragraphs on Wacker's page? Yes. But this isn't about Wacker, this is about the years coached by the Golden Gophers under Jim Wacker. For if this page isn't worth while, why should any history page on college football serve function. This same article was once brought up as a candidate to merge directly into the Minnesota Golden Gophers football page, and it was defeated. The discussion on notability came up previously in the discussion of the WikiProject College football here, where the tendancy seems to describe to allowing this page (and pages like it) to stay. -Colslax (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above (especially the link to the notability discussion from the college football WikiProject) and per WP:Summary style. Although Jim Wacker isn't a long article, someone looking at his article does not need the level of detail that this article goes into. A coach article should have short sections on each of his jobs with appropriate links to the main articles of each. If the content were to be merged into his article it would overwhelm the rest of the article. (Also, the nominator meant to link to WP:CFORK in the nomination, WP:FORK is different). Phydend (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and per discussion in Wikiproject:College Football. Seancp (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article reflects a Wikiproject College Football consensus on formatting and methodology to comprehensively address teams' season history for seasons that may not be sufficiently notable for individual articles. AUTiger » talk 01:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CFB previous justification of these types of articles, and Seancp, Autiger and Phydend. MECU≈talk 19:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as not notable -- runner-ups in reality shows generally do not get a WP page without doing more than just an appearance on TV -- and no reliable sources or even any proof about any accomplishments that would make the subject notable. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal Jones[edit]

Non-notable reality TV contestant. Eatcacti (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with America's Next Top Model. Because she won the season, she has some notability, but not enough to warrant her own article. TGreenburgPR (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a good idea. Redirecting the page will help prevent the usual creation/deletion cycle ANTM contestants go through. (Though I will point out that there's no proof she actually has won, since the show hasn't aired yet. There are rumors going out that each of the other contestants has won as well.) Eatcacti (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If she goes on and makes a name for herself, sure, but as yet her only claim of notability is a reality show - and she hasn't even won yet. •97198 talk 01:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite This is way too subjective. It's written in a completely egotistical sense - i.e. "However, due to the conflict between Jay Manuel and the photographer, Chantal dropped that week to the bottom three." This is written like it is all Jay Manuel and the photographer's faults. And the rest of this is too positive - not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.198.175 (talk)
- I think the page is very detail in presenting Chantal Jones, I think we should keep it.Billy102694 (talk)18:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you delete her page, you should probably delete all the other runners up as well. Half of them haven't done anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.96.56 (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. •97198 talk 04:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It's likely she'll now receive more press and notability as a runner up, but as per 97198 talk, in the future if she gains additional notability from her career then this article could be revived. • Owlmonkey (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing special or notable apart from coming second. --AussieJess ^{talk —Preceding comment was added at 08:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep Chantal is just as significant as the other second place contestants, all of whom have webpages, and certainly as significant as Heather Kuzmich who was eliminated earlier in the cycle. 12.202.55.143 (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Kahlen Rondot was 2nd place in season 4; she does not have a page.User:Mojojojo69 11:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but as I said above Heather Kuzmich, who only came in 5th, has a page that the consensus was that it shouldn't be deleted. I think it is only reasonable that the same standard be applied to Chatntal's page, and even more so, since the likelihood is that she will have a far greater future significance than heather. - 12.202.55.143 (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The consensus was that Heather Kuzmich was notable and passed WP:BIO. She is not notable just because she came in 5th place, but because of the press coverage she has received. Similarly, Chantal is not notable just because she came in 2nd place. Eatcacti (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant data/information for her to have a page, other than the fact that she was 2nd place. However, i dont think that warrants a page on its own. She hasnt gotten any modeling gigs.User:Mojojojo69 11:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough yet.--Sandahl 19:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! Chantal is amazing, and she is a true top model! She doesn't deserved to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggs123 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP This article is about a person who has national noteriety. There are many such articles about individuls with less noteriety, that have been deemed worthy of rentention, and have survived nomination for deleteion. Standards should applied equally. If Chantal deserves to be deleted, then EVERYONE who is of only equal noteriety also should be deleted. 63.206.206.254 (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mel Rose, runner up for the 7th cycle's page was created right after the finale aired. Of course, it was nominated for deletion, and what not. Before the show, Mel Rose was semi-notable in San Francisco as a fashion designer. It was decided that her page be redirected into the cycle page. After the show, she was signed for Storm and is now notable and has her own page. Similarly, Kahlen Rondot, runner-up for Cycle 4 hasn't done any thing notable after the show, and therefore doesn't have a page. If Chantal gains notoriety after the show ends, than her page can always be created. With her attitude and drive, it wouldn't suprise me that she'll get one someday. But right now, she just doesn't meet the criteria. :(. -theblueflamingo^Squawk 22:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument user:mojojojo69 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom.--Sugarcubez (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Chantal is simply amazing, and she is on her way to stardome.
Keep! She is going to be the most succesful girl ever from ANTM

Keep Since all other Runners Up have them she should to especially with the controversy surrounding Saleshia's win —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddyirl (talk • contribs) 00:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because the other reality show runnerups have their own pages, there's no reason to delete this one unless every single reality show page is breaking policy. Rebochan (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument user:mojojojo69 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isn't a case of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS policy assumes that other crap exists, because no one challenges it. We aren't comparing this article to unchallenged articles, we are comparing it to articles that were challenged and kept. -12.202.55.143 (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you give a concrete example of another ANTM contestant that has done nothing other than appear on the show who has an article all to herself? Chantal has literally done nothing other than appear on the show. All of the other contestants who have their own articles have done something else or have received significant press coverage. See Lisa D'Amato, for example, who came in sixth but has her own article because she has done other things than appear on the show. That is why those articles were kept. I'm not saying that Chantal will never become notable as coming in second on ANTM can certainly be a stepping stone to a successful career. But at this point, she just isn't. Eatcacti (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no reason to delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.130.91 (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please keep this article. you have one for heather, even though she didnt even make it that far. keeppp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.153.111 (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please remove as she is not the winner and there is;t much to talk about her since all we know was she is a runner-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.141.181 (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-There's no reason why her page should be deleted. So she's not the best and a runner up, but that doesn't mean her page should be deleted because of those reasons.

Delete - After few mouths, she will be forgotten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.149.174.29 (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!the other runner ups have one, and so does heatherJollyphunkster (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- comment Kahlen Rondot was 2nd place in season 4 and she does not have a page; Heather has a page due to her contribution with AS.User:Mojojojo69 9:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Xoloz (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will Guthrie[edit]

No real assertion of notability - perhaps I've missed how the subject meets WP:MUSIC? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only four Yahoo hits which specifically talk about this guy. Come back when you get a contract. Blueboy 96 21:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The number of ghits in this case is not relevant. A lot of them are for pages on Woody Guthrie and contain at least one verb in the future tense. Yet all of the first few are on Will Guthrie, and most of them independent, pushing him barely above the notability threshold IMO. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 21:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not wishing to push it, can you explicitly detail how the article meets WP:MUSIC please? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. This guy has received at least some independent coverage such as tis article on ABC Radio National[2] and the Melbourne Age [3]. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment looks like those two articles are trivial - still not meeting WP:MUSIC. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment your definition of trivial is quite different to mine then - the ABC one at least is an in-depth discussion of his current recording along with a bio. The work is specifically ABOUT Guthrie. Garrie 23:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment ... and the other? I think we still need to be convinced he meets WP:MUSIC. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC: 'It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.' Auroranorth (!) 01:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I'm sure that there are some references for him, but I can't find them right now. As it is he doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Twenty Years 15:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC, seems to be self-publishing and no evidence of commercial career or performance, hence no WP:RS available either. Orderinchaos 18:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitalist Roadster - meets WP:Music (has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable) - both Australian Broadcasting Corporation and The Age are independant reliable sources--Matilda ^talk 01:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No-ones doubting the quality of the sources, but I am seriously doubting whether those articles could claim to be non-trivial. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In my view sufficiently non-trivial to meet the criteria. This eventually becomes very subjective if you want to say there are articles (and they are not mere paragraph mentions) in independant reliable sources but somehow you wish to pass judgment that they are somehow trivial - they are published works which seem to meet the criteria - how from the criteria do you deem these articles trivial?--Matilda ^talk 23:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even though I tagged it. I'm an eventualist. The good cites are out there to show musical notability. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls a bit short of WP:MUSIC. RMHED (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. The "notability for high achievement" argument, though not conclusively successful in this debate, has sufficient weight to prevent a consensus for deletion at this time. Xoloz (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caversham Primary School[edit]

Non-notable elementary school. Blueboy 96 21:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Icestorm815 (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, possible speedy. Stifle (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a primary school not an elementary school, and it definitely doesn't fall within the speedy deletion criteria. It is ranked as the best performing primary school in its area whether that is notable or not is up for debate. RMHED (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: It is an elementary school by American/Canadian definition but Primary by English definition. Anyways, nice research. I have added this in the article. Billscottbob (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a high-achieving elementary school that, as RMHED has said, is one of the best in the area. Billscottbob (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this one fooled me - I live only 2 kilometres from Caversham Primary School, but 15,000 kilometres from Berkshire. if kept, it might be worth daisambiguating, since I suspect it's only a matter of time before there's an article on Caversham Primary School in Dunedin, NZ. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Unless there is something else, I don't see how this school meets Wikipedia notability requirements. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I slightly clarified the rather poorly written article (still needs considerable explansion) --apparently it is the best performing school in its region, and there's an RS to prove it. DGG (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some school will come out on top on a test. This did. Good for them, but nothing of encyclopedic value. Greswik (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'CommentWe accept Blue Ribbon Schools in the US as notability. the best performing schools,athletically or academically, makesa reasonable distinction for notability. DGG (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given notability is not temporary, this will possibly make many schools notable given enough time: just get on top (or in this case within top 200) of some test for a year, and you are notable for eternity. It's for kids in the age 4-11. I know I'm speculating here, but I would think it's just a matter of having a little bit more luck with the kids coming to the school (ie having a higher percentage of children of academics) to get a higher scoring with this age-group. And the top 200 thing: that's what it take to make it notable? I "feel" this is wrong (I know I am a bit away from the normal reasoning here, but it is still what's going on in my head when I read this.) Neither the article nor the reference really explains why the school is better. If the blue ribbon schools get their award for their work, I imagine (again;-)) some explaniation excists from the authorities why the school is doing better. Greswik (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to its distinguished status of being one of the highest rated schools in the UK. --Oakshade (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment above. RMHED (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extragratis[edit]

Non-notable neologism, no references. --Explodicle (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. No objection from me. Biscuittin (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in English from reliable sources. This seems to be a Dutch term, but not an English one, per heavy concentration on .nl websites. --Dhartung | Talk 21:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I Googled it and the term comes up mainly in names for companies making a pun on the term gratis in regards to the 'extra'. This is a non-notable neologism and I don't think it's a real term in any case. Delete. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} —Preceding comment was added at 00:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spawn Man. Hal peridol (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spawn Man. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greswik (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete per WP:NOT#INFO and verifiability concerns. Content can be merged into main article, I can e-mail the content on request. 1 != 2 22:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of content and features on The Jim Rome Show[edit]

This is an unbelievably long list of things that have happened on The Jim Rome Show. It's unsourced, indiscriminate, and un-encyclopedic. Note that this is not the show's Wikipedia page. CastAStone /^/(talk) 20:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The show is obviously notable but WP:NOT#IINFO. We don't need a list of every single caller/nickname/take/in-joke on the show, especially as most of it is original research. If there's anything really important, cover it in the show's page. Bleeding Blue (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it was covered in the show's page until recently. It was moved to its own page because the show's page was becoming very longFrank Anchor, U. S. American (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. Describes the content of the Jim Rome Show and how the show is unique. More sources could be added howeverFrank Anchor, U. S. American (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what The Jim Rome Show article is for; which, by the way, is also a disaster filled with unsourced "facts" and in-jokes that are similar to the filler in this list that is completely un-encyclopedic. The only reason that page isn't on AfD for it's content is that it's a very notable show. This list is not notable. Please explain why any of this belongs in an Encyclopedia instead of on a fan site.--CastAStone /^/(talk) 19:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Article is far too elaborate of a list. The show's main article has adequate content on most of these. I would not change what the show's main article says about the show's content. I would also delete the related Soundbites featured on The Jim Rome Show, which is a similar list. <Baseballfan789 (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should we have two articles for every show. One titled "X Show" and the other the content of X Show"? This is exactly the right sort of content to be weeded very sharply and integrated into the main article. I accept Frank's statement that it was too long, and the remedy should have been to cut it. DGG (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the most complete explanation of what the Rome show is about. I think it is extremely valuable in helping people understand the show as it has tons of inside jokes. Please don't delete it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmycaps (talk • contribs) 22:11, Dec 10, 2007

This user only has 4 contributions to Article-space, 3 were to page in question.--CastAStone /^/(talk) 03:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Quarshie[edit]

Originally listed as a PROD, this article is little more than a resume or personal profile for someone that doesn't meet WP:BIO. Not really much more to say about it. Isotope23 ^talk 20:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; in my opinion, the available sources don't show that this person meets WP:BIO. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. GJ (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deputy ministers aren't generally notable. This was also being incorrectly categorized: a Canadian DM is not a member of a provincial or territorial legislature or a "woman in politics", but the senior civil servant of a government department. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No Consensus to delete, requires cleanup. Davewild (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De Minimis Fringe Benefits[edit]

No CSD. Besides, I'm not entirely sure if this page should be deleted, or if it could be encyclopedic. Cassie Puma (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This text is plainly a copy of some IRS manual (consider the section reference). Comes, as it stands, under WP is not is not a how-to. If it is significantly revised by closure, into an actual stub, keep, but if not, we lose nothing by starting over. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The section references are references to the actual regulations. Uncle G (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a badly written article (For starters, it doesn't actually explain what the subject is.) but a quite valid subject, as about 1 minute with Google Books reveals. Uncle G (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no doubt this is a valid subject. But is this the best way to begin an article on it, or should we start over from scratch? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, stubify, or merge to a relevant article. Well-references, not a copyvio. I'll work on it. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a copy of "some IRS article." The article is based on the IRC and the Treas. Regs. see 132(a)(4) and 1.132-6.
Also, what does CSD stand for? Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ify.offor (talk • contribs) 2007-12-07T21:22:05
- Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion Uncle G (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a very tricky area of tax law that changes as often as annually. I don't feel we should be responsible for a detailed tax manual. At best this is a merge to employee benefit (US fringe benefit). There are more broadly scoped articles on individual countries' taxation of benefits such as Fringe Benefits Tax (Australia), and I would urge writing one of those for the US instead of this. (By tricky, of course, I mean that there are substantial penalties for misunderstanding or misapplying the rules.) --Dhartung | Talk 21:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author of this page. Is the problem with this article that it doesn't have a lead? If that is the case, I can fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ify.offor (talk • contribs) 23:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. It's not one that requires that the entire article be deleted in order to fix, though. What your article needs is a good explanation, accessible to the ordinary reader, of the subject in its introduction. Read Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. This isn't hard. There's material for sourcing such an explanation in the first 4 books turned up by a Google Books search, for starters. Uncle G (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but obviously needs major work. At the very minimum I'd like the article to tell me which countries this concept applies to. For example if I live in Burkina Faso can I take advantage of this? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per consensus, whilst this article strictly speaking falls a little short of the WP:NOTE guideline it meets the core policy of WP:V and as no guidelines regards student organizations yet exist I'm going with the clear consensus to Keep for now. RMHED (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Sheffield Union of Students[edit]

Another non-notable Students' Union. Most, if not all, of the information in this article is already available in the main article. Article fails WP:N, as it fails to link to external, independant sources. Fails WP:N again, per the Wikiproject Universities article guidelines (sub-articles, student life), which states "...per WP:ORG, student unions/organizations/governments should almost never have their own article" (though note that this is not yet a solid policy, but a suggestion for one). _TheIslander 19:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Or Merge. This article is well-developed and works well as a stand alone article. However, if it is the general consensus of Wikipedians through WP:ORG that organizations of this type should not have a seperate page, then it should be merged into the the University of Sheffield. Billscottbob (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is a major university, and this is the main student organization. For significant universities, we have almost always supported the major student union or whatever it may be called, (and the student athletic union where it is the practical main athletic body ofthe university, as often in the UK) practical; but very rarely the individual student clubs and groups. It makes sense to have such an intermediate article--the typical one or two hundred individual student groups makes a very long and disproportionate section into the main university page,which has a great many other topics to discuss. Having a page like this as an intermediate is the obvious way to proceed--the organisations can each get a mention of a paragraph, according to their importance. And thus everyone can be satisfied. WQP lives by consensus, and consensus is attained by compromise. it is wholly misleading to quote a suggested policy as if it were an actual guideline --there is no consensus on that suggested wording. I am glad at least there was no attempt to pretend it was already the policy, tho it seems some people may have missed the caveat--I did at first reading. Well, it call attention of a wider range of people to the proposal there,so we can make sure my an unrepresentative opinion there does not take firm root.DGG (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please assume good faith - I do not appreciate the statement "it is wholly misleading to quote a suggested policy as if it were an actual guideline" when I made it crystal clear in my reasoning that it was indeed proposed. My argument for the deletion of this article uses that proposed policy to back up my main point. which related to WP:N, one of the core policies on Wikipedia. _TheIslander 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The Students' Union is a separate legal entity to the University with its own constitution and Trustees. It makes sense to have separate articles and this practice has been accepted for other large students' unions in the UK. If the artice needs improving that is another issue.John Cross (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are plenty of sources on this large and notable organisation. The current article is a useful start which should be improved upon. Warofdreams talk 19:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well developed article, if anything the information on the institution's article about the union should be moved to the union's article. I can't see the benefit of deleting articles about Student Unions. It is impossible to create a catch all article as each student union is run in a different way and have different policies. This discussion would be far better served by having it on all student unions and not individual discussion. There has already been an AfD discussion for SOAS Students' Union that reached no consensus, and I feel that the current AfDs will reach the same conclusion. Andy Hartley (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did consider creating one AfD for the lot, but wasn't sure, and as per the guidelines for creating AfD's "...if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, do not". You state "...each student union is run in a different way and have different policies". Well, not really. Granted there are slight variations here and there, and there are one or two unions that are just run in a completely different mannor that probably are notable enough for their own article, but on the whole all SUs are pretty much the same. There's pretty much nothing that differentiates one SU from the next, and I've made very sure that I've only nominated those that don't appear to have anything particularly notable about them. There are others that I may nominate, depending on the outcome of these few, but equally there are others that I won't nominate, 'cause I feel that they are notable enough to satisfy WP:N. _TheIslander 23:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In agreement with Warofdreams, Francium12 (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now As this AFD and others touch of exactly the same issues, see my lengthy comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton University Students' Union about a better way forward of encouraging people to get decent sourcing whilst at the same time getting an actual policy about inherent notability in place, rather than the current mess of individual AFDs on the same basic issue having different outcomes. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester Student Union[edit]

Another non-notable Students' Union. Article fails WP:N, as it fails to link to external, independant sources. Fails WP:N again, per the Wikiproject Universities article guidelines (sub-articles, student life), which states "...per WP:ORG, student unions/organizations/governments should almost never have their own article" (though note that this is not yet a solid policy, but a suggestion for one). Article also has very, very little infotmation, none of which is particularly notable enough to be merged with the parent article, University of Winchester. _TheIslander 19:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As you note that is actually a proposed guideline that has not yet been adopted and that very part of the guideline is currently under discussion on the talk page. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not merely only proposed, but wholly irrational. This is a good way of organising such articles. it gives a place to put all the clubs and miscellaneous groups for which people would otherwise nominate individual articles. This way of doing things should be encourage, not deleted. Obviously the talk page there needs additional input, because it should firmly be rejected. If the article is too short, addall the other possible material. DGG (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please re-read my argument, specifically "Another non-notable Students' Union. Article fails WP:N, as it fails to link to external, independant sources...". This is the basis for my nomination, and this is based on non-negotiable policy. My next statment, about the proposed policy, just backs this up, and I see no problem in doing that bearing in mind that I've made it crystal clear that it's just that - a proposed policy. _TheIslander 22:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although short there is no reason to delete this article. I can't see the benefit of deleting articles about Student Unions. It is impossible to create a catch all article as each student union is run in a different way and have different policies. This discussion would be far better served by having it on all student unions and not individual discussion. There has already been an AfD discussion for SOAS Students' Union that reached no consensus, and I feel that the current AfDs will reach the same conclusion. The argument about the article potentially failing a proposed policy is also poor. Andy Hartley (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did consider creating one AfD for the lot, but wasn't sure, and as per the guidelines for creating AfD's "...if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, do not". You state "...each student union is run in a different way and have different policies". Well, not really. Granted there are slight variations here and there, and there are one or two unions that are just run in a completely different mannor that probably are notable enough for their own article, but on the whole all SUs are pretty much the same. There's pretty much nothing that differentiates one SU from the next, and I've made very sure that I've only nominated those that don't appear to have anything particularly notable about them. There are others that I may nominate, depending on the outcome of these few, but equally there are others that I won't nominate, 'cause I feel that they are notable enough to satisfy WP:N. _TheIslander 23:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now As this AFD and others touch of exactly the same issues, see my lengthy comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton University Students' Union about a better way forward of encouraging people to get decent sourcing whilst at the same time getting an actual policy about inherent notability in place, rather than the current mess of individual AFDs on the same basic issue having different outcomes. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per consensus and nominators desire to withdraw and possibly relist individually. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myra Hemmings[edit]

I would like to withdraw this AfD and I will break them apart to have them considered individually. How do I formally request that? Justinm1978 (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being one of several people to sign onto the articles of incorporation for a sorority is not notable. This article's sources are only from the sorority, and no solid evidence for notability outside of the sorority is given. Justinm1978 (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Note: I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Delete, far below WP:BIO. Being the cofounder of a sorority by itself is not notable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Hemmings is the only one to have an actual assertion of notability, and not enough of it. None of the three movies in which she played are notable. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. per nom. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Strong Keep both articles The accomplishments of Myra Davis Hemmings are notable. It should be noted that especially dark skinned African American women were routinely denied opportunities for major roles in movies because of racism doing this timeframe. Even Lena Horne acting parts were cut out of movies when they were shown down south because of racism. Also, Myra Davis Hemmings participated in the 1913 March for Women Suffrage. HistoricDST (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founders of large Greek organizations (large may include but is not limited to international groups, members of a large multi-member council, and those that are generally notable enough to merit a wikipedia article with multiple connected sub-pages (such as list of chapters and list of notable members)) are notable solely for founding that organization, as well as any other notable characteristics ("firsts," "mosts," and "bests", for example). See: Ralph C. Smedley who founded Toastmasters; Sir George Williams who founded the YMCA; Hassan al-Banna who founded the Muslim Brotherhood; E. Urner Goodman and Carroll A. Edson who founded the Order of the Arrow (a Scouting society); Frank Reed Horton who founded the Alpha Phi Omega honor fraternity; and A. B. Graham who founded 4-H. If the organization they founded is notable, then they are notable. Simply provide sources and information enough to create at least a fully-formed stub and the article can stay. —ScouterSig 00:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - I would agree that "the" founder, as in the person who was the originator of the organization, could be considered notable. I disagree with a list of 20 people who were the initial members to be notable. In the articles above, there is hardly any notability cited other than the fact that they were one of the first 20 people to be in the org. I don't find that notable, hence the prod. One was defended with a revert that said "DST Founders play a major role in women suffrage, passage of civil rights act, bailing students out of jail, granting scholarships", but couldn't provide any citation. Since there were thousands of individuals doing this, I don't find this notable either. In the example above about Frank Reed Horton, he was the originating person who provided the genesis for Alpha Phi Omega, but there were 12 other students who signed on as the initial membership. We don't consider all of them notable. So in this case, the person who was the genesis behind the org is notable for the founding, but the other people are not. Justinm1978 (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Keep Bad faith nomination on Justin's part. See the notability guideline. Should have made people separately instead of all of the founders, like he did with Alpha Kappa Alpha's founders as well as Delta Sigma Theta's fouders. Also, Justin's reference to an above comment made by HistoricDST should be disregarded since HistoricDST is a newcomer [4]. Thus, BITE also applies on the part of Justin. He is also thinking about nominating the NPHC founders for deletion, see this and this. However, I think this AFD should be disregarded because 1.) Wikipedia is not censored 2.)ignore all rules applies here. You can Google the people and find that they are notable, and not just a beginning star or anything about that. 3.) I am sorry that Delta Sigma Theta doesn't publish their founders biographies online. 4.) Most importantly: If founders of organizations, such as the NPHC are deleted, then founders of other organizations need to be deleted such as Eagle Scout founders, etc. I personally feel that since Justin is POV pushing for Alpha Phi Omega and making points to delete all other fraternities and sororities founders, such as making CU cases to people who disagree with his viewpoints. Making edits to other articles only restricted to Title XI states that this is a social sorority and not a service sorority[5], [6], some without edit summaries: [7], [8], [9], etc, without the consensus of other editors. By the way, he did not raise objection to the notability of the founders on Alpha Kappa Alpha as well as Delta Sigma Theta's talk pages without the consensus of other editors who are working on the article which in my personal opinion is very rude. After this AfD is close, you will be guaranteed that there will be an arbitration case as a result of this, because this is not fair. I am very angry that administrators as well as editors are allowing this POV-pushing to the point of censoring very important founders who have given back to the African-American community to occur. And, yes, I know that this is an Afd, but if you were in my shoes, and worked very hard to make African-American founding members of an organization and another person's MO is to delete ALL OF THE ARTICLES THAT YOU HAVE WORKED ON WITHOUT PRIOR CONSULTATION, let's see what your reaction is. Miranda 08:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the 22 as a unit decided to found the organization, not just one person. In addition, Wikipedia is not battleground. If Justin wants to fight and wikilawyer, please take it somewhere else, because I and others do not have the time for such utter nonsense. Miranda 08:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I nom. for deletion Justin's founders under Justin's rationale, see this and this. Both were speedily kept, even though articles did not have references, unlike these articles for deletion. I also think that Justin's decision to delete these articles are race-related, since founders of the top two African-American sororities in the nation are being deleted. Miranda 08:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they were kept on "no consensus" and possibly "bad faith nomination." —Scouter Sig 17:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well sourced and there is enough of a claim to notability for mine.Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
divide, and resubmit the notability of these two people is not equivalent. Miranda is perfectly right in this--they should not have been submitted together. The individual main founder of an organization may be notable, as in ScouterSig's examples, but that doesn't extend to everyone who participated. A group of everyone who joined the initial chapter is an absurd criterion--normally some would have been expected to be leaders in it, and might be notable on that account, as well as any who have had a notable subsequent career. . That the sorority is notable, and the initial founding a notable event, doesn't make everyone present in it notable. individually: proper weight would be to mention their names in the article and then a specialist Wikia could be a suitable external reference. WP is not a substitute for the inadequacies of the sorority web site. But if we are going to deal with these 2 now, then

keep Myra Hemmings, who had a notable subsequent career.

Weak Delete Winona Cargile Alexander, unless more information can be provided. She may indeed have been notable as a pioneering social worker, but there should be some additional material

I respect the work of the editors who have been writing these articles, and I honor the role of this and similar fraternal groups in developing education in a restrictive environment, but it still does not mean that all of the individual people are individually notable. And as for the evident hostility between two groups of editors--they should keep it out of AfD. We are here to discuss the articles. If there are others that might not be notable,we can look at them if they are nominated. DGG (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hemmings founded an important organization. She has at least one building named after her, http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA020506.06B.black_history_exhibit.2ff935b.html; her papers are archived at a university library, http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/utsa/00073/00073-P.html (which calls her "notable"). If her life is deemed worth studying by a major research university, I should think she's good enough for Wikipedia.Wikidemo (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have followed some of the sources, and reread the article. I am trying to understand if this person was the sole founder (I am thinking no), the leading founder (perhaps?), or one of twenty "co-founders". If it is one of the first two, I am more inclined to think there may be notability, but not if the last one. The problem I am having is a lack of clarity on this issue, which is not cleared up in any of the references I went back and read. Further, there was only one neutral source in the reference section, and it did not seem to have any information to confirm notability. Coming from a science background, I must also say that just because a university, even a large one, is a repository for papers does not establish individual notability. Many minor scientists bequeath their papers to the university that they work at, but would not pass notability here. She seems to have been an exceptional person, but her work does not seem to fit, based on how I am reading it, the qualifications for notability here.LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources - see short bio in Black Texas Women. Addhoc (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above — Save_Us_229 12:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obvious, lots of notability. Lobojo (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Hemmings as meeting WP:BIO. No opinion about Alexander. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely notable Knicksfan4ever (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fits WP:BIO criteria. Acidskater (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Myra Hemmings - There are reliable third-party references in the article, including one to a biographical encyclopedia on African American Texan women. If Wikipedia is to have credibility as an encyclopedia then these are the sorts of biographical articles that need to be kept. --Lquilter (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per consensus, whilst this article strictly speaking falls short of the WP:NOTE guideline it meets the core policy of WP:V and as no guidelines regards student organizations yet exist I'm going with the consensus to Keep for now. RMHED (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Salford Students' Union[edit]

Comment I have a serious problem with this set of guidelines. As an editor from the United Kingdom, it is very obvious that these guidelines have been written with the intention of regulating the entries for Colleges & Universities in the United States of America, and from an American point of view. It troubles me that University & College systems internationally are different to that found in the United States of America, and the guidelines per se are been used by deletionists to remove student organisation articles en masse from the project, especially Students' Unions. In the UK, with exceptionally few exceptions, Students' Unions are seperate legal entities from the institutions they are associated with. It is misrepresentative for the project to concider them non-notable as an excuse to push them into the same articles as their associated institution. The Legal status of UK Student unions are also changing to a registered Charity status in line with the Charities Act 2007. As such, this union is one of the leading elite, having changed it's governance to the registered charity model, and has also entered into the pilot project with the charities commission for the registration of student unions as registered charity. TorstenGuise (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the guideline proposed applies as little to the US as the UK--in both places they are the central unifying umbrella for student groups, and should reasonably be given an article to avoid fragmentation..DGG (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Please re-read my argument, specifically "Another non-notable Students' Union. Article fails WP:N, as it fails to link to external, independant sources...". This is the basis for my nomination, and this is based on non-negotiable policy. My next statment, about the proposed policy, just backs this up, and I see no problem in doing that bearing in mind that I've made it crystal clear that it's just that - a proposed policy. _TheIslander 22:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see the benefit of deleting articles about Student Unions. It is impossible to create a catch all article as each student union is run in a different way and have different policies. This discussion would be far better served by having it on all student unions and not individual discussion. There has already been an AfD discussion for SOAS Students' Union that reached no consensus, and I feel that the current AfDs will reach the same conclusion. Also, whilst I understand that the primary argument is that the article doesn't reference it's sources, the secondary argument that pre-judges the article using a proposed guideline is absurd, especially when the guideline is contentious! Andy Hartley (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did consider creating one AfD for the lot, but wasn't sure, and as per the guidelines for creating AfD's "...if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, do not". You state "...each student union is run in a different way and have different policies". Well, not really. Granted there are slight variations here and there, and there are one or two unions that are just run in a completely different mannor that probably are notable enough for their own article, but on the whole all SUs are pretty much the same. There's pretty much nothing that differentiates one SU from the next, and I've made very sure that I've only nominated those that don't appear to have anything particularly notable about them. There are others that I may nominate, depending on the outcome of these few, but equally there are others that I won't nominate, 'cause I feel that they are notable enough to satisfy WP:N. _TheIslander 23:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh, by the way, my vote is to keep it TorstenGuise (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now As this AFD and others touch of exactly the same issues, see my lengthy comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton University Students' Union about a better way forward of encouraging people to get decent sourcing whilst at the same time getting an actual policy about inherent notability in place, rather than the current mess of individual AFDs on the same basic issue having different outcomes. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Xoloz (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Business Research[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Worldwide Business Research and related. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT.

I am also nominating the following related pages because its another WP:SPAM page of Worldwide Business Research:

Delete. per my nom--Hu12 (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The articles provide no reliable sources from which notability could be judged. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. RMHED (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UWE Students' Union[edit]

Another non-notable Students' Union. Article fails WP:N, as it fails to link to external, independant sources (with the sole exception to point out which BUSA awards have been won, which is not at all unique or notable for this union, as many will win BUSA awards often). Fails WP:N again, per the Wikiproject Universities article guidelines (sub-articles, student life), which states "...per WP:ORG, student unions/organizations/governments should almost never have their own article" (though note that this is not yet a solid policy, but a suggestion for one). _TheIslander 19:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article, and reject the proposed guideline, per arguments on other articles. If the guideline is only proposed, its a little absurd to use it to reject these articles. DGG (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above, it is not good practice to use a proposed guideline as a basis for article deletion, especially as the proposed guideline is contentious. Reject the proposed guideline. Andy Hartley (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ~~It was never at the link you cite in the first place - as per my text above, it's here that you want to be looking.~~ (edit conflict - it seems that you've noticed your error). Also, you state "it is not good practice to use a proposed guideline as a basis for article deletion". For a start, please re-read my argument, specifically "Another non-notable Students' Union. Article fails WP:N, as it fails to link to external, independant sources...". This is the basis for my nomination, and this is based on non-negotiable policy. My next statment, about the proposed policy, just backs this up, and I see no problem in doing that bearing in mind that I've made it crystal clear that it's just that - a proposed policy. _TheIslander 22:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now As this AFD and others touch of exactly the same issues, see my lengthy comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton University Students' Union about a better way forward of encouraging people to get decent sourcing whilst at the same time getting an actual policy about inherent notability in place, rather than the current mess of individual AFDs on the same basic issue having different outcomes. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy keep. Solumeiras ^talk 20:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TomTom[edit]

This article violates WP:CORP and WP:NPOV. It does not cite independent sources. This is pure commercial promotion. Iterator12n ^Talk 19:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Plenty of 3rd party sources available on this one. Content is mostly factual, the company, its products, and a brief mention of a major outage. No strong POV pushing. Some sources: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- while this article may lack adequate references, I recommend withdrawing this AfD:
1. The article states that TomTom trades on the Euronext exchange. Normally companies that trade on a major exchange are considered inherently notable.
2. A Google News searches >1800 press mentions in the last 30 days. Searching the Google News archives turns up 12,000 more press mentions
3. Article histories never establish notability but they I note that this article's been edited over 170 times by several dozen different editors

--A. B. ^(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It now has multiple non-trival reliable sources added to the article. From no sources to fully sourced in about 30 minutes :) spryde | talk 20:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 20:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wael Badawy[edit]

non notable biography TheEgyptian (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though the addition of currently-missing reliable sources that establish notability would cause me to reconsider. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment needs clean-up at the very least, external links to the awards mentioned, e.g. might establish notability.Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a pasted CV. There are no links here. The refs do not mention the person. With effort it might make a weak keep but the article does not show signs of bottom up research otherwise the refs would be correct. Victuallers (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 07:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Sith[edit]

Original research not cited to reliable sources. Content is entirely in-universe plot summary with no assertion of real-world notability. --EEMIV (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and as a direct copy from the corresponding Wookieepedia article. (April 2006 [15]) It belongs there, not here. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons already given. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No Consensus, with no prejudice against some of these articles being immediately relisted individually or merged. It is unlikely that these topics can be given due care and attention in a mass deletion discussion and some of these individuals appear to be notable. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nellie Pratt Russell[edit]

Being one of 20 people to sign onto a article of incorporation for a sorority is not notable. This article's sources are only from the sorority, and no solid evidence for notability outside of the sorority is given. Justinm1978 (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Note: I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Delete not notable Jake the Editor Man _(talk) 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Let's just delete the sorority too? I have worked very hard on these articles, and you are disrupting the encyclopedia in deleting these? Fuck, let's just delete Alpha Phi Alpha's founders too. I am out of here. This is a waste of my fucking time. Miranda 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you guys knock it off? I suggest taking that argument to the talk page -- or maybe just deleting it. Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 20:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved unrelated discussion to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Nellie Pratt Russell. Justinm1978 (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Accusing someone of WP:POINT violations is a violation of WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. If this issue deserves wider attention, the talk page is the right way to go. --Solumeiras ^talk 20:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a bit unfair; that basically says that WP:POINT is worthless, since to invoke it would be a violation of two other central Wikipedia notions. --Golbez (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Process comment -- as a general rule, founding sororities doesn't make people famous, however the obstacles these women faced as black female college students in 1913 make their story unusual. I suspect that some of these women went on to establish themselves notability-wise, while others, such as Minnie B. Smith who died young, didn't. I suggest considering these women individually. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I essentially agree with A. B.; these should be considered separately. Individuals who simply were involved in the founding of this organization would be best collected either at the organization's article, or at a "founders" article... those who have distinct separate notability deserver articles. I'm not overly comfortable with a mass nomination here.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 20:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge I don't think that founders individually are notable themselves for just starting an organization. I do think that if there has to be a page on the founders who are not individually notable, but are notable as a group for starting an organization, they can be merged to a page Founders of XYZ. --ImmortalGoddezz 20:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with A. B. that due to the varying degrees of notability (especially considering the race-specific issues), it's impossible to do a bulk AfD on these articles. I think this AfD should either be restored to its original purpose (Ms Russell only) or closed as malformed. In any event, I think each article should be AfD'd individually. Anchoress (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- comment - I'm not certain what you mean by the "race-specific issue" and the varying degrees of notability. Could you please elaborate on this? My thoughts are it doesn't matter what race and individual belongs to, non-notable is non-notable. As for varying degrees of notability, there are individuals who were part of the founding group that I chose not to AfD because they had some clear notability beyond being a signer on an article of incorporation. These individuals have not done anything of note beyond that (unless I missed something in my original pass-through, which I admit there is a possibility). I suppose they could be AfD'd individually, but that seems rather excessive to do when none of them pass the standards of notability. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably <<1% of black women got college degrees in 1913. A young woman that pulled that off in spite of the many obstacles probably had an unusual degree of brains, fortitude and resourcefulness. I'm guessing that several of this group of women with these traits later went on to use those traits in ways that did make them "notable" in the Wikipedia sense. Even the ones that didn't become notable were probably fascinating women. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What A. B. said. Anchoress (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into Founders of Alpha Kappa Delta, no need for an individual article on all of them and this way all information is retained. RMHED (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is a good way to go. Also, even though I raised the issue of separate AfDs, as a lazy person I do loathe the thought of all that work. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it's Alpha Kappa Alpha. Someone needs glasses. Miranda 01:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, and nix any page on the founders while we're at it. They deserve brief name-checks in the article on the sorority, nothing more. We appreciate hard work, but WP:EFFORT is not a reason to keep an article. I also see no compelling reason to separate these substantially similar biographies for individual consideration. If there are one or two with individual notability claims beyond this (and I don't see it in the first five) they may be singled out for retention in this AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 21:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge into articles on sororities as appropriate, delete articles on these individuals. I do not see the "extensive coverage" from reliable secondary sources as reuired by WP:N. I note that Harriet Josephine Terry, Sarah Meriweather Nutter, Joanna Mary Berry Shields, Lavinia Norman, Anna Easter Brown, Marie Woolfolk Taylor, Lillie Burke, Beulah Burke and Margaret Flagg Holmes are all referenced solely from AKA publications, and many of the others may be as well (it's a bit harder to tell in some cases). One single book seems to provide the only source meeting WP:RS for any of these articles, I think the notability of all these people is confined to their founding of AKA, and thus I think ought to be merged into that article. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Strongest - Being a founding member of one of the nations most prominent sororities is very notable and that's even before you consider the fact that what these women did was found the first sorority for African American women in a time when being a female college student let alone a Black female college student was rare, even laughable. But let's move on to sources. There are two secondary sources provided out of four total sources. That is a sufficient number of secondary sources. Especially when the books are notable books on the subject. Extensive coverage has to be considered relative to the available coverage for the subject. At the very least an effort should be made to determine which of the founders are the most notable and maintain articles on them. CJ (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per A. B. and CJ -- This isn't just any random greek letter club, it's an old and unique African American institution from a time when there were few, it's not like including the work of these women is going to open the door to a billion pointless articles. This is a significant topic and frankly it is remarkable, article-worthy and historical. futurebird (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: I am sorry, did I miss the part where the sorority itself was up for AfD? No one gets a pass on WP:BIO by association. What elements of WP:BIO does anyone suggest these individuals fulfill, and through what reliable sources, exactly? Fails WP:BIO, WP:V. CJ's suggestion that an effort be made to determine if any of these founders are independently notable is a good one. This AfD has five days to run; go for it. Ravenswing 00:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Going to college, helping found a sorority, getting married, having kids, having hobbies and teaching do not appear to satisfy WP:BIO . Each person should have substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. No such demonstrations of notability are provided. They sound like fine women, but that is just not enough to justify an article.Edison (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved personal attack to Talk page. Please keep this page free of disruptions, and take your issues to there. Justinm1978 (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keepper A.B., CJ and Futurebird - This isn't just any sorority, but the FIRST African American women's sorority, whose members were one generation removed from slavery. That makes the founders and the organization noteworthy, especially as CJ noted, how few African American women went to college then. The US always recognizes its firsts! The top 1% of women is certainly notable. The context is essential, especially since you have no problems in keeping the founders and first fraternity for African American men. In other countries they consider teachers part of the intellectuals; we always denigrate them. If it makes most sense to have a founders page, with separate pages for those women who were more notable, fine, but the article about the sorority and a founders page should definitely be included. In 1980 the sorority established the Education Advancement Foundation, from which it provides scholarships and other assistance for learning. African American teachers, women or men, were critical to the education of African Americans in the South, who were in segregated schools, and to education in many northern schools, too. They were much more significant in their time than you seem to recognize. There may not be a lot of secondary sources yet, but someone will be studying the lives and work of these women, just as scholars have begun to recognize the worth of the first early 19th century girls' schools and teachers in the North. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkwells (talk • contribs) 01:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist them separately. Some of t hem do have what would be regarded as notable careers. Parkwells is at least partially correct, that the accomplishments must be judged in the context of their time. some of the careers in high school teaching were in institutions that became notable colleges--and might perhaps have been in fact colleges in a less prejudiced era. But the articles as presented do not attempt to develop this adequately, but concentrate on the within-sorority accomplishments. We do a disservice in considering this a a mass nomination. Consider the implications of the careers of Ethel_Hedgeman_Lyle and Margaret_Flagg_Holmes and Beulah_Burke and Anna_Easter_Brown and Marjorie Hil and Sarah_Meriweather_Nutter . Those women have arguably been in fact notable educators by the standards of their times--all the more notable for the limitations of their society. DGG (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Relist them separately, but keep them We can work on the articles to provide more context for their lives. I started from the bottom, and both Lyle and Holmes had noteworthy lives, in which they were "firsts", taught and had active public lives, sometimes with leadership roles in major cities, in which their responsibilities were necessarily larger. --Parkwells (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 07:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinspiration[edit]

Not worth a standalone article, original research and neologism. Redirect to pro-ana perhaps. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The concept is notable, the term is not. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NEO. JJL (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete with no bias toward recreation should reliable third party sources be found to verify notability. The debate on this page, however, does point to the need to better clarify what we mean be reliable sources and notability when dealing with editor who are not regulars on wikipedia - the process can be confusing at times. Pastordavid (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwlad[edit]

Contested PROD. Original PROD reasoning was "This article's claim of notability was unable to be verified after attempting to locate reliable secondary sources. Please cite sources or this article will be deleted." Article was then prodded again "as a non-notable internet forum of limited scope". There also seem to be conflict of interest issues at work here. – Pee Jay 18:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete While there were a few references to the forum listed in the article, it doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB. Also the article seems like more of a place to explain to social history of sorts. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, perhaps you could explain what notability is then. Or, is it more likely that, given you are Americans, you cannot see notability unless it had oil attached to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.179.13 (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please refrain from the personal attacks and remain civil. If you are looking for standard of website notability, I'd suggest you read over WP:WEB. Also, please keep in mind, this is NOT an American encyclopedia, but a world-wide one. We have editors from around the world who create, edit, and yes sometimes delete articles. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I'm Welsh, so this nomination has nothing to do with nationality. – Pee Jay 19:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PeeJay, you're part of what's wrong with Wikipedia. Agenda-ised people assuming power to which they're not entitled. This article was in development and of no harm to you or the community. Yet you chose to attack it before it became fully-fledged and a benefit for the rest of the world. You have to ask yourself why that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.134.221 (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would only be a 'personal attack' if you had been called 'an american'; the term used was 'americans' and is thus not personal. Can I have the pedant's shield now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.232.180 (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can stop being a smart-ass and go away. – Pee Jay 20:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Pot, Kettle there PeeJay?[reply]

It's a bit odd suggesting that notability cannot be verified. Look at the links, citations, references in media and perhaps also consider the alternative sites offering similar coverage. If you are suggesting that rugby is not notable in Wales and that within that Gwladrugby.com is not notable as the premier Welsh rugby community then I suggest that you are not entirely objective and some moderation might be required. Constructive criticism as to structure of the content is welcome I'm sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.103.146 (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability. --Dawn bard (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sources cited don't establish notability. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 20:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 20:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 20:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the deletion comments that were removed by an anon IP, and have warned the IP. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not familiar with the way you deal with commenting on pages like this one so HTH... While I can understand that to those of you not familiar with Gwlad, its notability is hard to establish, I'd also point out that by the site's very nature it is likely that, while meeting the spirit of them, its notability will be impossible to establish according to your normal guidelines. Newspapers are not in the habit, for example, of crediting sources when to do so would make it apparent that the resulting articles are simply rehashes of someone elses content. Sites (such as the BBC's website) are likely to actively avoid mention of or credit to a site such as Gwlad when they own and run another competing (but far less well-regarded) site themselves. It is probably also beneficial to Gwlad that it can, to some degree, "fly beneath the radar", as that way it is less likely to be overrun with trolls following controversial events concerning Welsh Rugby. However, to those "in the know", there is no question that the site is indeed notable -- to have the chairman of the Welsh Rugby Union sign up to the site and agree to answer fans' questions on a particularly controversial subject, for example, as has happened (the equivalent of having the CEO of the NFL come on to a US fan site, I guess), or to be frequented by various semi-anonymous ex-international players, is surely a sign of that. I think that must make it a candidate for the application of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules as far as the notability *guidelines* go. As a user of the site, however, I think I might prefer that you ignore it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.160.11 (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:WEB due to lack of in-depth coverage by secondary sources. There are millions of message boards on millions of topics, many of them quite popular, but we don't include topics on the basis of popularity. Things are notable if they are covered by reliable, independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 21:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and assume good faith? Why don't you give people a chance to find the sauces they need?

We are assuming good faith actually, however their needs to be verifiable sources to show the site's notability. Everything so far has been hearsay, however as Dhartung said, there is a lack of in-depth coverage by secondary sources, which is what is needed to show the site meets WP:WEB. As for ignoring all rules, granted that is true, however there are a few rules, such as the basics that an article needs to have in order to be listed on Wikipedia. Basically, you can't ignore not having sources, notability, etc. smiply because the article will be deleted. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Seems inconsistent. You have pages on some of the most obscure bands, offshoot bands and artists one could care (or not) to ever hear on Wikipedia. Other than connections, spectacularly un-notable. Gwlad isn't notable for popularity, it's that it's at the forefront of a national sport in terms of breaking news, opinion and knowledge. I think you should perhaps question the motivation of the original deletion proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.103.146 (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect a connection between the dissentors in this matter. The original opponent clearly appears to be a gog toe-baller, With an agenda. I'd cite conflict of interests in this suggestion for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.134.221 (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously didn't read my userpage properly. I'm an avid fan of the Scarlets, and I've been to numerous Wales international rugby matches, so my interests in this matter are purely policy-based. The notability of this forum has not been established by independent sources, and so it does not meet the notability criteria. End of. – Pee Jay 02:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which hardly demonstrates or proves an agnostic motivation to proposing this deletion. You're an avid fan of the Scarlets ans Wales, you say, and clearly a big Web user. Gwlad is the place where those two things, in a wider context, come together. You are unlikely to be ignorant of Gwlad's existence given your interests. If you were independent or a supporter of the site you would be unlikely to put it forward for deletion unless you are some sort of narrow-minded Wiki evangelist. That would be bit sad for someone just out of short-pants, but it's either that or a prejudice against Gwlad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.103.146 (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're wrong. I'd never heard of Gwlad before yesterday. – Pee Jay 11:15, 8

Then perhaps you should familiarise yourself with it before you propose deletion. You might find that it's of interest, given your apparent passion for the content.

December 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point though. Just because I think something is good doesn't mean it deserves to have an article on Wikipedia. You seem to have misunderstood the grounding principles behind Wikipedia, so I believe this conversation is over. – Pee Jay 13:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've missed the point. Irrespective of the rules, I don't believe you would have proposed this for deletion if you were genuinely interested in Welsh rugby. Even if you had never seen the site before, you would have taken a look and perhaps even suggested how the entry could have been made "acceptable". If you were uninterested in Welsh rugby I could understand your interest and your proposal for deletion. But as someone who is apparently "interested" it doesn't really stack up. Either you have a problem with Gwlad as an entity or you have a disturbing obsession with applying Wikipedia "principles". There are thousands of entries out there which are candidates for deletion. Seeing as this one is relating to an area of interest to you, why don't you do something more constructive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.103.146 (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're criticising both my interest in Welsh rugby and my commitment to making Wikipedia the best it can possibly be? Face it, your forum is not as notable as you would like to think. I mean, it's not like we're petitioning to get the entire forum deleted from the internet, it's just that it's not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about it. – Pee Jay 15:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm questioning your interes. If you're an "Avid Scarlets Fan", then why aren't you at Stradey Park this evening for what is a massive match for the Scarlets?

No, I'm questioning your motives for recommending this for deletion. And yes, I would also question your commitment to making Wikipedia "the best it can possibly be". If Wikipedia is the "best it can be" simply through the blind application of some fairly rudimentary principles then it will just become another edited resource on the internet. The main problem with Wikipedia these days is a self-appointing community effectively acting as a censor. One of the great things about Web 2.0 and the reason Wikipedia grew so spectacularly is that content should only be moderated at the margins with users defining what becomes popular and rises to the top. Rubbish tends to disappear without trace. I've got no problem with trying to standardise structure and format. If things were recommended for deletion because they were never accessed, that would make a lot of sense.

Ultimately I don't really care if Gwlad has Wikipedia page or not. It's the sort of thing I'd like to find on Wikipedia. But then again in Wikipedia becomes too policed, something else will replace it. It's the content that matters.

(You could work on your personal style, too, but I'm sure that will come with experience.)

Oh, and the Scarlets are 10-9 up, seeing as you haven't made the game.

Does Wikipedia have a "mission statement" or equivalent?

"things are notable if they are covered by reliable, independent sources. --Dhartung" ??? WTF? Okay so this is your game and these are your rules, but FFS mun, get a grip. The relevance of Gwl@d as a social community transcends the strict limitations which are applied if you think Facebook is all there is to social networking. Lurk on Gwl@d for a while and see what actually goes on. Newboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.253.253 (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Turgid, self-referential mess of an article not remotely written in an encyclopedic style. RGTraynor 00:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posted by Cupking13: Hi (sorry to butt in her, but I just wanted to add that I'm currently trying to address this particular point. Whether my writing style is still turgid, I'm not best placed to answer).

Despite the article's assertions of notability, its Alexa rank is just short of two million, which is outrageously scanty. Many of the references are to websites and not to reliable sources, and of the two that do, one does not in fact mention this website, and the other cites it as the source of a petition drive. The anon IP defenders would have better success finding genuine procedural grounds upon which to keep this article, instead of attacking the nom. Fails WP:WEB, WP:V. RGTraynor 00:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I have done a quick search of archived newspapers, and have found only three articles with "Gwlad" and "website" mentioned in the title or lead paragraph. One mentions a tongue in cheek proposal on Gwlad to exhume Carwyn James, one says "As expat Welsh rugby fans in London and beyond all know Gwlad is an indispensable source of news and views on the state of what apparently is still our national game" (The Western Mail, 2001-11-17, James Pritchard's), one talking about a poll conducted on Gwald (only about three sentences long). Judge for yourself, but even that Western Mail article probably stretches the limit of meeting the notability guideline. - Shudde ^talk 03:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: "Gwlad Rugby" on Google UK, minus its own website, returns 128 hits. [16]. RGTraynor 07:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC) And "gwladrugby" on Google UK, minus its own website, returns 916 hits, what's your point?[reply]

*Comment: The website is more commonly referred to as simply 'Gwlad', and rarely the full title of 'Gwlad rugby'. It is a popular rugby website and forum, I find it hard to believe this is genuinely being disputed. I think the content of the article should be edited to suit the Wikipedia style, not deleted.

[17]

Delete per reasons given above Q ^{T C} 13:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per CSD A7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexfusco5 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry, it's definitely spam, albeit Welsh spam. How about creating an article for Welsh wikipedia on this subject - it would be acceptable there because of its national relevance. Deb (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it would still be 'spam' but 'OK spam' there ? Strange place indeed Wikipedia. Thanks for indicating that such an entry *does* have relevance/acceptability somewhere on part of Wikipedia though. I wonder if it also becomes notable there (or slightly notable). It either is or isn't.

Can you define "spam" in this context please?

Self-advertisement is spam. – Pee Jay 14:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking the poster. Thanks anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.103.146 (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To explain my suggestion, the title of the website is in the Welsh language - this in itself is unusual. Presumably contributions in the Welsh language would also be encouraged. Anything that fosters the use of the Welsh language is potentially relevant to the Welsh-language wikipedia. Deb (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree it would be relevant to the Welsh-language wikipedia. Although predominantly English language content Welsh posting is welcome. It is rather broader than Welsh language, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark m owen (talk • contribs) 08:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PeeJay, please make your mind up what it is you believe is wrong (yeah ! that too! and that!) - I believe you have taken the response(s) to your original nomination for delete quite personally - not what one would expect from an editor as distinguished and as disinterested (neutral) as yourself.

Keep very notable Welsh rugby forum / website, known to almost every rugby supporter in Wales and well known in the international rugby community. Obviously needs significant rewriting though. Rls (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwlad has decided to remove itself from Wikipedia as Wikipedia is shit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.21.236 (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting debate, though some Wiki regulars might like to reference this internal link, and comment upon it's sustainability, given it's wholly self-referential and self-promoting nature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ForumPlanet Please note the lack of outside "notability".

Comment: I agree that the ForumPlanet article is poorly sourced, and shows little evidence of notability; perhaps it should be deleted. However, that's irrelevant to the discussion of this article, which is what we're discussing here. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Terraxos (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be written in a sterile nature compared to what was originally composed for the Gwlad entry, but in the light of the link provided above, an entry here is justified. There may be few external references on the current Gwlad entry, but as was stated before, few journalists (who get paid for their copy) are likely to credit an anonymous website as their source. Notability is barely possible under these circumstances, yet there are references.Bluebook944 (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an SPA. No other edits. - Shudde ^talk —Preceding comment was added at 00:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note the creation of the article Gwladgold by User:Gwladnewboy. It has now been redirected to Gwlad twice... Stephenb (Talk) 09:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was ready to support deletion here, but after looking through the sources that have been provided, I think this website does (just about) pass the notability requirements of WP:WEB and WP:RS. Coverage of the site in secondary sources is sketchy and marginal, but it does seem to be significant, as shown by the story about it organising a 6,000 signature petition to the Welsh Rugby Union in 2002. It's clearly the biggest and most influential site when it comes to rugby in Wales, and ultimately those factors lead me to (marginally) support keeping this article. Terraxos (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not meet any of the three crieria for as per WP:WEB. (1) None of the references qualify as "non-trivial published works." (2) The site hasn't won any well-known awards. (3) The content does not appear to be published independently of the creators. VandalCruncher (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep just notable enough, sourcing really needed though. RMHED (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable web forum.Ticklemygrits (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Katy French. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katie French[edit]

It is a biographaphical article seemingly only created because the person has recently deceased. There is very little other information online about her, save for the recent news stories concerning the tragedy. Brochco (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now, there are some strong assertions of notability there, such as appearing on national TV a number of times. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Katy French and redirect The article at the alternate spelling Katy French has already survived an AfD via speedy keep. I've removed unsourced text regarding cause of death from the Katie article per WP:BLP, and any remaining content of value should be merged. Maralia (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite famous here in Ireland. We should defintely keep this article. Her death was the headlin of every newpaper this morning. --Sebb-fr (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 02:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Formula One season[edit]

This page should be deleted because it is breaking WP:CRYSTAL. There are no rule changes or announced schedule changes, so therefore there is nothing to report. There are 4 seasons between now and 2012, so it is too far in the future to be notable. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of unsourced crystalballing. Too far in the future to be of any use. Kill it. --Pc13 (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i take your point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter-27 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing yet confirmed or notable about this year. The359 (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. We don't know anything about the season at all. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure speculation. Original research and speculation. [[Guest9999 (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Delete - Two or three seasons ahead is usually acceptable because rule changes etc. are announced this far in advance. 5 years ahead, with nothing confirmed is way too far. AlexJ (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Snow It - Per above. Dav nel 03 19:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. jj137 ♠ Talk 04:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cockeysville Middle School[edit]

middle school stub with no refs, and no assertion of notability. The most frequent edits to the page are vandalism, but nothing constructive. Arthurrh (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when your name is Cockeysville, you're going to have to expect some razzing. Mandsford (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability, and as a middle-school it would need that to stay. Greswik (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My cousin went to the school, does that make it notable? All seriousness aside, it's just another school, no notability claimed or asserted. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable Middle School. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claverton energy group[edit]

A group focusing on sharing information on energy related subjects, and climate change. The group seems non notable. There are no external links. 12 google results, most to wikispaces. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this point i cannot find any second party sources, reliable or otherwise on this group. --Neon white (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - non-notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine - banged to rights! Happy if you delete it.....thanks 19:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Engineman (talk • contribs)

The result was keep withdrawn after radical rewrite of the article. `'Míkka >t 23:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In-joke[edit]

the article was tagged as "unencyclopedic" since November. No encyclopedic references. Original research. `'Míkka >t 16:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki the intro to wiktionary, or delete and leave ((wi)) as a softredirect (would still require a new wiktionary article to be started). I find it hard to imagine how this article could be anything else but a dictdef, and/or a magnet for trivia and original research. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have have concerns that the original user who tagged the article as "Unencyclopedic" referred to a list of examples of In-jokes as opposed to the encyclopedia concept and definition of In-joke. WP:Cite has concerns, but I don't think WP:No Original Research has an issues as In-Jokes are a well-established, and well known social activity. Zidel333 (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is well a established phenomenon and not a neologism. I don't think the article title is correct though. It should eaither be insider joke or in joke but the hyphen is incorrectly used. --Neon white (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. There's a reason this article is called "in-joke" rather than "inside joke"... if you know what I mean. Wink wink. Mandsford (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article is well sourced and contains more than just a dictionary definition. Fulfils all the criteria. Laïka 22:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Laika.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 01:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big john drinks[edit]

Non notable, unsourced neologism for a few drinks somebody made up one day. Prod removed by original author. --Onorem♠Dil 16:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N at minimum. 'The idea was first promoted by Johnathon Seymour from Burnham...' or anyone who's been to college in the past five years, etc. Psinu^{always forgets}_{to sign} 16:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom; don't need an AfD for this one, IMHO. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. British-authored hoax. In America, we would not trust, as sanitary or good-tasting, a drink from a "big john" Mandsford (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Greswik (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Made up/hoax. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, until such time as there are sources to assert notability. Pastordavid (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StarMUD[edit]

Non-notable online game; no third-party sources to establish notability. De-prodded with promise of more content, but none came. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems to be WP:OR. There are no independent reliable sources to suggest otherwise. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable within the genre, one of the big ol' classics. Paper sources from the early '90s have covered this. User:Krator (t c) 10:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if references to those sources were be added to the article I would withdraw the nomination. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would love to have an article on this, one of my favouriate MUDs (from back when I used to play them) but we've been waiting for independent references for some time now. Delete and rewrite from scratch using WP:V when reliable coverage materializes. Marasmusine (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - people say this is notable but I haven't seen anyone provide the evidence. the burden of proof is on the person to establish notability. Cackalackakilla (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per consensus. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Gaelic punk[edit]

Was nominated in 2/2/2006, when titled Gaelic punk, with the result of No Consensus. This hasn't gained any reliable, independent direct sources since that date. There are mentions of punk music in the Gaelic language when The Scotsman talks about Mill a h-Uile Rud (who are described as "a Seattle-based band who sing in Scots Gaelic") or Oi Polloi (who are described as "an anarcho-punk band from Scotland"), but no sustained information on a credible music style which goes by the name of Gaelic Punk, and especially Scottish Gaelic Punk. This reads like an unsourced piece of Original research. This article doesn't meet the basic criteria of WP:N, nor of WP:Music. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 16:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete whilst the specific term is found here in the scotsman [18]. I don't believe it is describing a genre, the word gaelic is used an adjective. Genres are usually only considered notable after significant reliable second party sources. --Neon white (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - "Gaelic Punk" was a silly title, as Manx and Irish are "Gaelic". It is not really a genre as such as referring to punk sung within the Scottish Gaelic language. The genre has been frequently noted by Scottish media, i.e. BBC radio, the TV (in English and Gàidhlig), national newspapers such as the Scotsman etc. Whole documentaries have been made on this subject. --MacRusgail (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC) p.s. It may make more sense to entitle the page, "Punk in Scottish Gaelic", but that's by the by.[reply]

This is the perfect time to provide evidence of these sources. --Neon white (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, there are no less than five external links at the bottom of the page itself which are not from bands' websites. Not exactly hard to find. --MacRusgail (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not second party reliable sources that describe this as a genre, probably the reason they weren't used as citations. --Neon white (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is The Scotsman "unreliable"? Do you realise it's arguably the most significant newspaper in this country? The likely reason that they weren't used as "citations", is because it is actually difficult for people who don't spend 20 hours a day on wikipedia trying to learn to work the thing... And by the way, the "genre" debate is a red herring. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in future, please list such AfDs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland, where informed opinion can be found. --MacRusgail (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The problems with sourcing can be addressed without too much work, and the topic itself is notable. The genre is known in not only the Gaelic-speaking areas and the Celtic nations, but also abroad. (OR here, but I've certainly heard it discussed on both Gaelic and Punk radio broadcasts, and among both Gaelic speakers and punk rock fans in Scotland and the US.) I probably won't have time to do it today or tomorrow, but there is content on the pages in the external links that can be used for inline citations. The Scotsman is certainly a WP:V and WP:RS reliable source, and I'm pretty sure I can dig up additional hardcopy sources as well, given a bit of time to go through my books and other publications. As with all articles on popular culture topics (or not-as-well-known subculture topics ;-)) there is always the risk of nn bands adding themselves or being added by fans, but as long as we keep an eye on that I think this can be turned into a perfectly respectable article. It's already in much better shape than articles that merit being considered for AfD. (edit-conflict edited to add: Perhaps one of the problems English-speakers are having is that some of the sources are in Gaelic and they can't see how they source the article. While this is en-wiki, and we should use English sources as much as possible, when the topic itself deals with bands performing in the Gaelic language, it's only expected that some of those sources will be in Gaelic. If we are to allow topics on WP that deal with other languages than English - which we do - these sources are relevant.) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:N per The Scotsman article. Epbr123 (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as perfectly well sourced (see the external links) and notable genre. Does not even include Ashley MacIsaac. Just needs cleanup. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article in The Scotsman does not describe a genre. Calling a band gaelic punk does not make it a genre, let alone a notable one. --Neon white (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, whether or not it is a genre is irrelevant... it is more a kind of a movement. --MacRusgail (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movement or genre, it still requires reliable second party sources that says it exists. --Neon white (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, like the BBC or The Scotsman? --MacRusgail (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some time ago I put up Who Gon Stop Us as a speedy delete, which was turned down on the grounds that it had "potential notability". By comparison this is Brittanica quality. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 21:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "potential notability" as WP:N says articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future. --Neon white (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With a number of different bands using Gaelic as medium whilst playing music recognised as punk, then this clearly is a genre. Not only that, but it is a genre recognised outwith Scotland that has been discussed in national newspapers, fanzines, websites and radio - both BBC Scotland (Vic Galloway's program) and BBC Radio nan Gaidhleal have played music identified as Gaelic punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seonaidh (talk • contribs) 10:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm not entirely sure whether I'm entitled to take part in this debate, as I'm a registered user of the Gaelic Wikepedia but not the English Wikepedia. I'm also 47, which means I'm old enough to remember the arrival of "punk" first time round. The Gaelic Songs of Oi Polloi have their place in Gaelic music, because what has from time immemorial defined Gaelic music is the use of the language. In traditional Gaelic music rythms are defined by the liguistic rythms of the lyricsl- this is as true in piobaireachd as it is in song per-se or in Peurt a Beul, and is reflected in much of Run-Rig's Gaelic work. This depedency does not (to my ear anyway) carry through into the punk genre, which nonetheless reflects a new form of creativity within Gaelic culture. It certainly isn't everyone's glass of malt but from the Gaelic speaker's perspective it is definitely a genre of Gaelic Music. It is also quite clearly punk- by volume, rythym and well...lyrics. PEÓD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.18.69 (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable, referenced with reliable sources, add in all the valid keep arguments above - end of story. --Cactus.man ✍ 00:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete unencyclopedic. 1 != 2 22:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jandek concerts[edit]

WP:NOT#IINFO. Just because this musician has given few concerts and has shyed away from the public view doesn't make this list worthy of inclusion. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 15:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jandek. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe merge, but I'm not even sure it would be helpful. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. A source has been provided to verify a pretty notable claim. Pastordavid (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Parker[edit]

Notablity not asserted as per WP:N, inadequate third party references. Amnewsboy (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both above. Getting beaten in a statewide election and then being a party delegate a couple of times makes one a "notable politician" in the same sense that getting cut from your high school hockey team and then attending a couple of games makes you a "notable hockey player". Psinu^{always forgets}_{to sign} 16:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I've put in refs she now meets Wikipedias notability criteria for politicians which states; "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". Parker has held and currently holds a statewide office. RMHED (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please note. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability according to WP:BIO. Nevertheles she has second party reliable sources such as this [19]--Neon white (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should, or should not, all members of all this Public Service Commission get an entry? It seems to me they are doing jobs some mid-level bureaucrats have in other countries, so I lean to delete, but this is really foreign to me. Greswik (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being they were elected, rather than appointed. RMHED (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get that. But to be notable as a politician you need to have some important office - as Neon white also was on to. If we agree this is just some mid-level bureaucrat's job I certainly think delete. Greswik (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. This bureaucratic post qualifies for "statewide office" the same way that being the local dog catcher qualifies you for being a "town official." RGTraynor 01:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think the state public service commission is a sufficiently important office to meet the spirit of the guideline, in the absence of other notability.DGG (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As i demonstrated she has significant second party coverage to achieve notability regardless of her position. --Neon white (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not 100% convinced that a single appearance/interview on a public affairs program constitutes adequate 2nd party coverage. Is there more out there on this gal? Amnewsboy (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: A single reliable source would not, in fact, satisfy WP:V. Furthermore, such sources must be about the subject. Do we have any actual biographical sources? RGTraynor 11:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if she's notable, I'd say it's not for her current public office (which is not notable) but because she was the first woman to be nominated for a Senate seat in Alabama, which would make her of note historically. Is this true? Yikes. -- phoebe/(talk) 00:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Susan Parker has held two major statewide offices, Alabama State Auditor and Alabama Public Service Commission member, was the first woman to run for U.S. Senate in Alabama, and is mentioned as a possible candidate for Alabama Governor in 2010. --TommyBoy (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Azevedo[edit]

Non-notable junior hockey player who has yet to pay professionally and thus fails to meet WP:N. Has not had any notable achievements that might be able to squeek him in through another door. Can be readded when/if he ever plays professionally. Player has not even been drafted even though he is past the drafting age. Djsasso (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He actully has been drafted, didnt say on his profile on the website but i remeber watching a game ealier this year saying his was drafted by some 1 i cant remeber,,but if u think he should be dleated by all means do it makes me laugh Mr.Deathhawk (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Delete "Can be readded when/if he ever plays professionally....." IF? I respect your hard work and devotion to make wikipedia a better place but IF,have you seen his stats this season? Hes on the Canadian Junior team, he is only slightly behind Tavares in OHL standings. He will play in the NHL and even if he aint already drafted,theres been numerous good players who have been drafted late of drafed in a farher round like 5th or 4th and still been an outstanidng player or Hall of Famer. I am a Rangers fan and i might show favourtism to my teams (Dallas Cowboys,Toronto Raptors,Kitchenr Rangers,Dallas Stars, Blue Jays,Toronto FC) but i sill know he will get drafted. I bet you show favourtism to your favourite teams. Im sorry is ive angered you or wasted your time but i know that azevedo will get drafted.But i do agree for now the article should be deleted,but after this season i guareteed he will be notable. KitchenrRangersFan (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment There have been players who have led the OHL in scoring that haven't ever made it pro. Regardless of that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And no I do not show favouritism to my favourite teams on this site. This site is a encyclopedia and not a fan site. There are strict notability guidelines on whether a person is notable enough to be on the site. One of them is that they need to have played professionally. He hasn't done so yet. When he does he is more than welcome to have an article. I have nothing against this player, we delete atleast one of these types of articles every week. --Djsasso (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. Undrafted junior player, fails per guidelines of WP:HOCKEY and WP:BIO. And yes, he's racked up a good many points this season, but there are a ton of junior league scoring stars who never, ever make it to the NHL. A lot of them because they're, well, 5'8". RGTraynor 19:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. Fails WP:N per guidelines of WP:HOCKEY and WP:BIO. --Pparazorback (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 22:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 01:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Goodridge[edit]

High probability of a hoax. The only references on Google are to the Wikipedia article. User who created the article has not responded to requests for evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Maynard Friedman (talk • contribs) 2007/12/07 14:12:58

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, nothing on google with both "Craig Goodridge" and "dog". Even if it were true, I doubt that a "dog-handling champion" would be notable anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May not be a hoax, and dog-handling champion could very well be notable. But, this happened over ten years ago when Goodridge was aged 7 - 10, so a passing childhood fancy. Lack of references in article and I've also looked elsewhere with no success. Emeraude (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minimally it fails WP:Notability. (Apologies for failing to do step III). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roi Sorezki[edit]

Non-encyclopedic format; no sources referenced AL2TB Gab or Tab 04:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN founder of two websites we don't have articles on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violation of original research, reliable sourcing (which can help verify any claims, of which there are many in this article) and as stated non-notable. — Rudget _speak.work 16:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. According to our good friends Alexa precisely 11 websites link to the movie trading site that Mr. Sorezki is "known throughout the world wide web for"... so I'd take that as a no. -- phoebe/(talk) 00:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serb propaganda[edit]

The result was no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the article fails to meet:

WP:OR as the sources verify only verify the examples of alleged Serb propaganda which the article mentions, not that these are commonly known as "Serb propaganda". In so doing it takes pieces of facts from the sources and uses them to draw conclusions which the sources do not support.
WP:SOURCE in that the source which actually discusses Serb propaganda is an article in Serbocroat on a Bosnian web site called "www.islam.co.ba". This can hardly be a good source.
Keeping it will open up for any number of politically motivated articles (Bosniak propaganda, Croat propaganda, Hungarian propaganda, Albanian propaganda, Romanian propaganda, Greek Propaganda, Turkish Propaganda, etc.) based on a collection of incidents and then used to beat political opponents over the head with. It will contribute further to Wikipedia being used as a POV nationalistic battleground.

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This article is not in good shape at the time of this entry. However, it seems to me that a good article still could be written from this. It only was created 3 days ago, and it has been throughly tagged for sourcing, POV, and improvement. I'm also not ruling out that the original premise may itself have NPOV problems. Still ~~there~~, there was very substantial international particiapation in and observation of this conflict, and I'm reluctant to kill it off before seeing what the community can do with it. Xymmax (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [20] is an example of the term being used in the media and provides a good background source. There has been enough written about this to create a decent article. --Neon white (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see that for such a serious and complex topic it lacks peer reviewed and hopefully unbiased academic source, it is just a collection of newspaper articles and testimonies. It is practically impossible to turn such a haphazard mixture of factoids into coherent and complete overview article.

If the text is kept please rename it. Otherwise it will be the starting point for flow of "XYZ propaganda" articles. E.g. "Media propaganda by Serbia during Bosnian war" or something even more specific. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Give it some time, and we'll see. It seems like this could become a fine article as long as it is watched for POV violations. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coatrack and extraordinarily POV (such as claiming that all Serb fears of persecution by newly-independent states were result of nefarious propaganda from Belgrade, when there is overwhelming - videotaped - evidence that the Croats planned a purge, evidence validated at the Milosevic trial). Note also that "Dragon of Bosnia" has removed the AfD tag from the article and is in general on a POV-pushing rampage through our project. <eleland/talkedits> 00:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:COATRACK, WP:OR and WP:POV violations. The article uses primary sources (icty documents) to provide examples of instances which are then used as claims for Serb propaganda. For the article to stick it would require a serious peer reviewed source speciifically about Serb propaganda, rather the odd examples collected by the author here. Note also that User:The Dragon of Bosnia has recently removed the Afd tag on the article.Osli73 (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Please remain civil regarding your accusation. I am just improving the article with the International court (ICTY) findings from five different verdicts, and other relaible sources per WP:RS. The tag is not needed anymore. The article is improved and sourced according to Wikipedia guidelines. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The problem is, you have used the concept of Serb propaganda as a launching-point for an extended diatribe about the fundamental nature of the Bosnian war. That is a classic WP:COATRACK. A serious article will need not just primary sources like ICTY verdicts, but scholarly books and articles from scholarly journals which are specifically discussing Serbian and allied Serb propaganda. You will also have to make a case for why Serb propaganda distinctly needs its own article and should not be covered by, say, Propaganda in the Bosnian War. See WP:POVFORK as well. <eleland/talkedits> 01:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You should first read the sources. I read them all. According to the ICTY verdicts, Serb propaganda was a part of the Strategic Plan by Serb leadership for creating Serb state in Bosnia. I was very carefull when using the terms. I just included the findings by the courts and the law terms adjusted to common language which should be appriciated by Wikipedia. Wikipedia contains much more unrelaible articles. Btw Wikipedia is not place for wars, this is place for valuable information. You don't have to go around behind my back and ask for this and that, yes you can request anything accroding to Wikipedia guadlines, but we are here to make good articles not to fight. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first ICTY source talks about the SDS (Serb Democratic Party, of Serbian Krajina in Croatia) propaganda campaign, not about something called "Serb propaganda". The second talks about Radio Prijedor propaganda, not "Serb propaganda". The third ICTY source does use the term "Serb propaganda" twice. And the fourth doesn't even contain the word "propaganda".

However, these are ICTY judgments about specific individuals, all Serbs, convicted of crimes. They relate to very specific people and places, and yet you're using them to write an article about something called "Serb propaganda" as a whole. We should be relying on secondary sources which are mainly about "Serb propaganda" in order to do that. Right now it really seems that you've stitched together a number of disparate sources in order to write a generalized essay about the moral, political, etc nature of the Bosnian war. <eleland/talkedits> 21:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article uses many solid sources and obviously the phenomenon exists and can be made into a quality article. I would suggest, however, that the article be moved to a more specific title such as "Serbian propaganda during the Yugoslav wars". Live Forever (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Eleland. Terrible precedent to have such articles. This is just an invitation to nationalist edit-warring and WP:COATRACK POV-forking of various other articles. Even if, in a better world, a perfect neutral encyclopedia might be able to do a competent article on such a topic, our experience with things like the "Anti-X'ism" series shows that Wikipedia just can't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is blatant POV trollery. Unless, in the interests of fairness, equivalent articles are also created for "Croat propaganda", "Bosniak propaganda", "Albanian propaganda", "NATO/UN propaganda", etc. (Laughter) --Hereward77 (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand the subject of the article. Serbian propaganda was a major concern of nato and the international community during the yugoslav, the article is can be based on these reliable sources. --Neon white (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NATO was a combatant, hardly a neutral source since it illegally sided with insurrectionists inside the borders of sovereign Serbia in 1999. And I would hardly categorise NATO as the international community, since I seem to remember that nations such as Russia, China, India and South Africa were rather sympathetic to Serbia. --Hereward77 (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This is another anti-Serb article which proves my point that there is a great discrimination of Serbs on wikipedia. This article must be deleted! Or you put albanian propaganda articles that resulted in burning a Serbian baby (name Sava) allive in Prizren. I have picture of this crime and thousands of other commited by albanian and croat propaganda. If you don't want Serbs to open articles like that delete this! --Србија до Токија (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search reveals a number of articles on the subject, so it clearly exists and is notable. If there is POV pushing it can easily be neutralized by editors here who seem to know about the subject and are interested in it, like the one previous to me. Not a problem. -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also add, similar to how Nazi propaganda exists, Slobodan Milošević was tried for war crimes, which makes it unique to other propaganda claims like those for "NATO/UN propaganda" etc. In other words, the propaganda itself would likely be a mechanism used to carry out war crimes. -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you did your research you would learn that Milosevic was never actually convicted of anything, he conveniently died before the "court" of the UN.Org (which is an ideologically-driven internationalist political organisation rather than a neutral jurisdiction) could pin anything on the him after five years of trying. --Hereward77 (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should stay. The phenomenon is well know. If you google "Serb propaganda" or "Serbian propaganda" you'll get around 800,000 results in total. But I agree with Live Forever's suggestion regarding the name. The article should be moved to a more precise name such as "Serbian propaganda during the Yugoslav wars". Here is an example from The Guardian: Nato targets Serb propaganda. Grandy Grandy (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An article from the communist Guardian newspaper should not be a basis for a Wikipedia article. The Guardian is violently anti-Serb, as are many other sources on the web. --Hereward77 (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: I have created a new article titled: Role of Serb media in the 1991-1999 wars in the former Yugoslavia, which I suggest replace this one. It is largely based on the Expert Testimony by French professor Renaud de la Brosse for the Prosecution at the ICTY trial of Slobodan Milosevic on the role of media in inciting war crimes. Not only is it based on comprehensive material on the specific topic of Serb propaganda during the war by a noted scholar on the subject (though not peer reviewed and created specifically for the Prosecution), in my opinion, the article is also written in a much more NPOV way. I suggest that we delete the current "Serb propaganda" article, reroute it to the new article and then continue building on that. It would definately have a less controversial starting point and would be easier to source. Comments?Osli73 (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this either, just another propaganda piece based on the testimony of some non-notable French pseudo-intellectual. It turns out that al-Qaeda was heavily involved in the Yugoslav wars after all, watch this 2006 report from Tim Marshall of Sky News (which contradicts the UN.Org's lies and has been repeatedly censored by Wikipedia): [21] --Hereward77 (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - terribly POV, OR, and probably unsalvageable currently. This is the kind of thing that will require historical distance to write a proper NPOV article about, and it's something that needs secondary sources to write from, not the original court documents themselves. We don't need to set a precedent that this kind of emotionally-laded OR is ok, no matter the topic. This is not about being pro-Serb or anti-Serb, but about being neither and instead relying on historical, scholarly assessments. -- phoebe/(talk) 00:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commenet

The article is substantially improved. The sources are the International court for war crimes verdicts related to propaganda campaign by Serb leadership. Other sources are also relaible per WP:RS, and there are also a few video links as an example of the most bizzar propaganda activities by Serbian national television such as:

For more information about propaganda campaign during the Bosnian war read these:

The ICTY findings from the Radoslav Brđanin verdict about the propaganda campaign as part of the Strategic Plan by Serb leadership in Bosnia and Herzegovina (in English)
The ICTY findings from the Milomir Stakić verdict about the media role during the war crimes in Prijedor (in English)
The Guardian: NATO targets Serb propaganda (in English)
Radio Free Europe - I novinare pred sud za ratne zločine (in Bosnian)
Novinari ratni huškači(in Bosnian)

Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as already well stated by eleland and others, this article is a classic "coatrack" article. // laughing man 15:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linda volrath[edit]

Non-notable. Insuffient links. Article leads nowhere. Metal Head (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated, plus article started by a single-edit user Volpar which seems so similar to volrath as to suggest a real COI issue. Emeraude (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete source doesn't establish notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. seems like COI Clubmarx (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Refs don't meet WP:BIO. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcell Sommerville[edit]

Does this person have any notability independent from Blazin' Squad? Nothing here suggests that he does, but I don't know enough about the subject. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - On his own he does not meet WP:N. Gtstricky (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article states his birthdate, and that's the only biographical information for this person that is not in the Blazin' Squad article. In essence, it's a crap article and doesn't address the subject at all, merely the group that he is in. I'd suggest a redirect and an early close, but I nominated this for AfD because when I was WP:BOLD in redirecting Sonja Elen Kisa I got reverted.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, the arguments based in policy and guidelines are much stronger than the ones based on pure opinion without basis in policy nor guideline. --Maxim_(talk) 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2007-08 St. John's Fog Devils season

2007-08 St. John's Fog Devils season[edit]

I doubt that a junior hockey team season is notable, or at least in the excessive detail as this. Flibirigit (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 17:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The team is a minor league professional outfit and certainly appears notable. It is a professional team, and the existence of a page detailing an individual season is consistent with many other professional teams - for example see Australian_cricket_team_in_South_Africa_in_2005-06. Manning (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The team is not a minor league professional outfit, its a junior team made up of highschool age kids who eventually hope to join the minor/major leagues. Not to mention your example is a national team and not even a professional team which wouldn't even be the same thing if this was a professional team. --Djsasso (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The league is notable enough to have a season article that encompasses the all the teams, but the individual teams seasons are not notable enough to merit an article. Anything notable that happens to an individual team can be added to the league page as individual teams at this level don't have alot of notable events that happen. --Djsasso (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to delete decent articles, but this kind of detail for a minor league team sets a bad precedent. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it should stay an article because its not the only Junior team to have a current season article and while this 1 might not be as big as the others ,years later it could be usefull to people who want to know the indivduial game scores for the team. NCAA has season articles and their games are not as **notable as the QMJHL,WHL and OHL. These games garner more press and Scouts than the american leagues. So it NCAA has seasonal articles the St.Johns Fog Devils should too.Another point to add is that putting every team into 1 article is ludicris,that wuld be a huge messy article that would eventully have to be divided up into individual team by March. But I agree,it will need more info if it will be a proper article.Mr.Deathhawk (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The NCAA does not have season articles for its teams, and if it did then they would most likely be put up here for deletion as well. I think you miss the point of having one article. Its not to mass all the things that happen to each team in one article. Its to note the notable things that happened in the league in one article. Something that is notable enough for a team page wouldn't necessarily be notable enough in the scope of the league so to speak. Its how we currently manage season articles. If we were to start having articles for all the teams in each of these leagues it would be rediculous. 2006-07 QMJHL season is an example of what shows up on season article of a league at this level. If you want to see a professional level article. 2006-07 NHL season is an example. I think you will see they aren't very messy. -Djsasso (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Far over the excessive detail and far under the notability thresholds; by way of comparison, minor league professional teams (which QMJHL teams are not) lack such detail. While Mr. Deathhawk might wish to elaborate as to exactly why anyone on Earth would care five years down the road about the scoring summary for a random St. John's-Drummondville game in Xth season, the answer to the issue of layering on too much detail to any one QMJHL article is simple: don't. Ravenswing 18:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable season for a moderately notable team. Wikipedia articles are not collections of statistics. Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball - the season in question has barely even started and can hardly be considered notable. The fact that someone, someday, may want to look up the match results doesn't make it appropriate content for an encyclopedia. Cosmo0 (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. QMJHL is in the league just below the NHL and some of these players are or will be drafted by NHL teams and sent to play there. I don't understand the concern for too much detail. If it's verifiable and NPOV, then it's within Wikipedia policy. If you think it needs editing, then go ahead and do so; AfD is not necessary. And by the way, players in QMJHL do get paid, so I believe that makes them professional and my first try at a NCAA season article came up with a positive hit: 2007 Florida Gators football team. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: Ummm ... players in major junior get stipends, which may be enough for the hypersensitive NCAA but not otherwise. The major junior leagues, far from being "just below the NHL," are amateur leagues that are below all professional hockey leagues, the minors included. Some QMJHL players do eventually make the NHL (an average of six of them in any given year will become impact players) but that likewise applies to peewee and bantam leagues. Ravenswing 06:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a fact, Jack? How many players from your "professional hockey leagues" go on to the NHL? About half of the players in the NHL came from the CHL and 46% of the players in this year's draft were from the CHL.[22] I still ask, as well, what benefit is gained from not having a comprehensive article on this? DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The source of players to the NHL has no bearing on the copious listing of scores and transactions of a certain junior team. The large majority of single games in the CHL are not notable. Flibirigit (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's your POV. The fact is that the subject of this article can be reliably sourced and presented in a NPOV. That's all that's really required. Deleting it is showing a bias. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any statistic, can be reliably sourced and presented neutrally. But each must serve a notable purpose. These do not. Flibirigit (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can just as readily source the game summaries of the Senior B no-check duffers' league operating out of the municipal rink, but the basis for this AfD isn't WP:V. Beyond that, I'd hate myself to rely for support in an argument upon an old discussion where two-thirds of those polled disagreed with my position, and beyond that, please keep WP:CIVIL in mind. Finally, that nearly half of the NHL's players come from major junior doesn't change the facts that few junior players in any given season become impact players in the NHL, and that a majority of the NHL's player have minor-league experience. Ravenswing 12:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about remaining civil. I think I did become a little too personal in my "fact Jack" response above. We need to keep discussion to the article in question. My point is simply, then, that worries that the article is about something not important or is in too much detail do not lead to deletion but, rather, clean-up. Importance is not a judgement call to be left to editors, that is POV. It is only required that it have enough reliable sources to be verifiable and presented NPOV. The fact that it is verifiable and NPOV is what makes it "encyclopedic" and my link above is to Jimbo Wales saying that in a clear way. Collecting reliable, NPOV sources for the 2007-08 St. John's Fog Devils season should be easy. If you can find them for the Senior B no-check duffers' league, I would be surprised but led to believe it deserves inclusion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's opinion is nice, but unless he overtly changes Wikipedia's rules, his is just that of any other editor. As you must be aware, contributors to AfD discussions make judgment calls as to whether subjects pass the notability bar on an hourly basis. If you wish to argue that the only legitimate bar to inclusion in Wikipedia is WP:V, there are other venues to do that. Ravenswing 13:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misunderstood me. I did not say any of what you state here. I linked to Jimbo wording not his authority, I said importance is not a contributor's judgement call, and that V+NPOV are the only legitimate bars to inclusion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vast precedent works against you, I'm afraid. We'll see how consensus runs. Ravenswing 17:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's happened does not make it right. WP:N: "objective evidence meets the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable." DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again it suggests that it is notable, but does not make it so in all cases. -Djsasso (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mention that about half the players from the CHL go to the NHL. What you don't mention is that those players go through the other professional leagues first. It's not a straight A to B trip. The AHL would be the league directly below the NHL. Players do not get paid, they get a $40 a week honorarium which is not considered pay by anyone except the NCAA. Secondly the article you pulled up was not about hockey, but even so even if it does exist you can't use the arguement WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thirdly just because you can verify facts does not make it encyclopedic, as mentioned earlier I can find newspaper articles/stats on local peewee hockey in the paper but we routinely delete articles about such things because even though they are verifiable, they are not noteworthy. --Djsasso (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled up the article because someone claimed NCAA season articles don't exist. Or was that statement intended only for hockey? WP:BIAS I was not trying to say OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I was countering the argument that OTHER STUFF DOESN'T EXIST, which is equally invalid. V + NPOV = Keep. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that comment was in reply to someone else mentioning that NCAA hockey articles are no more important than CHL hockey articles, I think its appropriate that the response to that was about hockey articles and thus is not WP:BIAS because the conversation was about hockey articles to begin with and to show that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not valid. V + NPOV != Keep. V + NOTE + NPOV = Keep. This is missing notability. -Djsasso (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, like many, you misunderstand WP:N to be editorial judgement of importance but it is not. NOTE=A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.=WP:V+WP:NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you keep reading farther down that section you will see that it says "usually" after having reached concensus by a group of editors. We are a group of editors and so far it looks like the concensus is that it is not notable. --Djsasso (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those criteria do you think it cannot meet? I've only seen arguments here that the subject is not important enough or has too much detail. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what the section says. It says that meeting those criteria often means it is notable. It does not mean that meeting them automatically makes it notable. Whether or not it is notable is decided by editors. -Djsasso (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. "A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline", "'Presumed' means objective evidence meets the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors", and "criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus", therefore consensus decides whether criteria is met and that decides whether it's "notable". My question is valid. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. As you can see it says it is usually worthy of notice and meets one of the criteria for a stand alone article. Not all of them. Notability being one of the others. -Djsasso (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not collections of statistics. The article is just standings, scores, and transactions. Standings are already covered in the league article. If for some reason any individual game or player transaction is notable, it can incoporated as prose in the team's article under its "history" section. Flibirigit (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Djsasso comments above. NCAA commentary was meant to show that NCAA Hockey teams do not have season articles. If any were found, they would be put up for afd as non-notable. This minor league hockey team fails Notability standards as set by Project Ice Hockey. --Pparazorback (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But NCAA football season articles would be okay, right? DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think they would be ok as Wikipedia is not a collections of statistics. I barely think the top level leagues such as the NHL or MLB should have them, never mind amateur leagues. I would see them all deleted but I prefer to stick to areas I know about instead of the shotgun method that others favour. -Djsasso (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its not notable enough to be kept, as has been said by everyone else. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what's next? the Alberton Regals season? GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What makes this less important than other articles of similar nature? ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that it is an amateur junior team made up of highschool age players. And again is there any other reasoning besides WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?--Djsasso (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Question, ameteur junior team?What does that mean that the team Is Not the highest level of junior hockey there is besides the world championships witch aint even a league? The WHL,OHL & QMJHL are the 3 top junior leagues in the world and thats a fact.Just to point another thing out that the majority of players are 18,19,20 and they greatly outnumber the numeber of HIgh School Age players (But I do agree they have some highschool aged players.Mr.Deathhawk (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Except as you mentioned its not the highest level of amateur competition. The World Championships or the Olympics would be the highest level of amateur competition. And even if they were the highest level of amateur compitition it is still not profressional. We aren't arguing about how important the leagues themselves are, we are arguing about how important a page of stats from ONE team in that league is. I don't know where you went to school but alot of people graduate highschool at 19 so yes the majority of players in the league are highschool aged. (And a team is only allowed to have three 20 year olds on a team so you might as well not even count 20 year olds.) --Djsasso (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Correctiing what you said about the 20 year olds it 21 years olds that are considered overagers and 20 year olds are not, alot of players are 20 year old and most teams have more than 3,but they can only have 3 21 Yr OldsMr.Deathhawk (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Actually I wasn't wrong I just looked it up on the WHL FAQ.

"17. How many 20 year olds can a team use? WHL teams are allowed a maximum of three overage players. Teams having more than three overage players to start the season may continue to rotate them in and out of the lineup until October 16th at which time they must select determine the three that they will keep. Other 20-year-olds become free agents for the other teams in the League. From October 16th until February 10th, teams may bring in an overage player, but, if they have three already, then they have to release one. February 10 of each year is the roster deadline and all players who are with a team on that date are there for the duration of the season."

--Djsasso (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Comment Must be diffrent in the WHL then the OHL and QMJHL (Im used to those leagues more than the WHL), cause my favourite team, the Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds have more than 3 20 year old players and they can only have 2 21 aged players, so your right and wrong at the same time,just as i was before,depends on the league jus like if a European Hockey fan woh like team form the Finnish league SMILGA,he would say you cant trade players,but thats not true over here as you can. Diffrent league diffrent rules (Even though the WHL,OHL,QMJHL are all goverend by the CHL)Mr.Deathhawk (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        QMJHL Rulebook Section 3.02 says the same as the WHL. I couldn't find the OHL online so I can't proove that one but I am pretty sure the ruling covers all of the CHL because they play each other for the Memorial Cup and it wouldn't be far if one league had more older players than another (Though on the Soo Greyhounds website they have only 3 twenty year olds listed on the team). Anyways this doesn't really have to much bearing on the current discussion other than to say individual games at this level are just not notable enough for a game by game summary that a page like this provides. -Djsasso (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, consensus is clear to keep this article but divided between either making this page a disambiguation page or merging and redirecting the other two pages to this one. Neither of these options require deletion and discussion should continue to reach a consensus on what to do. Davewild (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Wars[edit]

The article is completely redundant as it just duplicates the content of Cartoon Wars Part I and Cartoon Wars Part II merging them into one article. Section by section it can be seen that everything present in the article is present somewhere else.

Cartoon Wars#Part I --> Cartoon Wars Part I#Plot

Cartoon Wars#Part II --> Cartoon Wars Part II#Plot

Cartoon Wars#Real-life censorship controversy --> Cartoon Wars Part II#Real-life censorship controversy

Cartoon Wars#Cultural References --> Cartoon Wars Part II#References to pop culture

Cartoon Wars#Episodes criticism and praise --> Cartoon Wars Part II#Episode criticism and praise

There is an argument that the single page is more appropriate than the two individual pages however other South Park episodes in multipart arcs have there own pages, see Imaginationland, Imaginationland Episode II, Imaginationland Episode III, Cartman's Mom Is a Dirty Slut, Cartman's Mom Is Still a Dirty Slut, Go God Go, Go God Go XII, Do the Handicapped Go to Hell? and Probably (South Park) as some examples. There was a discussion on merging the pages here but it seems to have petered out about a month ago. In the absence of any consensus to merge it seems silly to have all three articles. Guest9999 (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but change to a disambiguation page and add any additional information into the other two articles - this covers two episodes, but the Who Shot Mr. Burns? episodes of The Simpsons have two parts : Part 1 / Part 2 , with a disambiguation at Who Shot Mr. Burns?/ Jake the Editor Man _(talk) 19:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article, but delete the two seperate articles and keep the merged one. I've argued this continually on the talk pages for the original articles. I think it makes much more sense to have one article for a two-part episode than having two articles with the exact same information except for the plot description. I've also argued this for Go God Go/Go God Go XII and Imaginationland/Imaginationland Episode II/Imaginationland Episode III.--Swellman (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is about the worst I've ever seen on wikipedia. The entire plot summary is unsourced and seems to be written by one person. In addition, it's entirely their opinion, not actual fact. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to disambiguation per the Who Shot Mr. Burns? page. The disambiguation options would be the South Park episodes Cartoon Wars Part I and Cartoon Wars Part II as well as the real-world Mohammad cartoons controversy (Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewlp1991 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two reasonable solutions to this problem: keep this article and redirect the Parts I & II articles to this one; or keep the Part I and Part II articles and make this page a disambiguation. Neither of these solutions require AfD; and in fact duplicate or redundant information is never a valid reason for deletion—the deletion policy states specifically that duplicate information can be merged and redirected without AfD. If you can't get consensus for which way the redirects should go on the respective talk pages or appropriate WikiProject, well then that's what Requests for comments is for. DHowell (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; merge and redirect the other two into this one, ideally. Makes much more sense in one article, especially given the controversy. Epthorn (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Metcalfe[edit]

No notability. Being editor of a magazine does not automatically make you notable, and there is no indication that this person is well known. Fails WP:BIO Fram (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article stub that does not establish the notability of its subject. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gtstricky (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Malleus. No citation of sources which could possibly establish notability. — Rudget _speak.work 16:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirected to Minor characters in 24. WP:POINTy AfD nomination notwithstanding, without reliable sources there is no evidence of real-world notability. Pastordavid (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Daniels[edit]

This is a test case for how long an article needs to be tagged as unrefrnced before the article is deleted for not being refrenced. In this case due to the article being unrefrenced notabiliy of the aticle in the wider in-universe of the show cannot be assertained and nor can it be assertained for outside the in-universe of the show. The page contains alot of non-notable cruft such as "background information." Some of the information contained in the "background information" cannot be assertained from the show. The article also mainly reads like a polt summary which violates notability guidelines wih regards to fiction. Which states "Articles must not soley be a plot summary". I personally favour the merging of this character with the Minor characters in 24 page, but would like to go through this procedure to identify weather the problems with article means it needs deleting or weather merging is the correct form of action. Lucy-marie (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least provisionally. Generally, AfD is not for "test cases". Note also that no note was left on the talk page when the article was tagged as unreferenced. Since the TV episodes are published works, and given the unusual episode "names" under the premise of 24 (TV series), it isn't even clear that the article is "unreferenced", even if it lacks reference tags. It seems to me that it's usually possible to determine which episode in the broadcast series the statements in the article are derived from. Yes, this is a primary source, but in fiction primary sources are canonical. No real opinion at present as to whether this character is major enough to warrant a standalone article, or whether the article is so fine grained that it goes over into plot summary. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No real world notability. It belongs on this Wiki and not in an encyclopedia anyway. Gtstricky (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete - Make sure when you nominate articles, you want them to be deleted, and not to make a point or any other reason. This article needs to establish notability, so to keep it, please find some creator interviews and stuff like that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion one way or the other, but it seems appropriate to make mention of WP:CLEANUP, WP:PROBLEM, and as mentioned, WP:POINT. -Verdatum (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep. The article can be cleaned up, and is verifiable (in that sources exist in the form of the episodes and - possibly - interviews). There are other forums for test cases, though I acknowledge that the attempt was made in good faith. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 21:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Chock-full of original research and plot summary; no evidence of real-world notability, and nothing useful to merge. Powers ^T 01:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. --T smitts (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep based on what arguments above?--79.74.132.117 (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted, A7. —Random832 14:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Potter (meteorologist)[edit]

Article is not descriptive, person has little notability other than the fact he has a degree. Rufus843 (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please explain why he is not significant--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article stub that does not establish the notability of its subject. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Notability not asserted. Tagged as such. Maralia (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liz West[edit]

Not significant. Rufus843 (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please explain why she is not significant--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article is not descriptive, person has little notability other than the fact she has a diploma and is on local TV. Rufus843 (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article stub that does not establish the notability of its subject. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability of the subject.Metal Head (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable local television personality. Being on television does not make one famous. --Cyrus Andiron 15:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for biographical notability, and Wikipedia is not a repository of local newscasters. --Solumeiras ^talk 20:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Mercury 03:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bawls[edit]

AfDs for this article:

~~No assertion of Notability.~~ Article has previously passed an AfD for advertisin, though in my oppinion it still reads like an advertisment. Taemyr (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Notability has been asserted after nomination of article. Taemyr (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously Notable beverage, and although the previous nomination is a little wonky, the fact that the article has been around since August 2004 says a fair bit. Sources can be found, as as such I have tagged the article for Rescue. Fosnez (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup. Clearly notable product. Did you actually look for sources before you went and put it up for AfD? Whispe ring 12:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just added three sources I'll add more tonight when I get home from work. Whispe ring 13:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did in fact look at the sources. And in contrast with the sources added today they did not seem to me to be independent. Taemyr (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on the ad sounding parts tonight as well. Whispe ring 14:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Referenced for the most part, notable based on sources. spryde | talk 13:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable nationally-sold beverage, although the article desperately needs a strong trim to remove trivia to remove unencyclopedic information (Some people save their bottles? Who cares?) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If an article does not match style because of some surmountable problem, it should be fixed, not proposed for deletion. -Verdatum (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 01:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal status of Hawaii[edit]

Appears to go against WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV - (WP:UNDUE section -- "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small ... minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia"). Fails WP:V, WP:OR - there are some references but they are of dubious reliability and they include a website (which only fetches 215 google hits mind you) of one of the non-notable claimants to Hawaii. This article itself seems to be the most notable part of the legal debate over Hawaii.

At best, it could be merged with Hawaiian sovereignty movement (although that article itself has its problems). --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 11:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nom del - --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 11:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure that everything expressed herein would be considered the viewpoint of "an extremely small minority". Nor is this entirely sourced to a website. One thing that I am sure of is that WP:NPOV is invoked only when it doesn't reflect the majority's point of view, as with the attempt last week by the guy who wanted to do a French-Quebecois view of Canada's history. Thus, if someone were to explain the American Revolution as the discontent of British subjects who had been asked to pay some of the costs of the French and Indian War, it would be labelled POV. On the other hand, the vision of the Founding Fathers would not be considered POV. Keep in mind WP:BIAS, which asks us to balance out the "white boy" majority among Wikipedians. Mandsford (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like there many reliable sources the issue has existed and possibly still exists (.gov reports, law journals, etc). The article needs cleaning up and more inline citations. Anything not citable or attributable to a reliable source should be removed. spryde | talk 14:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of scholarly sources on the issue, some of which are outlined on the talk page. The article needs improvement, but that is not a reason to delete. Tiamut 15:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was involved in discussing WP:policy at length on the article's Talk. While there was some concern that the topic was a "fringe" view, I believe the consensus now stands that it is a "significant minority" view based on discourse within academic circles. A simple Lexis search will confirm the validity of this finding for you. Granted, this minority view has not been successful in courts or legislatures. Nevertheless, the topic appears to meet all the criteria for covering in Wikipedia. (In addition, even as a fringe opinion, it might be better to treat as a separate article, given the reliable sources on it.) Thanks. HG | Talk 15:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article is largely presented from one point of view, the sources and documentation provided establish notability. Article needs cleanup, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that it avoids WP:FRINGE, although it is a very, very minority view. I was able to view the first source, and its a law review note (drafted by a law student) rather than an article authority by a professor. It may be a stretch to refer to such as a "scholar" but again, that goes to cleanup, not whether the article should be kept. Merger per the nomination may be an option, but frankly, I think this article may be the easier one to bring up to appropriate standards. Xymmax (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why was this article nominated for deletion anyway? This article was a total disaster before -- and at that time I would have been amenable to deletion -- but it recieved quite a bit of work (and even more discussion!) in the last few months and shows signs of hope. The recent pace of edits may have slowed down lately, but that is a good thing given the previous contentiousness. Strong keep. Arjuna (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a large body of legislation and numerous official reports in addition to history boks and commentary in periodicals dating back to the time of the annexation. At the very least it represents the views of a sizeable minority of Hawaiians. Edison (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I obviously misjudged the article. I thought any consensus that was formed on the subject was between a few, strongly pro-independence users but... yeah. However, the article still focuses upon a few claimants that have absolutely no notability whatsoever. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 01:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ther esult was Delete --JForget 01:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do A Dub[edit]

Profound Intent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) refers.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars fan films[edit]

I was surprised when this article came my way, from what I read it looks more like a directory of fan films based on the Star Wars series than anything else, maybe to the point of promoting them. Now Star Wars is obviously notable but these fan films don't appear notable at all, from my perspective this list provides absolutely no encyclopedic value whatsoever and it has the potential of eventually growing out of control (who's to say how many Star Wars fanfic is created yearly on America alone?). So based on what Wikipedia is not I believe this article/list should be deleted under the basis that Wikipedia is not paper, a undiscriminate collection of information or a directory. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a directory of external links, which Wikipedia is not. We have a list of the award winners, but only seven of these 90ish films have articles (and only seven of 35+ fan film articles are listed). The topic is notable and there could be an article here if it were written from sources, but all we have is a perfunctory introduction to an unencyclopedic list. --Dhartung | Talk 11:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bad article. Vini Siqueira 11:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ecch! This has been lifted word-for-word from somewhere else. Assuming it hasn't been, however, it's written in the style of the back of a VHS cassette box, not an encylopedia. Encyclopedia articles don't include statements like "Don't miss...." or "What's a Jedi to do?" Written by Jar-Jar, perhaps? Normally, I'd say "clean up", but this is beyond that. I'm saving it to hard drive just to see if there's something interesting there, but it would take a complete rewrite, by someone who's both a good writer and a fan, to give the fan films the article they deserve. Mandsford (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A big ol' heap of external links to stuff that would never in a bazillion years get its own article. Lists of external links are specifically covered in WP:NOT, and for good reason. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pity that it's a directory. I think there is certainly potential for an article with this title to exist, but as a explaination of the phenomenon, not as a directory of links. Some fan films are possibly notable, as they have had screenings in reputable theatres and given newspaper reviews (I personally attended one at the Senator Theatre). Or a reasonable article could include references to Lucasfilm's position on the subject. As is, it should be completely demolished and if someone feels it worthwhile, rebuilt from the ground up. -Verdatum (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with this assessment, in that there is definitely significant notable subject matter regarding this topic, but the article as it stands is not a treatment of that topic. As it appears that this will likely be deleted, there should not be prejudice against re-creation of this article with appropriate content. LaMenta3 (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There seems to be a substantially better handling of this at The Official Star Wars Fan Film Awards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a directory of external links. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} —Preceding comment was added at 00:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Behcet[edit]

A player in a third-tier football league, no independent sources. The only source is a directory of player stats and does not cover the (scant) biographical detail found here. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep google search shows notability.--Avinesh Jose (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1,360 Google hits does not demonstrate anything much - even I get more ghits than that. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: bbc, wtfc, and abcgoal are suffcient notability.--Avinesh Jose (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to fail WP:BIO as never having played in a fully professional league. Davewild (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being "a player in a third-tier football league" would quite easily meet the requirements of WP:BIO (Football League One is a fully professional league) however he has never actually played a match for Yeovil's first team, therefore he does meet the requirement Delete ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - combination of regular first-team involvement and U21 international caps is just enough, I think. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- There is no mention of him on the Turkey U21 page and i can't find any sources to say he has played for them. Eddie6705 (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: without prejudice if a better article can be produced. Soxthecat (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His only senior appearances have been at non-league level. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never played professional football. Jonesy702 (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such time as he makes an appearance for a team in a fully professional league. Robotforaday (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis that there is fair claim that he made 7 appearances on loan to the first team of a fully-professional club, Cambridge United F.C. (which club has remained professional despite relegation to the Conference National in 2005) - Soccerbase says this. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though he plays for a professional club it is not one in a fully professional league and hence fails WP:BIO. Dancarney (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. --Angelo (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Davewild (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Town District Council[edit]

Hope Town District Council is the district council of Hope Town. You guessed that, didn't you? You'll be able to guess pretty much everything else in this article as well, apart from the (uncited) name checks. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is currently very little by the way of bahamian government information on the wikipedia. We should encourage it as much as possible. I have added references, external links and wikified the article as best I can, but it need the wrok of an expert. Fosnez (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The adjectival form of the Bahamas is actually Bahamian, not bohemian (which refers to a part of the Czech Republic). Taken liberty to correct. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 12:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Surely independant reliable sources exist for this somewhere. Epbr123 (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't support a separate article for each individual councillor, but I generally believe that municipal councils themselves almost always merit an article about the body. Yes, it needs reference improvements, but that's not a deletion criterion AFAIK. Keep with improvements. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Governing bodies and Royalty are notable. Cleanup and wikification are strongly suggested. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as the article was nothing but a succession of copyright violations, concatenated together. Uncle G (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carney's on sunset[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Carney's on sunset

Hyperlocal restaurant. loaded with copyvios and frankly WP:NN Toddst1 (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berontak zine

The result was Speedy delete per CSD G11, Blantant Advertising and CSD A7 as failing to prove notability - Caribbean~H.Q. 11:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berontak zine[edit]

Not notable enough, conflict of interest (author is the owner), advertising (author spammed Wikipedia with links to the webzine). Mushroom (Talk) 09:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Analytical Marxism, which is compatible with the "not notable" opinions for deletion expressed here. Sandstein (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September Group[edit]

Claimed group of somewhat known persons but are we shure it exists for real or is it just some friends invinting other friends like a biannual poker game? A cigarclub is not more notable just because its members unless some deeds are done on itself or it has other qualifications. Skull and Bones is a good examle of such entity. September group is its opposite. Boongoman (talk) 09:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there are no references added showing independent notability for the group then it should be deleted. Alberon (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find a display of sarcastic ignorance impressive as a deletion rationale. That said, merge and redirect to Analytical Marxism, whose history closely tracks this group. Although there is information in Google Books and Google Scholar that will suitably verify the information, it is not independent of the membership. --Dhartung | Talk 11:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge is fine with me. Censorship is not the point with this AfD. --Boongoman (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 12:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of information about this particular group, in- and outside the web. So yes, we "are sure" that it's not "just some friends inviting other friends". Do not merge, let it be. If anything, learn more about the group and expand the article. Popperipopp (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep with nomination withdrawn. Davewild (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Night Only (Indie pop band)[edit]

I added a PROD tag to the page but an IP unexplainedly edited it out. Therefore, I've come here. The band are not notable and don't deserve mention on Wikipedia. As Brewcrewer said, they fail WP:MUSIC. Thundermaster^{Thundermaster's Talk} 08:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC) After lots of research, I think they are notable enough, and therefore say Keep. Thundermaster^TRUC 11:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC standard. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 12:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Band are signed (look on Amazon etc). Needs rewrite. Computerjoe 's talk 13:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what Computerjoe said. Don't delete it! They are notable. They have a sturdy local fanbase and even fans as far away as california (check out the comments on their youtube page.)--Neondinos (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin User's 4th edit. Computerjoe 's talk 18:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Band have had top 50 single in UK Computerjoe 's talk 16:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned on BBC chart blog [23], in The Guardian [24]. Sure there's more! Computerjoe 's talk 20:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The band has had quite a bit of press: I have added articles from bbc.co.uk, the Yorkshire Evening Post, the music magazine Q, Australia's Herald Sun, and that's in addition to the article in The Guardian already noted. There's more if people are willing to look. They easily meet criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC. Keep. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LG U8380[edit]

Non-notable product. Completely unreferenced article. Wikipedia is not a Lucky Goldstar catalog. Mainstream phones have few references other than reviews and self-published fan sites, so it will be hard to find quality sources to support an article. Mikeblas (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a celphone catalog. No proof of notability. No references. Edison (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn phone Secret ^account 01:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 07:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Duis[edit]

I don't think the achievements listed are notable, and they are not referenced dramatic (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO standard. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 12:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violating every factor of WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result wasDelete non-notable politican. _→AzaToth 16:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wissot[edit]

WP:NN Unelected politician. Only pub able to be cited was an op-ed piece. Toddst1 (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is being "unelected" grounds for removal. Seems that most of his political work has been behind the scenes. And I just Google'd a Washington Post and LA Times story on him. So what's the fuss? --User:screenwood 23:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the end of the day, article doesn't establish his notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 12:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"'Keep'" On a relative scale, there is far more notability than the majority of pages I'm discovering. I think that some editor is trying to delete it for some other reason.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinertone (talk • contribs) 07:06, 11 December 2007

Comment: This page has been vandalized twice in the past couple of days by WP:SPAs. The line above was added by SPA User:Shinertone who deleted the following two comments by David Eppstein and Crusio. It was almost immediately followed by the comment by User:screenwood who has only made that one edit. Toddst1 (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Teamwissot‎ Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real claim to notability discernible. --Crusio (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF (has adjunct status), and writings amount to very humble impact on modern life. No evidence here of the extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources required to pass WP:N. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails notability. Victuallers (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedily deleted, WP:CSD G11, obvious spam, entirely unreferenced article promoting a commercial product. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crew Management System[edit]

Delete and SALT - Blatant advertising for a nn software package. This article has already been speedily deleted 5 times over the course of 2 weeks by 3 different admins. It just gets re-created. Mayalld (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, Salt and Block This user has been given enough warnings, they will just keep on doing this until they are stopped. Alberon (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy.... per nom. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 12:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy & SALT A wonderful example of advertising. Oh wait, this is an encyclopedia, so that's not what we're shooting for. --Cyrus Andiron 15:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete and redirect, already listed at List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. Pastordavid (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to the Rock[edit]

Fancruft, unreferenced, little or no contextual material. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 07:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing in this article besides an infobox and some text from the book's credits and back cover! If there's something more to say about this book, it might stand a chance; like this, though... Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zetawoof. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 12:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. BOZ (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. (In other words, I agree with BOZ.) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. This seems the most sensible option. There's not nearly enough information on this adventure to meet notability standards on its own, but a list of all D&D modules would be a helpful part of Wikipedia. Some of the most important ones should probably get their own entry, but this clearly isn't one of those. Iquander (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. PeaceNT (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of internet Go servers[edit]

Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links as per WP:EL. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages as per WP:NOT#DIR Anshuk (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Mikeblas (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 12:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a directory listing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is very specifically NOT a web guide. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Transwiki to another wiki that is more suitable for listing weblinks. Wikipedia is not a webhosting directory. --Solumeiras ^talk 20:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I presume these Go software deletions are due to cultural bias. There would be an uproar if this were suggested for the equivalent chess engine page, or the Go pages were deleted from the Japanese wikipedia. --IanOsgood (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, the lists of programs on the chess engine page are dubious per WP:EL and WP:NOT#DIR and should probably be removed. HermanHiddema (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. You are right. I have kept the spam cleanup tag on this page and this should get cleaned. But Chess engine page does have other information worth retaining, hence shouldn't go for AfD.
Notification: For interested parties, there is now an article Go software and a Category:Go software. Please do not copy lists such as this one into the Go software article. Write articles for notable pieces of Go software and list them under Category:Go software. HermanHiddema (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vonesper[edit]

Article's content is a mess, consisting of pieces of other articles as well as patent nonsense. (The references are all about Green Day, save for a non-existent DeRogatis book.) A band of this name seems to exist, but is not on a major label, etc (has no notability - might justify speedy deletion.) -- ChrisB (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax article full of nonsense such as "sold over 14 copies in the U.S. alone", with references clearly copied from Green Day including a fallacious book reference (the book exists, but is not titled as given, and is certainly not about the topic). Maralia (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a hoax - the links lead to articles about Green Day, the ISBN given leads to a book by that author but not about "Vonesper". JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Graze

The result was speedy close, having read this, stating 'This license is revocable' Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Graze[edit]

Anything copied verbatim from a site such as Conservapedia has no place as even a stub here. Recommend deletion, then re-building uses viable sources that aren't borderline offensive. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Sandstein (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict[edit]

Supposedly, this article is about child suicide bombers.^[1] However, a close examination of both the structure and the references reveals that essentially all of the information is either about:

Suicide bombers generally
Minors' involvement in the conflict generally

Category 1 includes literally every scholarly source in the article. Volkan and Speckhard all discuss suicide bombers in general. They mention children in the context of the psycholigical processes which lead to suicidal terrorism, but not as suicidal terrorists themselves. In fact, both sources discuss at length how traumatic childhood experiences caused by the Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza lead to suicidal psychology. However, this article ignores that information, while prominently featuring anything to do with a Palestinian "cult of martyrdom" targeting children.

Category 2 includes a large number of reports of children caught ferrying bombs from one place to another, an extended discussion of the Hamas propaganda version of the Mickey Mouse Club which doesn't mention suicide bombings at all, and a POV-forked missive about Palestinian textbooks which, again, doesn't mention suicide bombings. All of this information belongs at Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where in fact most of it is already.

I first noticed these problems this summer, when I began by removing the more egregious cases of coatracking such as the extended discussion of Palestinian TV and textbooks, and by trying to deal with the extensive sourcing of claims to highly dubious groups, including one mainly comprised of former Israeli military intelligence officers. However, I was quickly reverted by a tag team of User:Humus sapiens and User:Isarig and met with a torrent of abuse on the talk page; see Talk:Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#Deletion of entire "indoctrination" section on down. I came to understand that this article was WP:OWNed by a small clique intent on highlighting the very worst thing they could think of about the Palestinian cause, without regard to Wikipedia policies.

In summary, this article is an original synthesis of various sources. Many of them are primary sources, such as news reports about a given bombing conducted by a 17 year old. Many of them are questionable at best, such as MEMRI, PMW, etc - none of which make any point at all about child suicide bombings specifically. Others are reliable but still only tangentially related to the topic. The article is here to make a WP:POINT, not to neutrally overview the facts. Once the bluffs have been called, the article has no secondary sources which pertain to the topic specifically, thus failing the most basic test of WP:Notability.

[1] "Child" in this sense would refer chiefly to 16 and 17 year olds, which some Islamic militant groups consider legitimate recruits, and which Israel treats as adults for legal purposes, including mass detention of all adult males in an alleged combat area. There are claims that younger children have attempted bombings; Hussam Abdo was either 14, 15, 16, or 17 when his attack was thwarted, depending on whom you ask.

<eleland/talkedits> 05:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator's description of the article does not match the article itself. The article contains sourced material concerning the subject reflected in the title. The nominator may have a partially valid point that some of the material in the article may belong in other articles, but that is an editing issue, not a deletion issue. On a side note, this nomination continues the recent trend of AfD nominations that are less valid deletion discussions, and more political polemics regarding the nominator's opinions of other editors. (See references to "cliques", "ownership", POINT violations, bluffs being called, etc.) In fact, the nomination makes clear that the real dispute here is about editing the article, and not about its existence. Which might lead one to conclude, Ask not for whom the WP:POINT violation tolls, it may toll for thee. 6SJ7 (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you check the talk sections referenced, where paragraphs of logical argument were being met with oh-so-clever shots like "Go away, troll"? Did you notice how even though 3 editors agreed with deleting those sections against 1 on talk, he managed to edit-war it back in? Did you notice Humus reverting me with the summaires "rv#1", "rv#2, "rv#3", "self rv 3rr" and then User:Isarig (now on sanction for 3rr gaming) showing up to revert for him? <eleland/talkedits> 15:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think anyone doubts your frustration, and we can all see the problems you've had, but it still looks like you nominated this to prove a point or get attention. Insults and edit warring are no reason to delete a page. Even though your intentions are good and your cause is just, this isn't the way to go about it. Kafziel ^Talk 21:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I nominated it it because it fails notability policy; there are no secondary sources provided about the topic. <eleland/talkedits> 21:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is an annoying lightning rod of controversy, and it could certainly use some work, but we don't solve those problems by deleting articles. If differences of opinion are blocking progress, try conflict resolution. Kafziel ^Talk 08:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see this deletion as support for an obvious need for an AFD like method to draw attention to an article. If some of the article is irrelevant, generally on controversial issues like this one, the content is almost impossible to remove. However, the article as a whole shouldn't be removed. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 11:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but this needs some unapologetic editing and rewriting. Mandsford (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not a minor phenomena, part of the conflict and major cause to child fatalities. For sake of truth, completeness and encyclepedia of reality - should be kept. MathKnight Gothic Israeli Jew 21:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Organize information into sub-sections (have one on children if warranted). Remove section on Palestinian textbooks and other unnecessary additions and WP:OR links. Tiamut 01:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Baby Suicide Bomber should be merged into the newly renamed article as well.Tiamut 03:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the renaming, and people who have already "voted" have not had an opportunity to comment on this suggestion. This article is specifically about child "suicide bombers" -- a phrase I hate anyway, but that's a different subject. As for the Baby Suicide Bomber, that can be a separate discussion. There is no point discussing it here, as no rationale has been provided. 6SJ7 (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Tiamut. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there is any off-topic material in the article, as the nominator alleges, no problem with moving it elsewhere, but otherwise the subject is notable and the content is well-sourced. Beit Or 16:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody can tell me where are the secondary sources about child suicide bombers I'll withdraw the nomination. Thus far there is a list of bombings committed or attempted by minors (which includes a lot of non-bombings, such as cases where minors were caught ferrying explosives from place to place) which is all primary sources, but all the secondary sources seem to be about bombers generally or minors in the conflict generally. <eleland/talkedits> 16:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 6SJ7's explanation. -- Avi (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic is notable and the article does have appropriate references to secondary sources.Osli73 (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't it a little ridiculous to have an article on Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without having one on Suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general? Which phenomenon is more widespread or notable? Why is Wikipedia shining a spotlight on a sub-phenomenon, rather than writing an encyclopedic entry on suicide bombing in the conflict, a notable phenomenon for which there are many reliable, secondary sources? Tiamut 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. You should write one. Once there's a viable article there, a merge proposal could go through the proper channels (rather than using AfD) and I would probably support it. Kafziel ^Talk 23:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. --Oxymoron⁸³ 09:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Sagas[edit]

NN free online game. No reliable sources given: there are several "reviews" from mudconnector.com, but they are user-submitted, and thus not reliable. Couldn't find any in a web search, probably because "Star Wars sagas" turns up a lot of other things rather than this. Mango juice^talk 03:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After a few minutes of searching, I did not find anything except what has been found before. Nothing in a reliable source. spryde | talk 14:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am awaiting the owners of the game to give me links to their other notable sources. It is, indeed, hard for me to find them considering how many things seem to include 'Star Wars' and 'sagas' in their hooks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowbinky (talk • contribs) 14:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per spryde. No reliable sources. The vast majority of free online games are neither notable, verifiable, or encyclopedic, and nothing at all in the article suggests this is any exception. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I will note that the notability of this particular game, much like FiranMUX is a pregenerated character format. No other Star Wars or science fiction MU has this feature. It is distinctive and notable. I am trying to find the independent resources which point to this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.115.19.242 (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, is it also simply by virtue of the relatively short time of existance (Oct 2005)? There are quite a few articles that I've reviewed who have no real outside sources to suggest notability (Aetolia, The Midnight Age, Imperial DikuMUD, RivaMUSH, Tapestries MUCK, StarMUD and Shattered World to list a few). Is longevity a criteria? Truly, my intention is to make the article conform as best I can, if that is possible, despite being insulted halfway through this endeavor (to quote: "...or anything that really indicates that it's more than a few guys with a wiki server and too much time on their hands. If some of this is added 9and verified) then this might be allowed to stand. DJ Clayworth </wiki/User:DJ_Clayworth>" - full discussion available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars:_Sagas for review). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowbinky (talk • contribs) 15:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The existence of other articles with poor notability is reason to investigate those pages, not to keep this one; and while longevity can be a criterion, newness certainly doesn't confer notability. If the only notability of this game is that it is the only pregenerated Star Wars game, then that seems a bit too narrow for inclusion under either WP:WEB or the proposed guidelines at WP:RPG/N; if it were the first or only pregenerated game, or if it were the first or only Star Wars game, then it might be different. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my intention to point to sites that don't meet the criteria in an attempt or as an excuse for this page not to be deleted. I have every intention on trying to get the page to meet the standards if at all possible. I still believe that given the huge number of online Star Wars MU-themed games, that this is the only one with the pregenerated system does make it more notable despite the assertion that it may seem too narrow under either WP:WEB or the proposed guidelines at WP:RPG/N. If I can find nothing in the next day or so, I will of course accept the decision made. Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.115.19.242 (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this game cannot possibly be reviewed by any major games news sources, because I bet it hasn't properly licensed Star Wars, given it's free nature. User:Krator (t c) 10:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of credible, major news sources that review online, text-based games actually. I am awaiting replies from the administrators of the game as to whether this has been achieved and the links related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowbinky (talk • contribs) 16:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Would the fact that Star Wars: Sagas pregenerated format was inspired by the pregen format instituted by FiranMUX - that Sagas is a genuine decendent of the format, both pregen and via various code systems written by staff from both games, have any effect on saving it from deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowbinky (talk • contribs) 00:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; we could have been better at explaining the issue. The main issues are described at WP:N and WP:V. So, no, that would have no effect. Without non-trivial, independent, reliable sources, there can be no article. Mango juice^talk 05:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge the one sentence that wasn't already there into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. CitiCat^♫ 03:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daragor[edit]

Article fails WP:PLOT, no inline citations, and has very little contextual material. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 03:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Dungeons & Dragons. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable supporting character, relevant only in the in game universe of some campaign settings. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ.--Robbstrd (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as this stub fails WP:FICT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirected to solar system. DS (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stars and Planets[edit]

This is already covered in Solar System meshach (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No Consensus to delete. Most delete opinions were before some sources were added to the article (and the musicians article was improved) at which point there is disagreement over whether they are sufficient for keeping the article. Davewild (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Kid's Point of View[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/A Kid's Point of View

Prod removed apparently because a Wikipedian is "...sick of stuff getting deleted because it is non-notable...". Recent debut album with no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC from artist with no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Ravenna1961 (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability; misleading "professional review" links. JJL (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn album for musician whose page is prodded as of now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Alberon (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - "...sick of stuff getting deleted because it is non-notable..." Well, gee whiz, I mean - yes - WP:N is just a guideline but it's a pretty important one to follow.--WaltCip (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Sources added, reliability questionable. Need further information to justify !vote.--WaltCip (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had no idea how few sources actually seem to review Gospel music. I have added two independent reviews to both the album and the artist. Both reviews are independent and are non-trivial which makes this now pass WP:MUSIC spryde | talk 14:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. The review links don't appear to be reliable sources by WP standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question What makes them fail RS? Honest question in case I have to try to expand another music related article. Rolling stone doesn't seem to cover gospel, only niche publishers and websites. spryde | talk 15:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since multiple non-trivial independent sources have been added. 96T (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete with redirect, recognising that the discussion indicates merge to Bette Davis, but as highlighted by Metropolitan90 the content is a copy of IMDB hence a copyright violation Gnan garra 04:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harmon Nelson[edit]

Non-notable former husband of Bette Davis. After contacting one of the major authors of the article, I proposed merging the two articles, but the response over the two weeks or so since the proposal has been negative. Given the unreferenced and largely unverifiable nature of the Nelson article, I'm inclined to agree with the commenters when they say that an infobox mention is more than enough. jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 08:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reason, when I nominated this article using Twinkle some wires got crossed and it never got listed or tagged. As such, I'm listing it properly on the deletion log now. I apologize for the confusion. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 03:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Bette Davis. Most of the content here was either copied from Nelson's entry on the copyrighted Internet Movie Database or from Wikipedia's own article on Bette Davis, including even the footnote number from the Davis article. (That would explain why this article with no actual citations has a note numbered "29".) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge salvageable importance into Bette Davis. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Notable only in relation to her. Mbisanz (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 02:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thy kingdom come[edit]

An article on a self-published book, written by the self-same author. No assertion of notability. Fails WP:BK. Victoriagirl (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a google search shows as non-notable.--Avinesh Jose (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Anshuk (talk) 07:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-published/vanity-published books are virtually never notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Starblind. _TheIslander 19:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Search for "Nicholas R. Carter"--one hit, this article on Wikipedia. Blueboy 96 22:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 01:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Bardo[edit]

Prod contested (though they didn't remove the notice). Original conern was ; Made up computing term. No reliable sources show the term Bardo used in this context. Seems more suited uncyclopaedia. A^RendedWinter 01:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to speak in favor of keeping this. While it is clearly a newly coined phrase, I think it's valuable in computer speak. 67.171.210.79 (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)John Hedtke, www.hedtke.com, Author/Consultant[reply]

Delete. It is clearly a newly coined phrase, which we do not allow. Possible value does not matter. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A neologism. Not notable, especially as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A neologism Gtstricky (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with comments above. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism, etc. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 03:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NONSENSE. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. PeaceNT (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manzie Jones[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO: only has credits to two movies, which went straight to video, no evidence or sign that there is "significant secondary coverage" of this person. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable. Subject has not yet been the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 01:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:N. Gtstricky (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kensuke Aida (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete: only author has requested speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G7. A ecis^Brievenbus 01:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Capybaras worldwide[edit]

Wikipedia is not a repository of images. Any image that is worthwhile should be added to the article Capybara, for all the other images we have Wikimedia Commons. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC) A ecis^Brievenbus 00:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikimedia Commons if possible. Delete if not.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete (G12)+(A7)+(G11). Nice combo. Hús ö nd 06:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DblWide[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Non-notable local band. Only one album, which was self-released. Only substantive press coverage by reliable sources was a single article in the Gainesville Sun in 2002; [25]. Google search results polluted by many false hits for double wide mobile homes, but DblWide band returns 469 Ghits. Horologium (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio of this page, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per TenPoundHammer. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Torch as copyvio per 10LBhammer--CastAStone /^/(talk) 03:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete depending on your definition of "speedy," it would appear... Maxa megalon 2000 06:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. PeaceNT (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Managed Security Metrics Provider[edit]

NN, unsourced neologism. Zero google hits, zero news hits. --- tqbf 00:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It appears to be a designation invented by a company. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I thought that too; I'm familiar with the subject matter, and spent a bit of time trying to track down what company this could even be, and I can't find it. I think it's more likely WP:OR. --- tqbf 02:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete either way. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gtstricky (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comments by tqbf. Article also provides poor context.--CastAStone /^/(talk) 03:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but also because it's entirely in violation of WP:OR. --Kensuke Aida (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey look, I found them!: Here's the site this article is shilling for; there's a David Millier working there, which likely corresponds with Special:Contributions/Dmillier. Oh, yeah, that's a "delete". --- tqbf 07:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result wasNo consensus seems that the article can be kept if rewritten. _→AzaToth 16:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Hartemink[edit]

This article was created by Ahartemink (talk · contribs), presumable the article's subject. This creates an obvious conflict of interest. There are a number of claims to notability (Hartemink's involvement in the International Year of Planet Earth, for instance), but I don't think they are sufficient to meet WP:BIO. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He appears to pass WP:N and WP:BIO, as "His publications include 5 books and many papers in international[y] refereed journals". This should be enough to pass all relevant notability policies. It should be reviewed by an experienced editor to remove possible conflicts of interest and POV, however. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Meets WP:N based on his published work. Almost meets WP:BIO but no independent bios or independent articles on him. WP:COI is an issue but the article seems to be very neutral unlike most WP:COI issues. - Gtstricky (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete or at least total rewrite No offense to Mr. Hartemink, but I totally think that if we keep ignoring WP:COI like this it will have a grave impact on the neutrality of Wikipedia. Whether or not he did a good job in regards to NPOV it is irrelevant. Nor is whether he meets WP:BIO. Both can probably be answered in the affirmative. But if WP:COI is never enforced, what's the point of having WP:COI in the first place? --Kensuke Aida (talk) 06:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When citing policy it is helpful to know what you are citing. WP:COI states Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is. We are in fact interested primarily in the end result, as we have few tools to prevent COI in the first place and detecting it it nearly impossible without tells. --Dhartung | Talk 12:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, does seem to have some well-cited papers and reasonably prominent positions. Article is informal and needs cleanup, though. --Dhartung | Talk 12:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I say keep because he does appear to be notable. BUT I do feel that a person should not write their own article. I would say keep but I would really like to see someone else take a hand in expanding the article that is non-partisan.--Pmedema (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject does appear to be notable, per Wikipedia's criteria on biographies and Wikipedia:Notability. His papers are used as cited sources, so it would pass the notability criteria. --Solumeiras ^talk 20:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Publishing many papers is the job description of an academic, the true notability is not shown in the article, and this is not supported by the fact that the main editor appears to be the topic. Arnoutf (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if rewritten — Per ISRIC profile, subject may have sufficient notability. However, as written, the article is does not meet Wikipedia standards. WP:COI is a concern. The article's sources need to be independent of the subject. — ERcheck (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete per CSD#G7. WODUP 04:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stow-Kent Shopping Center[edit]

Non-notable strip mall in Ohio, only sources are for the closure of the Kmart in it, so the mall fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds fine to me, I created this article in the first place. Delete. DangApricot (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Well, since the creator wants it gone, I don't see why not. Also per nom. ViperSnake151 01:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Per vipersnake. Nobody else significantly contributed to the article, so that works. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete; ViperSnake hit the nail on the head.--CastAStone /^/(talk) 03:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. PeaceNT (talk) 10:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violet pepper[edit]

Not an A7 but fails WP:NOTABILITY. Jonathan ^{Merry Christmas!} 22:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable and almost entirely peacock. Cosmo0 (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cosmo0. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTABILITY badly. Horologium (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable and almost entirely peacock. agree with Cosmo0 Victuallers (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]